From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ ``I am quite indifferent to the mass of human creatures; though I wish, as a purely intellectual problem, to discover some way in which they might all be happy. I would not sacrifice myself to them, though their unhappiness, at moments, about once in three months, gives me a feeling of discomfort, and an intellectual desire to find a way out.... ``I live mostly for myself--everything has for me, a reference to my own education. I care for very few people, and have several enemies--two or three at least whose pain is delightful to me. I often wish to give pain, and when I do, I find it pleasant for a moment. I feel myself superior to most people, and only pity myself at rare intervals, when I am tired out. I used to pity myself at all times and deeply. I believe in happiness and I am happy. I enjoy work immensely. I wish for fame among the expert few, but my chief desire--the desire by which I regulate my life--is a purely self-centered desire for intellectual satisfaction about things that puzzle me.... ``...Logically I can find no meaning for the word Sin....'' Carol White, a member of the National Executive Committee of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, addressed the Schiller Institute's Labor Day 1994 conference on Sept. 4. The text of her speech follows.} This [the quotes in the box at the bottom of this page] was written by Bertrand Russell at the age of 25. He wrote it at the request of his homosexual brother-in-law who edited a magazine called {The Golden Urn.} Even then, Bertrand Russell was a very, very evil man. He was so evil that first euphoria of VE day and VJ day had barely subsided before Russell began calling for the launch of a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. This madman was willing to launch World War III in 1945. Billions more men, women, and children would be killed in such a war, but this was not a problem for the Russell who would write six years later, in 1951, ``At present, the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars.... War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect.'' Of course, Russell proved to be ahead of his time. Only after the assassination of President Kennedy and the ugly war in Vietnam, would his views begin to appear credible. In 1945, anyone who advocated a conference such as the [United Nations'] Cairo conference would have immediately been recognized as a Nazi. In the next hour, we will allow Russell and a number of his collaborators to reveal their secret agenda: How they plotted to build the ultimate terror weapon--an atom bomb--so that {they} could use it to control the world. The Atom Bomb On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb, a uranium device, on the city of Hiroshima. The devastation from this attack was so great that, at first, the government in Tokyo could not even find out what had happened, because there was no communication left with the region. A second nuclear attack was planned for Aug. 10, but the timing was moved up one day, lest the Japanese surrender before this plutonium bomb could be tested. And so, just three days later, on Aug. 9, the oldest Christian city in Japan, Nagasaki, was bombed. Desperately, the Japanese were trying were trying to contact the American government in order to surrender. Finally, the war ended one day later. The Japanese people suffered horrendously during the war, and particularly at the end. But in a very definite sense, the American people have also been victimized. For 50 years, the threat of nuclear warfare has been used as a battering ram, to destroy the whole of the moral fabric of our society. This is what the twisted Bertrand Russell and his friends planned and they have almost succeeded. The life of everyone of us in this room has been shaped by Bertrand Russell, and his ugly associates. Are you a scientist? Don't you know that science is destroying the biosphere? You're a clergyman? How dare you preach that man is superior to animals? You told your children not to have sexual relations? This is a clear case of child abuse. For 50 years, Bertrand Russell and his friends have been trying to brainwash us into accepting their degraded notion of the inherent bestiality of man, and now it is taught in almost every classroom. In his 1951 book, {The Impact of Science on Society,} Bertrand Russell explained his plan for the new society. Let's listen to him again: ``Life is a brief, small and transitory phenomenon in an obscure corner, not at all the sort of thing that one would make a fuss about if one were not personally concerned.... ``The danger of a world shortage of food may be averted for a time by improvements in the technique of agriculture. But, if population continues to increase at the present rate, such improvements cannot long suffice.... Such a situation can hardly fail to lead to world war....'' Call for Preemptive Strike World War II in fact had hardly ended before that self-styled pacifist, that man of peace, Bertrand Russell was urging the preemptive nuclear bombing of the Soviet Union. In 1959, he discussed the apparent contradiction in a BBC interview. {BBC commentator}: Lord Russell, is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventative war might be made against communism, against Soviet Union. {Russell}: It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now.... At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would.... {BBC commentator}: Suppose they hadn't given way? {Russell}: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can't threaten unless you're prepared to have your bluff called. At that time, Russell wanted to enforce the kind of United Nations' policing powers over the Soviet Union which are in force against Iraq today, the same kind of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls which have almost brought us to war with North Korea over the ridiculous claim that they were stock-piling bomb grade plutonium. Russell understood that in order to achieve his plan for creating a new imperial government, an empire more powerful than the Venetian empire, or the Roman empire, or the British empire, then it would be necessary to brainwash whole populations. The mass media would be useful, the spread of drugs would help, enouraging the spread of pornography and promiscuity. All of these were useful tools, but the most important job would be to control the minds of the youth. Let's listen to more of what he had to say about this: ``I think the subject that will be of most importance is mass psychology.... This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.... The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective.'' The bomb would be the weapon which would be used to terrorize the people of the world into submission. Let's tune back in on Bertie: ``The atom bomb, and still more the hydrogen bomb, have caused new fears, involving new doubts as to the effects of science on human life.... If, however, the human race decides to let itself go on living it will have to make very drastic changes in its way of thinking, feeling and behaving. We must learn not to say, `Never! Better death than dishonor.' We must learn to submit to law, even when imposed by aliens whom we hate and despise, and whom we believe to be blind to all considerations of righteousness.'' Why Did We Drop the Bomb? By January of 1945, World War II was coming to an end. Victory for the allies was a foregone conclusion, even though many lives would still be lost. It was even money whether the Japanese or the Germans would be the first to surrender. Japanese representatives had urgently asked the Pope to intercede with the President Roosevelt to open negotiations for ending the war, and they had made a similar request to Joe Stalin. Pope Pius XII agreed, and a meeting between him and Roosevelt was planned in which this would be one item on the agenda. It never occurred because in April Roosevelt died and Harry Truman took office. {Everywoman}: {Are you saying that we didn't have to drop the bomb to end the war? I always heard that by dropping the bomb and forcing the Japanese military to surrender, millions of lives were saved.} Many people believe this, but it simply is not true. By the summer of 1945, bombing raids on Japan had to be stopped, because most of the major cities of Japan had already been destroyed by firestorms. The Japanese no longer had the fuel to defend their cities from air attack. But listen to what Edwin Reischauer had to say on the bombing in his 1986 autobiography. Reischauer, who later was Kennedy's ambassador to Japan, during the Second World War was a colonel in the Special Branch--the unit which processed all of the intercepts from Japanese military and diplomatic sources during the war. He was horrified when he first heard about the atom bomb. It was on Aug. 6, because he and his staff had to be on the look-out for Japanese responses to the bombing. Let's listen to Reischauer who was on the spot, so to speak: ``On the morning of Aug. 6, I was called into the central office of Special Branch together with about five other officers, and told about the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. It was necessary that we know so we could be on watch for the reaction of the Japanese. We were even given a list of the other potential target cities, which to my horror included Kyoto, though it was fortunately near the bottom. The United States had made a special effort to avoid the destruction of cultural monuments, but Kyoto was the largest of the few cities not yet burned out by fire-bomb raids and was a key railway crossroads. ``All of us at Special Branch were stunned and dismayed at the news. Through the military and diplomatic messages, we knew how near to defeat Japan already was and how eager some elements in the government were to bring an end to the fighting. We were aware that the economy was grinding to a halt because the merchant marine had been virtually eliminated by early 1945, and we knew of the many discussions and diplomatic efforts aimed at terminating hostilities then going on. We looked dazedly at one another, and someone muttered something about hitting below the belt when the opponent was already on the ropes. I felt that I would burst with the awful secret bottled up inside me. It was therefore a great relief when President Truman made a public announcement about the bomb a few hours later. ``At the time, I believed dropping of the atom bomb was a terrible mistake. My own estimate was that Japan would surrender some time before November. The Japanese would figure that we would not wish to attempt an invasion during the typhoon season and thus court a repetition of the {kamikaze} that had destroyed the Mongol invaders of 1281. Following this reasoning, I thought they would count on almost three more months in which to bring the war to an end, and I felt certain they would do so during that time. However, the results of historical research since then have made me much less certain about this conclusion. The various alternative proposals for demonstrating the capacities of the bomb without using it on a populated target would probably have been ineffective. Even with two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaskai and the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet union, which was launched between the two bombings, it was touch and go whether the Japanese military would permit the civilian government to surrender..... ``If there were some possible justification for the first atomic bomb, however, there was none for the second, dropped on Nagasaki on Aug. 9. The top American authorities did agonize over the decision to use the first bomb but seem to have given the second little, if any, thought, snuffing out some seventy thousand lives almost inadvertently.'' No Justification Was there any justification for dropping the bomb? Did it save a million lives? As you heard Reischauer admit, no invasion was planned before November. Furthermore, what he does not write, the harbors of Japan had all been mined, and then the mines were taken away to allow a future invasion to proceed. With the harbors impassible even without the carpet bombing, the Japanese could not have resisted for long, because they had to import food and gasoline, not to speak of other essential goods. The bombing of Hiroshima resulted in the immediate deaths of 140,000 people. Within five years, 200,000 had died as a result of after-effects of the bombing. This was 54 percent of the population of the city. The bombing of Nagasaki killed 70,000 on the spot, and 140,000 within five years. Again, this was more than half the people who had been living in the city. The fire-bombing of Tokyo had also caused terrible devastation--100,000 died--but in that city of a million people, the death toll was only 10 percent of those who had been alive. {Everywoman:} {If that's true, why did they decide to drop the bomb? Is it true what the lefties claim? Did Harry Truman OK using the bomb against the Japanese to send a signal to the Soviets? If that is so, why did they build the bomb in the first place?} In the final analysis, it was Harry Truman's call on whether or not to drop the bomb. But Averell Harriman was whispering in his ear that the Soviets were getting out of line, and Secretary of War Henry Stimson was urging Truman to use the bomb to rein in Joe Stalin. Harry Truman was way over his head. He had to end the war and set the stage for the post-war peace, and he didn't have a clue what to do. The man from Missouri was on his way to Potsdam to meet with Stalin and Churchill and didn't have a clue what to do. So they put a bomb in his pocket. That little man, with the bomb, could face down the big guys. But let's hear what the plans were of the men who put the bomb in his pocket--so to speak. World Government Let's listen to Russell's words in 1946, which appeared in the fifth issue of {The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists}: ``It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force. When I speak of an international government, I mean one that really governs, not an amiable facade like the League of Nations, or a pretentious sham like the United Nations under its present constitution.'' {Everywoman}: {What has this to do with the bomb?} Here is what Russell has to say: `An international government, if it is to be able to preserve peace, must have the only atomic bombs, the only plant for producing them, the only air force, the only battleships, and generally whatever is necessary to make it irresistible. Its atomic staff, its air squadrons, the crews of its battleships, and, generally, whatever is necessary to make it irresistable. Its atomic staff, its air squadrons, the crews of its battleships, and its infantry regiments must each severally be composed of men of many different nations; there must be no possibility of the development of national feeling in any unit larger than a company. Every member of the international armed force should be carefully trained in loyalty to the international government. ``The international authority must have a monopoly of uranium, and of whatever other raw material may hereafter be found suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs. It must have a large army of inspectors who must have the right to enter any factory without notice; any attempt to interfere with them or to obstruct their work must be treated as a {casus belli} They must be provided with aeroplanes enabling them to discover whether secret plants are being established in empty regions near either Pole or in the middle of large deserts. ``The monopoly of armed force is the most necessary attribute of the international government, but it will, of course, have to exercise various governmental functions. It will have to decide all disputes between different nations, and will have to possess the right to revise treaties. It will have to be bound by its constitution to intervene by force of arms against any nation that refuses to submit to the arbitration. Given its monopoly of armed force, such intervention will be seldom necessary and quickly successful. I will not stay to consider what further powers the international government might profitably possess, since those that I have mentioned would suffice to prevent serious wars.'' {Everywoman}: {OK, that is what Russell planned, but what about President Roosevelt? What about the Manhattan Project? I thought that in 1939, Albert Einstein warned Roosevelt that the Germans were about to build an atomic bomb and that's why we had such a crash effort. What about the Manhattan Project?} Yes, many of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were afraid that the Germans would build an atomic bomb, but not Bertrand Russell, or scientific policy advisers like Neils Bohr, or even President Roosevelt himself. In the early days of the war, British and American intelligence established that the Germans could not build an atomic bomb, and were not even seriously trying to. This was so for many reasons. For one thing, too many top German physicists had been forced to emigrate to escape the Nazi terror, or because they opposed the regime. Werner Heisenberg, who was the chief scientist of the German program, made it very clear to friends, who were working with the allies, and through underground channels, that they would not produce a bomb for Hitler. More to the point, Hitler did not see the need for a major investment like the Manhattan Project because he had to win the war quickly--before the United States military machine came up to full strength. By the time that Hitler knew it would be a long war, Germany could no longer afford that scale of investment. Ostensibly, the bomb was being built to counterbalance a potential Nazi threat, so that if Hitler did get the bomb he would still be afraid to use it. But this does not explain the fact that $500 million dollars was allocated to the Manhattan Project after VE day, after Germany was defeated. This was one-fourth of the entire cost of the project. It does not explain why the bombs were used against Japan. Russell vs. Science In 1939, a grouping in the top reaches of the British policy-making establishment convinced Winston Churchill that now was the time to go with nuclear power. The Americans would have to be brought in on the act, because of the enormous cost of the project, but they could be controlled in the long run. The idea of using nuclear energy to build a bomb was not a new idea for the British by any means. Russell wrote about it as early as 1924. In 1924, he wrote about his plans for world domination in the book {Icarus, or The Future of Science.} He described how the bomb could be used as a tool to bring about world government. Even that early, he understood that the days of the British empire were numbered. If the empire were to survive, it would have to be recreated in a different form, as a world government, not a British government. His title refers to the legend of Icarus, the scientist who built himself a pair of wax wings but flew too close to the Sun. Russell believed that the Icaruses of this world must learn that they cannot fly--they cannot conquer space. Man must stick in the dirt or be destroyed. Let's listen to this Greenie, Bertrand Russell explain his plans for world government: ``I fear that the same fate [that of Icarus] may overtake the populations whom modern men of science have taught to fly. Some of the dangers inherent in the progress of science while we retain our present political and economic institutions are set forth in the following pages.... ``One general observation to begin with. Science has increased man's control over nature, and might therefore be supposed likely to increase his happiness and well-being. This would be the case if men were rational, but in fact they are bundles of passions and instincts..... ``There is, however, a hopeful element in the problem. The planet is of finite size.... Before very long, the technical conditions will exist for organizing the whole world as one producing and consuming unit. If, when that time comes, two rival groups contend for mastery, the victor may be able to introduce that single world-wide organization that is needed.... There would be at first economic and political tyranny of the victors, a dread of renewed upheaval and therefore a drastic suppression of liberty. But if the first half-dozen revolts were successfully repressed, the vanquished would give up hope, and accept the subordinate place assigned to them by the victors in the great world-trust.'' The threat of nuclear war was to be the means by which Bertrand Russell intended to create his one-world empire. Harvard president, James B. Conant, was the man who--along with Henry Stimson and Vannevar Bush--was responsible for political supervision of the Manhattan Project. He was a friend of Bertrand Russell. In December of 1940, Russell was scheduled to make a lecture tour of the United States--he wanted to escape from Britain which was then at war. Many American colleges, such as New York's City College, refused to allow him to speak because he was a champion of free love. Dirty Bertie was so unprincipled that he would force his teenaged step-daughter watch him have sexual intercourse with her governess. Not suprisingly, the young girl had a nervous breakdown. Anyway, one of his few defenders at that time, in the United States, was his friend James Conant, who invited Russell to give the prestigious annual William James lectures at Harvard. It was he, Stimson, and Bush who were most responsible for urging President Truman to use the bomb against the Japanese. After the war was over, as time went on, many people came to question that act. In answer to criticism by churchmen, Conant wrote in {The New York Times}, on March 6, 1946: ``If the American people are to be deeply penitent for the use of the atomic bomb, why should they not be equally penitent for the destruction of Tokyo in the thousand-plane raid using the M-69 incendiary which occurred a few months earlier? (I may say that I was as deeply involved with one method of destruction as the other, so at least on these two points I can look at the matter impartially.) If we are to be penitent for this destruction of Japaneses cities by incendiaries and high explosives, we should have to carry over this point of view to the whole method of warfare used against the axis powers.'' Conant had not changed his mind by 1968 when he answered a letter from a Mrs. Popper, in the same vein: ``You speak of the conflict in the minds of those who were working on the bomb before Hiroshima.... Probably because of my connection with the use of gas in World War I and my close connection with the sections of the NDRC which were developing napalm incendiary bombs so devestatingly effective against Tokyo, the conflict of which you speak hardly existed in my mind.'' Fire-bombing was a technique developed by the British, on the basis of their observation of the damage done by incendiary markers used by the Germans to illuminate bombing targets in Britain. It was directed against the civilian populations of Hamburg and Dresden, in the last months of the war. It was used to destroy 48 of Japan's largest cities. People caught in a firestorm would die, because the oxygen they needed to breathe had been sucked up in an artificially created tornado. Of course, they were also burned alive. Nuclear Terror The use of such terror tactics against women and children was resisted by the U.S. military command but ultimately it became the accepted practice of both the British and the U.S. Air Force. Still, the potentialities of atomic weapons were far more devastating. The British had practiced the terror bombing of civilian populations on their rebellious colonies since the 1920s. Iraq was one of their targets then. This worried Franklin Roosevelt, and he issued a statement on Sept. 1, 1939, at the start of World War II, urging all of the belligerents to sign on to a pact to outlaw the bombing of civilians. In the end, of course, even Roosevelt signed on to the idea of what came to be called carpet bombing, but the sentiments he expressed in 1939 were sentiments endorsed by every decent American. Roosevelt wrote in 1939: ``The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity. ``If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.'' President Clinton studied under Carroll Quigley at Georgetown University. Perhaps he was influenced by Quigley's view of the bomb. Quigley wrote in his book, {Tragedy and Hope}: ``The decision to use the bomb against Japan marks one of the critical turning points in the history of our times. We cannot now say that the world would have been better, but we can surely say that it would have been different. We can also say, with complete assurance, that no one involved in the decision had a complete or adequate picture of the situation. the scientists who were consulted had no information on the status of the war itself, had no idea how close to the end Japan already was, and had no experience to make judgments on this matter. The politicians and military men had no real conception of the nature of the new weapon or of the drastic revolution it offered to human life. To them it was simply a `bigger bomb,' even a `much bigger bomb,' and, by that fact alone, they welcomed it.'' The cost of the Manhattan Project was $2 billion. We can multiply that by at least ten times to estimate what it would have cost in today's dollars. Quigley continued: ``Majority Leader John W. McCormack joked to friends, that if the bomb had not worked he expected to face penal charges. Some Republicans, notably Congressman Albert J. Engel of Michigan, had already shown signs of a desire to use congressional investigations and newspaper publicity to raise questions about misuse of public funds. During one War Department discussion of this problem, a skilled engineer, Jack Madigan, said: `If the project succeeds there won't be any investigation. If it doesn't they won't investigate anything else.'|'' Secretary of War Stimson lied to President Truman that Japan had always been planned as the target for the bomb. In an article in {The Atlantic Monthly} written to justify the decision to the American people, Stimson lied again, saying that Roosevelt had approved of using nuclear weapons against Japan. The truth is that Roosevelt had left the decision on whether or not to use the bomb under any circumstances open. It is very unlikely that he would have approved using it on Japan. In 1943, General MacArthur was pressing for reinforcements for the Pacific war against Japan. Roosevelt was very clear that the priority deployment had to be to defeat Hitler. At that time, he believed that once Germany was defeated then both the war in the European theater and the war in the Pacific would be quickly wrapped up. Francis Perkins quoted him saying: ``It is of the utmost importance that we appreciate that defeat of Japan does not defeat Germany and that American concentration against Japan this year of in 1943 increases the chance of complete German domination of Europe and Africa.... Defeat of Germany means the defeat of Japan, probably without firing a shot or losing a life.'' The Bomb and the Soviets {Everywoman}: {But didn't we need the bomb in order to control the Soviets? If Stalin got the bomb before us, then he could have ruled the world.} But would the Soviets have developed the bomb if we had not done so? Carroll Quigley though not, because the Russians did not favor strategic bombing, and without knowing that the bomb worked, without the demonstration of its power for all of the world to witness, the Soviets would have thought long and hard before making the scale of investment which would have been needed to develop a bomb from scratch. Henry Stimson was a longtime associate of Prescott Bush and the Harriman family; he was an admirer of Theodore Roosevelt. He differed from Russell and the British only in a matter of emphasis. If there were to be a new world government--a perspective with which he did not at all disagree--then the United States could not be a junior partner in the Anglo-American alliance. By February of 1945, President Roosevelt was already mortally ill. This gave evil Henry Stimson a much freer hand. Even so, he was living in the America of the 1940s. The American people then had not been brainwashed over a 50-year period. He feared the reaction of the American people when they realized the truth about the policy of sanctioning strategic bombing. This was a problem which, 50 years later, his protege George Bush did not face. Stimson discussed the question of strategic bombing with Truman on May 16, 1945. Here is what he wrote in his diary on that day: ``I am anxious to hold our Air Force, so far as possible, to the `precision' bombing which it has done so well in Europe. I am told that it is possible and adequate. The reputation of the United States for fair play and humanitarianism is the world's biggest asset for peace in the coming decades. I believe the same rule of sparing the civilian population should be applied, as far as possible, to the use of any new weapons.'' On June 1, he wrote another entry in his diary. He had met Truman again and this time they specifically discussed using atom bombs against Japan: ``I told him how I was trying to hold the Air Force down to precision bombing but that with the Japanese method of scattering its manufacture it was rather difficult to prevent area bombing. I told him I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons. First, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation for outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready, the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength. He said he understood.'' Harry Truman did not know much about the conduct of the war before President Roosevelt's death. He was a little man stepping into a big job and he was way over his head. Still, what can we think of the following remarks by Truman, written in diary in July of 1945? ``We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesized in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark. ``Anyway we `think' we have found a way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling--to put it mildly.... ``This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and Aug. 10. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soliders and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old Capital or the new. ``He & I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.'' Could Truman have really believed that women and children would not be harmed by the bomb? Well, we can each have our own opinion on this, but it is interesting the extent to which he felt it necessary to verbalize what was the view of most Americans of that day. They believed that they were fighting a war to defend the rights of man. On May 27, 1941, President Roosevelt gave a radio address to the nation in which he announced the Proclamation of an Unlimited National Emergency. Many Americans hoped that the United States could still somehow stay out of the war, but the sentiments expressed by Roosevelt were widely held. Let's listen to President Roosevelt's Emergency Proclamation: ``We will not accept a Hitler-dominated world. And we will not accept a world, like the postwar world of the 1920s, in which the seeds of Hitlerism can again be planted and allowed to grow. We will accept only a world consecrated to freedom of speech and expression--freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--freedom from want--and freedom from terror.'' Harry Truman, on the other hand, had other ideas. In the spring of 1941, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Senator Truman rated the two dictatorships as being morally equivalent, and recommended that America encourage them to fight to the death: ``If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them think anything of their pledged word.'' Roosevelt's Anti-Colonialism The four freedoms--this is what most Americans believed the war to be about. They were fighting for freedom, not to save the British Empire. Roosevelt took his son with him to Casablanca, to the Big Four summit conference which was held there in 1943. One day when they were alone together, he confided his plans to his son: ``When we've won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France's imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in {its} imperial ambitions.'' At a private dinner shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt told his dinner guests that Churchill had to be made to understand the way American people felt about Britain: ``Our popular idea of that role may not be entirely objective--may not be one hundred per cent true from the British point of view, there it is, and I've been trying to tell him that he ought to consider it. It's in the American tradition, this distrust, this dislike and even hatred of Britain.'' At the start of the war, Roosevelt and Churchill jointly issued the Atlantic Charter. He and Churchill had very different ideas about it. Here is what Roosevelt had to say: ``I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries.... I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free all people over the world from a backward colonial policy.'' Not surprisingly, this was not to the liking of the British war cabinet, which rejected Roosevelt's interpetation, and asserted that the Atlantic Charter could have no reference to the internal affairs of the British empire. There are many such quotations from Roosevelt's public and private remarks. For example, his adivser Charles Taussig recorded in his diary that the President said he was concerned about the brown people in the East. He said that there are 1,100,000,000 brown people. In many eastern countries, they are ruled by a handful of whites and they resent it. Our goal must be to help them achieve independence--1,100,000,000 potential enemies are dangerous. To provide a decent life for these billion people and the billions who would come after them, nuclear energy would not only be a blessing but a necessity. Nuclear Energy Can we then say that at least the bomb opened up the possibility of the use of Atoms for Peace, to paraphrase President Eisenhower? The answer is no. The discovery that energy trapped within the nucleus of atoms could be released was known for decades before the bomb was built. Pierre and Marie Curie, Ernest Rutherford, William Harkin, Enrico Fermi, Ida Noddack, Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner--scientists in every nation worked on this project. Their work spanned the century. A crash effort to develop the technological capability to release the energy of the atomic nucleus could have been launched at any time, but this was not to happen because men like Bertrand Russell did not want such a resource to become available. Were the nations of the world to have such a virtually limitless energy resource, his project for world government would be doomed. Indeed, Pierre Curie was literally driven to his death, if not actually murdered, by a science mafia run by Lord Kelvin. Kelvin would not tolerate Curie's proof that atoms were not the hard balls which Neutron described. He tried to destroy the career of Ernest Rutherford and his collaborator, Frederick Soddy. In 1908, Soddy wrote a book about the new atomic science which was reprinted time and time again. It was based on a series of lectures which he gave to working people to describe the new science. Here are some of the things which he had to say about nuclear energy 35 years before the bomb was built and 30 years before the possibility of fissioning the nucleus was definitely established: ``Let us consider in the light of present knowledge the problem of transmutation and see what the attempt of the alchemist involved. To build up an ounce of a heavy element like gold from a lighter element like silver would require in all probablility the expenditure of the energy of some hundreds of tons of coal, so that the ounce of gold would be dearly bought. On the other hand, if it were possible artificially to disintegrate an element with a heavier atom than gold and produce gold from it, so great an amount of energy would probably be evolved that the gold in comparison would be of little account. The energy would be far more valuable than the gold.... ``We stand today where primitive man first stood with regard to the energy liberated by fire. We are aware of its existence solely from the naturally occurring manifestations in radioactivity.... When we have learned to transmute the elements at will the one into the other, then, and not till then, will the key to this hidden treasure-house of Nature be in our hands.... ``The real wealth of the world is its energy, and by these discoveries it, for the first time, transpires that the hard struggle for existence on the bare leavings of natural energy in which the race has evolved is no longer the only possible or enduring lot of Man. It is a legitimate aspiration to believe that one day he will attain the power to regulate for his own purposes the primary fountains of energy which Nature now so jealously conserves for the future. The fulfilment of this aspiration is, no doubt, far off, but the possibility alters somewhat the relation of Man to his environment, and adds a dignity of its own to the actualities of existence.'' In 1914, on the eve of World War I, H.G. Wells wrote the scenario which was followed by Bertrand Russell, and which led to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski. The name of the book was, {The World Set Free.} As you listen to what Wells wrote, think about how different the world is now from what it was before 1945. Contrast the hopes expressed by Franklin D. Roosevelt with the reality dictated by Wells and Russell. The book begins with a parody of Soddy's vision. A young scientist hears one of Soddy's lectures and embarks upon the project of developing nuclear energy. By 1956, he has succeeded, and nuclear power has created untold riches for some, but it has also created a situation in which the rich get richer while the poor are put out of work. Worse yet, war begins, as nations fight each other over patent rights. This is to be an atomic war; all of the world's greatest cities are quickly destroyed--Paris, London, Rome, New York, Tokyo--all and more are rubble. Former kings and princes, and bureacratic functionaries come together and declare that they are going to create a new world order under their rule. No longer will there be separate nations, no longer will people be given the franchise. Here is H.G. Wells's vision of the future. It was to be a self-perpetuating one-world dictatorship. Wells writes: ``After the conflagration from the bombs, people were unable to live in cities any more. English became the universal language--shorn of such peculiarities of grammar as the subjunctive mood. The metric system became universal, but also a strict 13-month lunar calendar, with certain additional days. A universal energy-based currency was used. Education was reformed, reinterpreting history in order to instill a new faith in the hearts of the young.... ``Children were to be taught about Bismarck, that hero of nineteenth-century politics, that sequel to Napoleon, that god of blood and iron. He was just a beery, obstinate, dull man.... ``All Europe offered its children to him; it sacrificed education, art, happiness, and all its hopes of future welfare to follow the clatter of his sabre.... Everybody in those days, wise or foolish, believed that the division of the world under a multitude of governments was inevitable, and that it was going on for thousands of years more. It {was} inevitable until it was impossible.'' In actual fact, the first nuclear war was fought in 1945. Out of it did not come H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell's world government. Not according to the scenario which Wells laid out. But the America which Stimson and Truman feared would condemn their action, the America that hated the British oligarchy and all that they stood for, is long gone. To understand why Russell and Wells were so successful in undermining the foundations of our republic, we must look back in time, not to 1945, or 1908, but we must look back over at least 600 years of human history. Thank you. -- John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer. Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)