In a review in the London Times Online of the memoirs of Sir Winston Churchill's bodyguard, Brian Moynahan reveals a chilling insight that Walter Thompson recorded:
He saw Churchill at his lowest points, a frustrated "kicker of wastepaper baskets" during his wilderness years in the 1930s, weeping over the concessions Roosevelt made to Stalin at Yalta in 1945. "Why, Thompson, did they allow the president, almost dying on his feet, to be there?" he asked. "All Europe will suffer from the decisions made at Yalta."
Had Churchill only known that the more relevant question should have been:Why did the American State Department allow a Soviet spy to serve as President Roosevelt's foreign policy adviser at Yalta?
That's a question that still deserves an answer.
UPDATE: First, read Reliapundit's excellent points in the comments. Then consider the following:
In my original post, I didn't spell out exactly why I thought that Walter Thompson's recollection of Churchill's despair after Yalta is so important. Here's why:
1)Churchill's reaction to the disaster of Yalta was immediate. He knew right at that time what a disaster it was.
2)Churchill knew that it didn't have to be that way. Despite what Soviet spy Alger Hiss later had to say about it, giving the Soviets hegemony over Eastern Europe was not a done deal before Yalta.
3) Churchill knew that it was up to the Americans to stand up to Stalin, and when FDR didn't do it, he knew that Western Europe wouldn't be in any position to stop the communist juggernaut.
4) Churchill mistakenly attributed FDR's surrender to Stalin to FDR's debilitated condition. Actually, as we know now from the Venona transcripts and information from KGB files, the State Department's top man in Yalta, Alger Hiss, was a committed communist and a conscious agent of the Comintern and Soviet intelligence. The State Department's interpretation of the situation undoubtedly played a major role in influencing FDR's decisions. And we now know that communicating the State Department's position to FDR was in the hands of a traitor.
the state department and the oss (cia) and the academy have been dominated by commies and commie symps since the 1930's.
ReplyDeletethey aided the ussr ever since. especially during ww2.
this institutional bias persists to this day.
hannsen and ames were but two of hundreds of operatives and thousands of symps.
kerry's father - a lifelong state department official was one of them.
he wrote a book espousing his anti-american views - they rerwd like a chomsky/kucinich diatribe.
i blogged about papa kerry here at TAB.
plame and wilson too are traitorous operators who serve this faction.
a faction which is still betraying us. leaking to the nytimes about the nsa intercepts, and rendition.
covering up murders for arafat.
and so on.
we ought to flush the whole dang cia down the drain and fire all the bureaucrats at state -
and then start over from scratch.
and hire patriots.
who love liberty.
and do the same in all the humanities departments at our colleges and universities.
reliapundit.... the rank and file of the State Dept/foreign service are shlubs who stay out of politics... my Dad being one. Most just put in their time and do their job. Though, no doubt, there are plenty lefties in State.
ReplyDeleteTO ADVANCE IN ACADEMIA AND THE CIA AND STATE - (AS AT ANY CLOSED INSTITUTION CONTROLLED BY A LEFTIST ELITE, AND NOT A STRICT MERITOCRACY) - YOU HAVE TO TOW THE PARTY LINE.
ReplyDeleteCONSERVATIVES DO NOT DO AS WELL AS LIBS IN THESE SITUATIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE LIBS ARE IN CONTROL.
THOSE WHO DON'T ADVANCE - THE "SCHLUBS" AS YOU CALL THEM - ARE EITHER UNINTERESTED IN ADVANCING OR FEAR BECOMING EXPOSED AS "NON-BELIEVERS"/CONSERVATIVES AND LOSING WHATEVER RANK THEY HAVE.
WHICH ESSENTIALLY PROTECTS THE LEFTIST ELITE AND THEIR COMRADES.
well, maybe we're talking about 2 different groups within State. The one's I'm referring to are the rank and file diplomats... like the consuls, vice-consuls etc. My dad's a democrat (we cancel each other's votes)but definitely not a leftist. and, because the administration changes so often, career diplos, like my dad, never openly discussed their political leanings. That's how they survive 40 years (like my Dad) without having to resign.
ReplyDeleteThough I just asked him, and he did say many tend to be liberal, they kept their politics to themselves.
Might be a different story for Ambassadors who are political appointees, as opposed to career diplos... those usually resign when a change in admin. occurs, or other State Department officials.
Just my 2 umimportant cents. :-)
MOST OF THE CAREERISTS ARE LEFTIES.
ReplyDeleteREAD RICHARD KERRY'S BOOK
Star Spangled Mirror
Richard J. Kerry was a career diplomat in the U.S. State Department, serving through World War II and the Cold War. As a mid-level diplomat, the elder Kerry represented American interests in various European cities, even as young John attended boarding schools in Switzerland and the United States.
Richard Kerry's understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy was not generally available to the public until 1990, when he released Star-Spangled Mirror, his treatise on American foreign policy.
Reading this book is like reading John Kerry's mind. In this case, Richard Kerry is truly the father of his son, for Senator John Kerry echoes many of the themes articulated in Star-Spangled Mirror, and these themes have emerged as key issues in the 2004 presidential campaign.
During the Cold War, Richard Kerry became a major critic of America's dominant foreign policy establishment, though this was hidden from public view during his years of public service. In Star-Spangled Mirror, he offered a critique of American idealism as a driving force in foreign policy. As he explained, "Americans are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white." As a nation, we are prone to see our view of the world as driven by a desire for the application of universal principles like liberty, justice, and representative democracy. Richard Kerry saw this as naive and dangerous. In his view, many nations of the world should be seen as inhospitable to democracy, and unready for liberty.
As he laid out his diplomatic approach and view of the world, Richard Kerry distanced himself from hard-line anti-Communists like Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Dulles's diplomatic war against "godless Communism" was lamented as evidence of the late Secretary of State's "intensely moralistic outlook."
Echoes of Richard Kerry's understanding of the world can be heard in virtually every comment made by his son on topics related to foreign policy. When Senator John Kerry attacks President George W. Bush for his identification of an "axis of evil," one hears the refrain of Richard Kerry's critique of "excessive moralism." When Richard Kerry dismissed John Foster Dulles' "ample moralism" by rejecting his statement that "neutralism is immoral," we can hear John Kerry's dismissal of President Bush's public statement to the world, "you are either with us or with the terrorists."
During the Cold War, Richard Kerry saw the United States as potentially more dangerous and destabilizing than the Soviet Union. "The assumptions that Marxist governments outside the Soviet orbit are under Soviet control, and that conflict and disorder are produced by Soviet intrigue are," he argued, "essential to maintain the moral distinction Americans make between their own power and that of their adversary, the division of the world in accordance with that distinction, and the illusion that those who are not captives of the evil power will adhere to our preferred beliefs. It might be disproportionate to say that if the Soviets did not exist we would have to invent them, but we certainly have invented a part of their intentions and activities which is essential to our political faith."
http://www.ralbertmohler.net/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-10-27
YOU CAN READ THE BOOK HERE
http://books.google.com/books?id=kxpx_IbNMQIC&dq=star+spangled+mirror&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=r-Uew8UTNm&sig=btXpnp6SnHAS_L47lYgbXHwETnw#PPA1,M1
PLAME KERRY FERNANDEZ ET AL - LIKE HISS ETC - ALL HURT AMERICA.
ReplyDeleteAND THE FREE WORLD.
THEY ARE ACCOMODATIONIST APPEASERS WHO BLAME AMERICA FIRST.
THEY DOMINATE ACADEMIA THE CIA AND STATE.
ALBERTO FERNANDEZ
ReplyDeleteIn my original post, I didn't spell out exactly why I thought that Walter Thompson's recollection of Churchill's despair after Yalta is so important. Here's why:
ReplyDelete1)Churchill's reaction to the disaster of Yalta was immediate. He knew right at that time what a disaster it was.
2)Churchill knew that it didn't have to be that way. Despite what Soviet spy Alger Hiss later had to say about it, giving the Soviets hegemony over Eastern Europe was not a done deal before Yalta.
3) Churchill knew that it was up to the Americans to stand up to Stalin, and when FDR didn't do it, he knew that Western Europe wouldn't be in any position to stop the communist juggernaut.
4) Churchill mistakenly attributed FDR's surrender to Stalin to FDR's debilitated condition. Actually, as we know now from the Venona transcripts and information from KGB files, the State Department's top man in Yalta, Alger Hiss, was a committed communist and a conscious agent of the Comintern and Soviet intelligence. The State Department's interpretation of the situation undoubtedly played a major role in influencing FDR's decisions. And we now know that communicating the State Department's position to FDR was in the hands of a traitor.
Honestly, not trying to argue with you, Relia.. you know where I stand politically...you've seen my blog.. but I just don't ever recall talking politics to anyone while growing up as a diplo-brat. I don't ever remember hearing the adults discuss politics and I never realized my Dad voted Democratic until about 10 years ago.. or maybe less.. that's how unpolitical he was. I don't think he was an anomaly.
ReplyDeleteThough I might have voted Demo a few times as a stupid young adult.. (I don't even truly recall) I always could sense liberal hypocrisy and had an aversion to the ideology of the left. My sister had commie friends while living in South America and I was always pointing out to her their hypocrisy. Out in the fields agitating and then driving home in their beamers.. I just think I would have noticed that...
as for the Kerry book.. I don't think I could stomach it.. but I believe you. Do you know what position he held at State? Perhaps those in the Embassy were more politically oriented, but not those in the consulate.
Kerry was born in Boston, Massachusetts, raised as a Roman Catholic, attended the Phillips Academy as a youth, and then graduated from Yale University in 1937. He received a degree from Harvard Law School in 1940, and then volunteered as a test pilot for the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II, flying DC-3's and B-29's stateside in Alabama. After a bout with tuberculosis, he was mustered out of the military.
ReplyDelete[edit] Career
In his adult career, he was assistant district attorney for the southeastern district of Massachusetts. In 1949, Kerry moved to Washington, D.C., to work in the office of the General Counsel for the Navy Department. In 1951, Kerry joined the U.S. Department of State where he served in the Bureau of United Nations Affairs and the Office of Legal Advisor. He was a legal advisor to the U.S. High Commissioner of Germany, James B. Conant, as well as U.S. Attorney for Berlin.
In 1956, he joined the Foreign Service and was assigned as executive assistant to U.S. Senator Walter F. George, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He taught at the NATO Defense College in Paris in 1958 before being named Chief of the Political Section of the American Embassy there.
Kerry was the author of Star Spangled Mirror, published in 1990. According to the book description at Amazon.com: the book "captures the dilemma of America's continuing reliance on an enduring fallacy of foreign policy-the assumption that other people ought to share our view of world order. Dr. Richard Kerry argues that from the time of Woodrow Wilson's aim to organize the world order in accordance with assumptions of democratic universalism, this vision of the world has remained central to U.S. foreign policy. "The Star-Spangled Mirror" will be considered an important addition to the history of American foreign policy and as required reading for current and future policy makers." Critics of John Kerry describe the book as anti-American.
FROM WIKI