The Stab in the Back
and the Communist Plots
There are conspiracies to be sure. I've already mentioned some
of them. The US strategy was to betray its ally the USSR into doing about 80%
of the fighting in Europe and tens of millions died as a result. Churchill
wanted to hold on to the British Empire and was conniving to control Western
Europe – thus he was attempting manipulate the post-war order – leading to not
only the handing over of Eastern Europe but the massive (and tragic) repatriation
of Soviet prisoners and other units that had joined with the Germans to fight
against the USSR. As a result thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands more anti-Soviet
elements would die in the years following 1945.
To face the reality, that the US troops didn't 'win the war',
weren't as brave and bold as has been perceived, that their victory strategy
was based (at least in part) on manipulation and betrayal and that figures like
Churchill were completely mercenary in their calculations paints the 'good war'
in a different light. A lot more could be said about Western conduct in the
Western theatre during and after the 1943 invasion of Italy and the 1944
invasion of Normandy but of course this is always overshadowed by the brutality
of Soviet troops in the East – a point that is always played up by Western
historians. In addition to collaborating with the mafia and setting the stage
for post-war machinations with regard to drugs and organised crime – the
American GI's also did the share of raping, looting and the committing of
murder.
The fact that the Soviets behaved much worse toward the
Germans does not excuse or erase what the Americans did and frankly the handful
of American 'scholarly' works on the subject qualify as false expose' – an
acknowledgement of what is already known but an attempt to whitewash and spin
the actual events in order to protect the larger narrative.
Churchill played his manipulative duplicitous hand on at
least two occasions. First, he seemed willing to break with the Yalta agreement
in 1945 as he pushed for an Anglo-American taking of Berlin. While we can't get
into his mind, one has to wonder if he didn't re-think his post-war strategy.
And I argue this on the basis of his 1946 stunt in Missouri – the now infamous
Iron Curtain speech. This is painted as heroic and discerning by historians
today and certainly by members of his adoring cult. At the time it angered
Western leaders as it threw fuel on the simmering fire and played into the
suspicions of Stalin that the West was scheming against him and planning some
form of aggression.
After Churchill had already (in October 1944) connived with
Stalin to create the 'spheres of influence' why would he then paint Stalin as
the villain for consolidating his hold on the buffer region of Eastern Europe?
Was Churchill upset over the lack of liberal democracy in these states? Can
anyone seriously make such an argument? Can anyone seriously argue that Churchill
thought Stalin would set up liberal states with free elections and a free press
– an invitation to Western manipulation if ever there was one? Additionally,
Churchill had no such qualms about denying Western values in the lands of the
British Empire.
In 1977, Daniel Yergin rightly commented that Churchill's
actions were in light of the percentages agreement:
"paradoxical, if not cynical, in the
light of Churchill's bitter denunciation of exactly such a division (of Europe)
in his Iron Curtain speech (at Fulton, Mo.) a year and a half later."
But of course these realities turn the 'lion' Churchill into
a schemer and a manipulator – indeed they reveal him to be superficial – a politician,
not a principled person. The 'Percentages' agreement with Stalin came to light
in the 1970's and cast Churchill in a very bad light indeed but by then the war
had been over for thirty years and the legend had taken over.
As stated, these sometimes conspiratorial and shadowy events
coupled with others have fed a series of dubious and downright false conspiracy
theories which were picked up in the war's aftermath.
The John Birch Society became the nexus of these conspiracies
and their far Right views came to dominate a sector of American life. Though a
minority, even fringe group they've always had their allies and sympathisers
within the Right-wing Establishment. At different times their ideas were echoed
by the likes of Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan. In the aftermath of the Cold War their
views were dropped by mainstream elements and relegated to the fringe only to
be revived during the Obama years.
According to the John Birch Society and its many 'fellow
travelers' the explanation of Eisenhower's halt is that he was a secret
communist sympathiser – an absurd argument they continued to assert during his
time in office – an argument picked up by Joseph McCarthy and future Trump
mentor Roy Cohn. McCarthy pushed too far and was brought down but many in those
circles literally believed in a vast communist infiltration of the US
government.
While there were certainly communist spies and even
infiltrators the vast conspiracy conceived by McCarthy was pure fiction and it
can safely be said that Joe McCarthy was about the last person in government
that would have been able to locate and identify actual communists. His
childish antics and buffoonery were no joke though as his inquisition did great
harm to American society and for a time threatened to undermine the US
government.
The delusional Birchers were certain with regard to the
communist sympathies of Roosevelt and Truman and were outraged when Truman
(rightly) relieved the far-right general Douglas MacArthur of his command in
Korea. In fact for a brief time there was a hint of coup in the air as
MacArthur returned to the United States, addressed congress, enjoyed parades
and seemed to be campaigning against Truman – but lacking cohesion and
unwilling to 'cross the Rubicon' (as it were) the momentum faltered, the
movement failed and MacArthur indeed (and thankfully) 'faded away'.
Eisenhower while a Republican was never a card carrying
member of the Far Right but of course to refer to him as a Communist is
ridiculous. But to the Birchers, his halt short of Berlin and seeming handing
over of the victory to Moscow was suspicious. And then his Cold War policy was
(to Bircher perceptions) dubious and smacked of accommodation, appeasement and
surrender.
At this point there are also the debates over Cold War
policy- the arguments regarding 'Rollback' versus 'Containment' whether to keep
the war cold or produce a hot war which would have quickly become World War
III. Those advocating for Roll Back and a hot war were always eager to paint
any opposition as 'communist' or guilty of 'appeasement' a la Munich 1938.
Of course after 1949 when the Soviets had acquired the atomic
bomb, the threat of war evolved into a true World War III scenario and were all
the more complicated and troubling. Eisenhower wasn't as aggressive as some
would have wished but many believe his restraint of these forces both within
and outside of his government saved the world from conflagration and were
prudent. Others wish he had exercised more control of the Dulles Brothers who
ran his state department and the CIA. But in reality Eisenhower was fairly
fervent Cold Warrior and of course presided over a capitalist economic boom. To
call him a communist sympathiser is not just erroneous, it's ridiculous and in
fact reveals the deeply flawed thinking and distorted categories of the Bircher
faction.
Of course the Rollback faction continued to exercise
influence and not a few influential figures (such as Arizona senator Barry
Goldwater, Alabama governor George Wallace and Generals Curtis LeMay and Edwin
Walker) continued to express ideas that more or less echoed the Bircher ethos.
In addition to the suspicious nature of Eisenhower's halt
there was the death of General George Patton in December 1945. He died as the
result of a freak car accident but many have been suspicious of his death. And
why? Because along with Churchill, Patton was one of the chief voices lobbying
for an invasion of Russia in 1945. He was an advocate of the view (later echoed
by Curtis LeMay during the Cuban Missile Crisis) that war was inevitable and it
was better to fight them when they were weak then later when they were strong.
The Soviets also learned about this plan to invade the USSR –
which was a real battle plan that was actually on the table and being
considered. Once again, it is not this author's wish to defend the likes of
Stalin but a great deal of his paranoia and the insistence upon an Eastern
European buffer – was justified. General Zhukov as a precaution re-positioned
Soviet troops in June of 1945 – as they had reason to believe the West might
launch an attack. The Cold War did not become official until 1947 – but the
reality is it had already commenced the minute Berlin fell.
Patton who by all accounts was the most aggressive and formidable
American general was relieved of his post-war military governorship for his
aggressive rhetoric toward the Soviets and for his open embrace of ex-Nazis.
Western attempts at de-Nazification would become something of a joke and while
the United States openly worked with former high ranking members of the Third
Reich, Patton's light-hearted attitude toward ex-Nazis (combined with his vocal
anti-Semitism) didn't go over too well in 1945. A brilliant general he had
always been controversial and frankly was a headache for the likes of
Eisenhower and the other generals atop the Allied command.
Patton was then given another command shortly before the car
accident. Well, if he was in fact murdered, then who killed him? Generally
speaking there are two views. One it was the Soviets who killed him in order to
cripple a pending invasion or two, he was killed by the crypto-communist American
Establishment which (treacherously it would seem) was committed to a bi-polar
world order and the status quo of May 1945. Patton was an agitator and thus had
to be removed. While I have no problem believing the US government is capable
of assassinating its own – I find this latter theory to be lacking in
credibility when it comes to Patton.
This became an issue again in 2014 when Martin Dugard (under
the auspices of FOX television personality Bill O'Reilly) suggested that Patton
was killed on orders from Stalin – thus positing a Right-wing anti-Russian view
while at the same time avoiding the most extreme Bircher views of Communist
treachery at work in the highest echelons of the American government. The
timing was interesting in light of events in the Ukraine and Crimea. The
narrative is both anti-Moscow but also deflects from Bircher suspicions with
regard to Washington itself.
And so the debate rages on and like the controversy over the
Race for Berlin, the assessment and legacy of generals Patton and MacArthur
remain live issues. For those unfamiliar with these narratives it must also be
said the legend and mythology surrounding Churchill and his cult is also
frequently wed to this larger wartime narrative. While Churchill's treachery
regarding the 'percentages' at the October 1944 Moscow Conference is ignored,
his persistent warmongering – even after VE Day has made him a hero in these
circles. These are certainly the views I grew up with. Only later did I realise
just how unfamiliar and even controversial they were in other circles.
There's an additional irony in that had the invasion been
prosecuted in the summer of 1945 there's a good chance the rather formidable
Red Army would have stopped the invasion – however with the completion of the
atomic bomb in July of 1945 it's likely that Moscow would have been its first
target. And history would have taken a very different turn indeed.
Far from being communist sympathisers, Eisenhower and others
realised that a betrayal of the USSR, the turning on allies and breaking of
agreements, not to mention such blatant aggression would have destroyed
American credibility in the eyes of the world and any American claims regarding
'freedom' or even the 'rule of law' would have become moot. For extreme
unilateralists like the Birchers, their actual rejection of Classical
Liberalism (and thus their rejection of the American Founders) posits a view in
which the world should bow to American leadership – not because of its
principles but because of its raw power. Would be über-patriots they are in
fact anti-American fascists without realising it. They're too ignorant of
history and the history of ideas to understand the place they've landed. Their
America is not the America of the Constitution but is in fact a tribalist power
bloc – a notion utterly alien to the Founders and opposed to the idea that all
men are created equal.
These issues, these doubts regarding the closing chapters of
World War II fed a climate that would lead to a hysteria by the late 1940's –
the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism. The Soviet atomic bomb detonation in 1949
and the fall of China to Mao that same year would lead to a backlash over
Communist activism during the Great Depression and the policies surrounding the
New Deal. The uncertain outcome in Korea and the failure to secure a clear
victory only added to the angst and anger in these circles. A legend began to
develop about a stab in the back – a
group of traitors and infiltrators that didn't believe in America and were
secretly sympathetic to the Communists. And yes, I use the term 'stab in the
back' deliberately as their narrative contains many parallels to the other
politician that evoked the concept in reference to Germany's defeat in WWI.
As I said, there are conspiratorial aspects to the close of
the war and its aftermath. There were cover-ups in abundance. It's complicated
and ugly. The US worked with Nazis, overthrew governments, backed dictatorships,
developed all kinds of horrific weapons, engaged in assassination and a
multitude of terrible scientific and medical experiments. But the Bircher
narrative just doesn't square with the facts and at times strays into fantasy
and delusion. It is a naive and simplistic if juvenile construct – a painfully one-dimensional
way of understanding the world and what motivates its actors.
It seemed to function and flourish in a certain context – and
it became even less credible in the aftermath of the Cold War. And yet it was
still around. I remember it well as it was argued that the Soviets really won
the Cold War, the communists were still operating – accompanied by all the
angst in the 1990's over Clinton and the New World Order. Prior to my 1995
conversion I was (I must admit) rather taken with a lot of these ideas. I had
grown up with them and they were interwoven with the tortured thinking that's
generated by Dispensational theology and eschatology. Upon my entering (or
perhaps re-entering) the Church with my eyes finally open I found the Bircher
ethos to be present and flourishing. The John Birch Society is quite active in
certain ecclesiastical circles. But I was reading my Bible and revisiting
history and within short order I abandoned these views – finding the actual
truth to be far more profound and interesting – even if it destroyed notions of
national allegiance, patriotism or the alliance with any political party, order
or narrative.
The War on Terror and the threat of Islamism are what really
diffused this movement in the first decade of the 2000's. They were distracted
but by 2010 – the old narratives were back and had been recast and revitalised.
Over the subsequent decade they've picked up steam and are now quite viable and
widespread. Add in the large-scale mis- and dis-information associated with the
Internet, the additional decades removed from the actual events and the general
ignorance of history – the formula is becoming dangerous and those who
understand where such things can lead would do well to pay attention and (as
much as possible) keep these ideas out of the Church.