Review of “The Politician” by Robert Welch

Your mind is almost certainly not open enough for this book. In fact, you should probably stop reading this review and go read something else. Perhaps you’d enjoy . Maybe not.

Anyway, Robert Welch was a thought criminal – in fact, he founded an organization of thought criminals. He was too anti-communist for the likes of National Review, which is rather impressive. Perhaps.

The Politician is a book – actually it’s a letter written to friends – about Dwight Eisenhower. Welch’s thesis is that Eisenhower is a Communist or is controlled by Communists.

After reading the book, I don’t believe that Ike was a commie, however I believe that if I had been a Commie in the US in ’52 or ’56 that I probably would have voted Ike. Or as Welch puts it: "In April, 1957, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President of the United States on the Socialist ticket, stated that ‘the United States is making greater strides toward socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt.’" That’s really saying something!

Instead of providing my thoughts, I think I provide some tastes of Welch’s evidence. Much of it is impossible to include since it would take up too much space, but here is a small, abbreviated sampling. If you’re looking for more evidence, basically the entire book is just a chronicle of evidence – read the whole thing if you need more:

  • At the end of WWII, America got schooled by the Soviets. "It simply was not possible to lose so much ground, so rapidly, to an enemy so inferior, by chance or by stupidity."
  • Welch believes that George Marshall was a communist. "I defy anybody, who is not actually a Communist himself, to read all of the known facts about his career and

    not decide that since at least sometime in the 1930’s George Catlett Marshall has been a conscious, deliberate, dedicated agent of the Soviet conspiracy." Here I think Welch has some solid ground, as Marshall was instrumental in ensuring that Mao defeated Chiang. Eisenhower owned his incredibly rapid ascent through the military ranks (suspicious in itself) to Marshall.

  • Here’s more on Eisenhower’s rise in the military:

It must be remembered that these were the days when Roosevelt was completely dominated by Communist influences; when Lauchlin Currie and Harry Dexter White and

dozens of their kind were flitting in and out of the White House and Washington with the vicarious authority of the President in their voices or at the ends of their fountain pens; when Roosevelt himself stated openly that Communists were among his personal friends, and turned the presidential spleen on anybody who didn’t like them as well as he did. It should be remembered that Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme, to put over Communist inspired New Deal measures despite the Constitution, was planned by the Communists and first announced by Earl Browder in a speech in Providence, Rhode Island. That in 1941 it was only three years since Roosevelt’s attempted purge, of the Senators who had voted against this scheme, had been conducted by America’s leading Communist, Earl Browder, from inside the White House. And that it was to be only three years more before Alger Hiss would be playing his part at Roosevelt’s right hand, despite everything both Martin Dies and the FBI had already done to indicate that Hiss was a Communist traitor.

Please remember, too, that in all the countless conferences of the early war years, in Washington and London and everywhere else, it was usually George Marshall, speaking for the military, and Harry Hopkins, speaking for the President, who represented the United States or carried the real weight among our representatives. It was Marshall and Hopkins who had by far the most to say about which generals should be moved or promoted into which commands, in the rapidly coalescing and increasing Allied forces.

  • Welch provides lots and lots of evidence that early war plans in WWII were designed to help Stalin – obviously there are non-nefarious reasons why this should be so, but the amount of evidence is very compelling. In addition, there is lots of evidence that Eisenhower, as commander, went to great lengths to ensure the Soviets were able to capture as much territory as possible, for example: "Eventually, in 1944, Stalin, George Marshall, and Eisenhower together were able to overrule Churchill and the British, stop the Allied forces which had invaded Italy from crossing the Po Valley into the Balkans, and open up their second front in France. This not only increased the relief for Stalin on the Eastern front, which was being provided by the Allied campaigns anyway, but from Stalin’s point of view it accomplished what was now a far more important purpose. It left the Balkans wide open for the Soviet agents and Soviet armies to take them over, in the chaos that accompanied the German collapse."
  • "Most notorious of these ‘mistakes’ was his stopping of our troops from entering Prague and Berlin, in order to give the Russians time to reach and take those capitals, when both cities were begging to be allowed to surrender to the Americans."
  • "These orders to halt our troops were emphatically confirmed by Eisenhower — he had already wired Stalin his generous "you go first" concession — over the vigorous protest of Churchill, who could foresee the tremendous cost to the anti-Communist world in the ultimate political and economic effects of these pro-Communist ‘blunders.’"
  • Then, there is lots of evidence that Eisenhower allowed the Soviets to do terrible things to the areas they occupied and to US prisoners of war that Eisenhower insisted on returning to the Soviets. For example: "Actually, what the barbarian Russian soldiers did in Berlin, while Eisenhower kept our troops obligingly waiting in the outskirts, has been described, probably without exaggeration, as ‘the most ghastly and enormous raping and looting orgy which Christian Europe had ever had to suffer.’"
  • "Let’s look next at another tremendous boost given the Russian Communist plans by Eisenhower, for which he justifiably took some of the credit in 1948, but which he undoubtedly would prefer to disclaim today. This was the instigation and early implementation of the so-called Morgenthau Plan for the conversion of Germany into a goat pasture — so that it could never stand as a bulwark against the eventual Russian march across Europe. But for the foresight, patriotism, and determination of just one man, James Forrestal (whom the Communists later, either directly or indirectly, murdered), Eisenhower and his Communist pushers would have succeeded in carrying out the complete and final devastation which they planned."
  • "Among the Yalta papers there is a letter from Anthony Eden to the U. S. Secretary of State, informing him of repatriations of Soviet nationals, from both England and Mediterranean areas, which had already been made, before Yalta; and stating that Allied Supreme Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had already decided to extradite Russians as quickly as possible. And it was not just Russian nationals concerning whom he had made this decision. Those readers with good enough memories will recall the wave of suicides of Polish officers, who had served gallantly as volunteers with our troops in Italy, when these men found that they were being forcibly returned by our army to their certain death in a Poland which was now ruled by Stalin’s Lublin Gang."
  • "There have been few crimes in history more brutal and more extensive than this forced repatriation of anti-Communists, to which Dwight Eisenhower committed the honor of the United States."
  • Welch claims that Eisenhower suppressed evidence that Katyn was committed by the Soviets.
  • Eisenhower enjoyed incredibly favorable media coverage. "Just suppose that some real anti-Communist general, like Albert Wedemeyer, had had the smelly liaison with his female chauffeur that Eisenhower enjoyed with Kay Summersby. Do you suppose that half the press of the country would be constantly playing up Wedemeyer (even if he were president), by pictures and by articles, as a wonderful family man? Or suppose MacArthur, as Supreme Commander in Europe, had been drunk and unavailable the night the Battle of the Bulge began. Can you imagine how many times that story would have been retold by the Communist- inspired columnists? Or suppose Taft, at the 1952 Republican Convention, had made the dirty undercover deal with a candidate for the Vice-Presidency that Eisenhower made."
  • "So a left-winger named Leonard Finder becomes the official and widely publicized discoverer and promoter of Eisenhower for the Republican nomination. And the whole American press, gladly even if in large part unconsciously, does your job for you, of spreading the information to every corner of America, and to every Communist far enough up in the ranks to recognize its significance, that Leonard Finder wants Eisenhower to be the Republican nominee."
  • The presidential nomination process is interesting. Welch believes that the Communists orchestrated Eisenhower’s rise to the top of the Republican Party to prevent Taft from outing all the Communists in government. Welch also spends some time discussing Eisenhower’s flirtation with the Democratic Party: "But when you turn to the list of those who — knowing well what Eisenhower stood for and where he belonged in the political spectrum — tried to make him the Democratic candidate in 1948, the flock is something to behold. Among its leaders were Adlai Stevenson, Millard Tydings, James Roosevelt, Frank Hague, Jake Arvey, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., (a vice-president of Americans For Democratic Action), A.A. Berle, Jr., Helen Gahagan Douglas (who had won high political office through Communist support and later lost it through supporting the Communists), William O’Dwyer, David Dubinsky (who had raised American money to help the Communist forces in the Spanish civil war), Claude Pepper (of whom the less said the better), Chester Bowles (of whom we may have more to say later), Walter Winchell, Drew Pearson, Eleanor Roosevelt, most of the leaders of the Americans For Democratic Action — and Sidney Hillman."
  • "Eisenhower as President has initiated and sparked a continuing, unhesitating, and highly successful effort to prevent any real exposure of Communists high up in government, and to minimize the exposure of Communists in the lower echelons — of either the Truman Administration or his own." He specifically ordered Brownell to stop investigating Communists in government.
  • "Eisenhower quietly clamped a dictatorial embargo on the supply of any information by government departments to investigating committees, which made the Truman gag rule look almost cooperative, and which has been in effect ever since. . . . For the order, as we have said, was not limited to personnel security matters, but prohibited government departments from giving Congressional committees any information. This Presidential directive works as a complete shield, behind which the Communists can do anything they wish, in any department, with impunity and without fear of exposure."
  • Welch marshals lots of evidence that Eisenhower did not help other Republicans – unless they were very left-wing – in getting elected. In addition: "The ruthless weeding out of the followers of Taft, and of conservatives in general, from positions of influence within the Republican organization, had started the minute Eisenhower was elected. At the same time Eisenhower did an effective job of dragging his feet, a very clever job but one so extensive as to provoke widespread comment and criticism, in not giving jobs to Republicans at all; not even jobs which, despite Civil Service regulations, were open and supposed to be available to a new administration as favors to the party faithful. The magazine, Human Events, charged on September 15, 1954, that no federal administration in history had so strikingly disregarded party loyalty in this respect."
  • Welch believes that Eisenhower’s appointments were designed: "(1) To split the Republican Party, and weaken the conservative faction, by giving jobs to leftwing Republicans, whenever anybody calling himself a Republican was appointed at all; (2) to frustrate and break down the whole Republican Party, as well as to gather strength and implementation for socialistic measures, by giving important jobs to leftwing Democrats; and (3) to put actual Communists or Communist sympathizers into influential positions, to whatever extent the political climate made it feasible. Eisenhower’s catering to this third purpose has steadily increased during the last two or three years." He lists and analyzes 40 such appointments.
  • Perhaps most effective was Earl Warren: "Our Supreme Court is now so strongly and almost completely under Communist influence that it shatters its own precedents and rips gaping holes in our Constitution, in order to favor Communist purposes. Its ‘Red Monday’ decisions in 1957 were described by a notorious Communist in California as ‘the greatest victory the Communist Party ever had.” This gloating comment may have been entirely correct. Just one result of those decisions was that more than three hundred known Communists or Communist sympathizers were actually restored to their positions within our federal government."
  • It’s worth quoting a bit about Eisenhower’s time at Columbia: "It was as president of Columbia University, however, that Eisenhower got in some of his most effective blows for the cause. Best known of these was his acceptance of the grant, from the Communist puppet government of Poland, of thirty thousand dollars as an endowment for a ‘Chair of Polish Studies.’ He was warned by Columbia faculty members, as well as patriotic Polish citizens in this country, that the endowment was solely for the purpose of setting up a Communist propaganda center at Columbia. [which it turned out to be] . . . A few months later, in February, 1949, the American Legion officially appointed a delegation to call on President Eisenhower of Columbia University and give him the facts about Communists on his faculty. Eisenhower refused even to receive the delegation."
  • Welch comes up with, what seems like, hundreds of anecdotes like this one: "In 1953, paying lip service to conservatism as a part of his act for the whole nation when he first went in as President, he called the TVA a good example of creeping socialism. In his 1957-58 budget, he asked for 14.7 million dollars of new funds for TVA, against 5.3 million dollars the previous year." Or, quoting Eisenhower: "I must say that during the years that I knew him ( Zhukov ) I had a most satisfactory acquaintance and friendship with him …. We had many long discussions about our respective doctrines …. We tried each to explain to the other just what our systems meant, to the individual, and I was very hard put to it when he insisted that their system appealed to the idealistic …. And I had a very tough time trying to defend our position …. "
  • It would be possible to write a whole book on the strange facts surrounding the end of the Korean war, but in short: "After the death of Stalin, and because of various other factors which we shall touch upon in due course, the Communists were extremely anxious for peace in Korea. They were delighted to have the American President make a trip to Korea, and suggest by his actions that he was practically suing for peace — which Eisenhower obligingly did — both for appearances in Asia, and because this made it more plausible for them to force on us the ignominious terms and arrangements which we later accepted."
  • The same is true for the Suez Crisis, but again, in short form: "The net results were: (1) to make England and France look like silly third-rate powers, in the whole Middle East, where their influence had been so strong for so long; (2) to glorify Nasser, in the eyes of the whole Arab world, as the native hero who had reduced the lions to slinking cats; (3) to create in both England and France a hatred and distrust of the American government, especially among the real anti-Communists in those countries, which later actions would make even more fatal to any defense of Western Europe."
  • Welch also believes Eisenhower’s policies began the end for Cuba: "The delivery of Cuba into Communist hands, and eventual conversion of Cuba into the Communist spearhead for subjugating all of the Americas, really began with an order of the Eisenhower Government on March 14, 1958, which suspended all deliveries of arms to the legitimate government of Cuba. . . . Just one week later [i.e. after Castro had a tenuous hold on Havana], on January 7, 1959, Eisenhower recognized this group of known Communist murderers—Fidel Castro, Raoul Castro, Che Guevara, and their associates — as the legal government of Cuba."
  • Welch offers lots of evidence that American foreign aid was used to prop up and encourage various Communists in other parts of the world. For example, "In 1957 he threatened to call a special session of Congress if the foreign-aid appropriation he had currently demanded was cut by just the 13% which was indicated. Although a very suspicious secrecy about what was to be done with the money made it difficult for even Congress to learn any of the details, it was possible to find out that this proposed new appropriation included fifteen million dollars of economic aid for Tito plus ‘some’ military assistance, and many other grants of equally doubtful character." Or, if you prefer: "It is simply impossible any longer to classify the gift of jet planes to Yugoslavia, or of forty million dollars per year to Laos, as stupidity."
  • Welch lists Eisenhowers’ Communist friends, acquaintances, assistants and aides. The list is too long for me to re-type. Belfrage, for example, was his press control officer at his headquarters while he was Supreme Commander. I already mentioned Barnes. Others include: "John G. Winant, Harry Dexter White, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Anna M. Rosenberg, Sidney Hillman, Pearl Mesta, Jacob Javits, W.Averell Harriman, Milton Katz, and Harry Hopkins." At least according to Welch.
  • Welch believes Eisenhower encouraged immigration of Communists, for example: "Eisenhower’s State Department has waived — for more than two years now — all documentation for persons coming to this country from Cuba, if they claim they are coming for less than twenty-nine days."

The book is called The Politician because Welch believes Eisenhower, while a mediocre military man, was an incredible politician. He is best understood as such – and this understanding contributes much to Welch’s thesis. In the end, Welch basically concedes that it’s possible to conclude that Eisenhower wasn’t a Communist, but this alternative conclusion raises many – perhaps more interesting – questions. Welch is almost certainly wrong about some specifics – for example, he assumes that Yugoslavia under Tito did not have a falling out with the Soviets (they’re both Communists so they’re friends). Nevertheless, even if you were to throw out 50% of his evidence, you’d still have a lot of evidence left. Or, as Welch puts it, regardless of which conclusion you draw:

For the Communists can now use all the power and prestige of the Presidency of the United States to implement their plans, just as fully and even openly as they dare. They have arrived at this point by three stages. In the first stage, Roosevelt thought he was using the Communists, to promote his personal ambitions and grandiose schemes. Of course, instead, the Communists were using him; but without his knowledge or understanding of his place in their game. In the second stage, Truman was passively used by the Communists, with his knowledge and acquiescence, as the price he consciously paid for their making him President. In the-third stage the Communists have installed in the Presidency a man who, for whatever reasons, appears intentionally to be carrying forward Communist aims. And who, in situations where his personal effort and participation are needed, brings to the support of those aims all of the political skill, deceptive cunning, and tremendous ability as an actor, which are his outstanding characteristics [i.e. he's a hell of a politician].

Anyway, I think I’ll leave it at that. Welch must be taken with a grain of salt, but then so too must all mainstream sources from this time, since the mainstream sources were so inter-connected with Communists.

But, before I sign off, here’s Welch on Communism in general:

Communism is imposed on every country, from the top down, by a conspiratorial apparatus, headed and controlled by suave and utterly ruthless criminals, who are recruited from the richest families, most highly educated intellectuals, and most skillful politicians within that country. The rest of the show, including all of the noise made and work done by the poor "revolutionary" beatniks and dupes at the bottom, is mere pretense and deception.


36 Responses to Review of “The Politician” by Robert Welch

  1. ScottS says:

    How well supported are his points? Some of those accusations are hard to believe.

    • Handle says:

      Historical mysteries are about about ranking various possibilities according their relative plausibility. It is hard to believe some of Welch’s claims. But it’s harder to believe that an ordinary Lieutenant Colonel (O5) would be promoted to General of the Army (O11) in only two years, ahead of many superior senior officers, without even having commanded a maneuver unit in actual combat, in the absence of some extraordinary political favoritism and intervention.

      Eisenhower graduated from the West Point class of 1915 which is called “The Class The Stars Fell On” because it produced the most generals per capita by far. The obvious question is why. It’s fascinating to research the answers.

      • Foseti says:

        Welch puts a lot of emphasis on Eisenhower’s incredible rise. It does demand some sort of explanation.

      • Handle says:

        As regards the answer to my previous question “Who were the Anti-Communists?” – it’s perfectly clear to me that Eisenhower was not of their number, and he not only distanced himself from them but actively sought to undermine their work.

        To understand Eisenhower one needs to have an accurate knowledge of WWII, the understanding of the official narrative of which in the mind of the average person exposed exclusively to mainstream education borders occasionally on outright mythology.

        Here’s an example. A few years back I had a discursive conversation with a law student in which one of the tangents concerned the nature of just “declarations of war”. To support her position, she mentioned the “obvious” case of the British declaring war on the Germans after they invaded Poland in September of 1939.

        And I said something like, “Well, but you know, it was only half of Poland. The Soviet Union, having entered into agreement with the Nazis, also invaded and occupied Poland in September of 1939 and didn’t treat the residents of that area very well besides – deciding to, among many other atrocities, massacre thousands of officers just a few months later. And this is not to mention a bunch of other countries to which they did similarly around the same time, including an unprovoked assault on Finland, which was so clearly outrageous that the other Allies expelled it from the League of Nations. And after the war was over, they stayed and basically ran these places tyrannically as ‘captive nations’ for 50 years. But you know, nobody ever declared a ‘just’ war on the Soviet Union for doing any of this. What made it just against the Nazis, but not the Soviets? Why declare war on Hitler, but not on Stalin?”

        And somehow she had not really assimilated any of this into her vague “good guys vs bad guys” feelings about the players in that vast and tragic drama between greater and lesser evils.

    • Foseti says:

      Some are supported with lots of evidence – the book has hundreds of footnotes (so many that I stopped trying to read them all). Some are much more tenuous. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that you’d throw out about 50% of the specific points . . . but that would still leave 50% that are also “hard to believe”

    • Paul Wood says:

      Believe it… Check for yourself. I have a lifetime of study on it

  2. Gian says:

    Won’t similar arguments show that Bush 43 was Islamist ?

  3. Allan says:

    From the list of crimes
    of that notorious commie fellow traveller
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    you have omitted one of the worst:

    He mounted an aggressive program of mass deportations
    of illegal immigrants.

    At least 2,000,000 were either deported
    or left under the threat of deportation.

    • josh says:

      Mexican catholic presence would have been detrimental to the cause in the 1950s. Now that the “civil rights movement” has utterly destroyed the influence of the Catholic church in America (white flight was Catholic or flight), and co-opted its carcass, Mexicans (or rather there children) can easily be turned into cultural marxist thug warrior terrorists. Ike helped pave the way for this development.

  4. sconzey says:

    With respect to Suez, when I was reading up about it a couple of months ago (on Wikipedia), I remember reading that CIA and KGB agitators orchestrated the fall of the British-and-French-supported King Farouk I. At the time I read that as meaning that the US and Soviets both thought they would be able to win influence over the Free Officers Movement and the support of Nasser in years to come.

    Reading what you posted above, that simple sentence seems a whole lot more sinister.

  5. Allan says:

    The opinions of youngsters
    who never lived through the 50’s
    is amusing to read.

    You leave the impression that the thoughts
    of the thought criminal Robert Welch
    were little known
    and were suppressed
    by the powers that be.

    “Eisenhower enjoyed incredibly favorable media coverage”

    Actually all of Robert Welch’s nonsense was widely reported
    in the main-stream press of the time
    and stories such as Eisenhower’s affair with his chauffeur
    and the fact that Truman threatened to remove him
    from his position if he didn’t break it off
    were well known even to someone like me
    whose only source of information was the TV,
    Time magazine and the local newspaper.

    “I believe that if I had been a Commie
    in the US in ’52 or ’56
    that I probably would have voted Ike”

    Well to someone like Einstein
    who undoubtedly was a communist sympathizer,
    Eisenhower was the devil.
    When he heard that his colleague Kurt Godel planned
    to vote for him,
    he announced to everyone
    that Godel had lost his mind.

    btw. George Marshall was not a communist either
    merely a useful idiot.

  6. josh says:


    What about Harry Hopkins, Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, and Alger Hiss? Can we call them communists?

    Where did Hiss and Marshall (or FDR) disagree?

  7. dearieme says:

    “But you know, nobody ever declared a ‘just’ war on the Soviet Union for doing any of this”. Britain was organising shipments for the Finns when (happily, as it turned out) the Nazis beat her to it.

  8. Tschafer says:

    Well, you all know my opinion. I’m with Allan on this one.

    “The opinions of youngsters
    who never lived through the 50′s
    is amusing to read.”

    Indeed. I’d invite everyone to read Welch’s book, and then read a more objective accout of Eisenhower, and see which you find more believable. Yes, Eisenhower served the Roosevelt Administration, and the Roosevelt Administration was full of Communists so anyone involved with FDR HAD to have some contact with Communists. 90% of Welch’s accusations come down to that. Eisenhower was a right-wing New Dealer, not a hard right-winger. That doesn’t make him a Communist, unless you accept Mencius and Foseti’s “New and Improved” definition of Communist. And besides, I’ll bet not a single Communist voted for Eisenhower in ’52 or ’56. Sure, the Birchers were right about a few things, but overall, they were nutcases, the 1950’s version of 911 Truthers. Buckley didn’t push them out of the conservative movement for nothing. Or was Buckley a commie too?

  9. Tschafer says:

    Think that the left liked Ike? Here’s a review of the book, “Eisenhower and the Anti-Communist Crusade” written by a commie sympathizer, Jeff Broadwater;

    “Exploring the complex relationship between partisan politics and cold war tensions, Broadwater demonstrates that virulent anticommunism, as well as opposition to it, often cut across party and ideological lines. He shows, moreover, that although McCarthy and his allies captured the headlines, ultimately it was the Eisenhower administration that bore responsibility for implementing most of the nation’s anti-Communist policies.

    The book begins with an overview of the debate over internal security following World War II and then examines Eisenhower’s record on the issue. Broadwater asserts that at the outset of the cold war, Eisenhower assumed a moderate stance, defending some of McCarthy’s targets and cooperating as NATO commander with European Socialist leaders. Later, as a presidential candidate under pressure from Republicans conservatives, he moved steadily toward the right. Once in the Oval Office, he embraced much of the anit-Communist agenda and shared many of the McCarthyites’ fears about internal security, supporting, for example, the federal employee security program and the legal persecution of the Communist party.

    Broadwater concludes that while Eisenhower personally despised McCarthy and eventually presided over the end of the Red Scare, the president was also a committed anti-Communist who frequently displayed little concern for American civil liberties.”

    Ike a commie? We report, you decide…

    • josh says:

      It seems many of the pro-Soviet New Dealers were purged under Ike’s tenure. This is not the same as saying that the communists were purged except in that the definition of communist essentially changed to mean pro-Soviet rather than those who want to bring the economic life of the country under a single administrative authority with the power to control the allocation of capital and relative wages of the nation, which is exactly what the New Deal was. As far as I can tell, this aspect of the new deal has not been repudiated by those who brought it about. Take this in conjunction with the plethora of connections to the Communist Party and its members and other parties with communist doctrine and their members, that both treasury and the fed were most heavily influenced by people who would fit *anyones* definition of communist )they were Soviet collaborators; White and Currie) and the fact that, before the split, it could be clearly seen that as the New Dealers gained more power they became bolder and bolder with their public praise of communism and communists. I think you ought to conclude that a New Dealer is a communist.

      Ike may have just been a politician and not a true believer, but its fairly obvious that his politics and connections to New Dealers explains his carreer path better than anything else (the whole phenomena of the National Army and the Army of the United States is interesting in its own right). Along with Marshall and the rest, Ike’s conducting of the war clearly demonstrates two objectives, 1) defeat Germany, 2) Favor the USSR over Britain in the post war power structure. Whether he liked Stalin as FDR did, who can say, but he definitely knowingly fought a war to benefit Stalin’s regime and was willing to risk more American lives than if the war had had only the first objective. To me, that earns him the label communist.

  10. Carter says:

    See this 1962 news article on the Bircher menace. My favorite part:

    THE FAR RIGHTISTS, how. do not confine themselves to mere talk.There have been a few instances where they took direct action. They are accused, in two instances in California, of trying to disrupt meetings. They have done some picketing. They are credited with organizing the recall of a member of a School Board.

  11. RS says:

    > Your mind is almost certainly not open enough for this book.

    You sure know how to hook in your type of readers. (WHAT?! I CAN ASSURE YOU SIR THAT IT MOST CERTAINLY IS!)

  12. icr says:

    Frankfurt School mania during the Ike years:

    January, 1959


    Most Americans, hearing this question, would answer promptly, “Yes, by all means, hate should be outlawed!” Their eagerness to reply can be accounted for all too easily. During the last decade and a half, they have been pounded with a propaganda barrage calculated to leave them in a state of dazed affability toward the whole world. Those advertising techniques that are normally used to encourage Americans to be choosy in matters of soap and toothpaste are now being enlisted to persuade them that there is no such thing as a superior product in matters of culture and creed. On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism … Only Brotherhood can save our nation … We must be tolerant of all!”

    The long-range effects of this campaign are even now evident. It is producing the “spineless citizen”: the man who has no cultural sensibilities; who is incapable of indignation; whose sole mental activity is merely an extension of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the television screen; who faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country. He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He has an earnest sympathy for anyone who would obliterate his faith. He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed, lest in advocating them he should seem to indicate that contrary principles might be inferior. He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man.

  13. jmperry says:

    Tschafer – “Eisenhower was a right-wing New Dealer”

    LOL of the week.

  14. Doug1 says:

    I buy virtually none of this. Our nuclear umbrella designed to protect us from the Soviets grew enormously during his term: The strategic air command and nuclear submarines. Hardly a pro Soviet move. The Soviets were madly trying to catch up against our lead in this arms race. It wasn’t until they developed major thrust ICBM rockets, announced to the world with launch of the superficially peaceful sputnik, and fitted nuclear warheads to them, that they started to become competitive in nukes.

    Eisenhower probably didn’t think the Soviets would permanently occupy and control eastern European countries it took from the Nazis and their allies. It hadn’t been territorially expansive before WWII, and in fact allowed some shrinkage of the Tzar’s western empire in the peace deal it struck with the Germans in the middle of WWI. In other words he probably didn’t foresee the Iron curtain. Not many aside from Churchill did.

    According Eisenhower was perfectly happy to let the Soviet Red Army do the dieing in the campaign to conquer Berlin. Similarly in the Balkans and Czechoslovakia.

    As it happened Stalin didn’t occupy or control Yugoslavia, since the communist Tito had lead communist guerrilla fighters there to successfully drive out the Germans once they were for the most part occupied elsewhere. Yugoslavia became an independent communist state.

  15. TC Sorgulama says:

    TC Sorgulama…

    […]Review of “The Politician” by Robert Welch « Foseti[…]…

  16. Thanks for sharing your info. I truly appreciate your efforts and I will be waiting for your next
    write ups thanks once again.

  17. […] directly from the Treasury Department. At least, they didn’t control the US military . . . unless, of course, they […]

  18. […] taken directly from the Treasury Department. At least, they didn’t control the US military . . . unless, of course, they […]

  19. We appreciate you for writing articles such as these to sustain
    awareness. Please check out my blog and follow it, too!

  20. […] McCarthy, Sisley Huddleston, John T. Flynn and perhaps even General MacArthur.  It may include some inconvenient people, but it has the distinct advantage of being able to explain what the hell happened after the war […]

  21. […] Communism and defeated. Jewish President Eisenhower, like most modern Presidents, was himself a Communist dupe! Here were the ‘big toes’ of “the feet of iron and clay” side by side. […]

  22. […] Anyway, Robert Welch was a thought criminal – in fact, he founded an organization of thought criminals. He was too anti-communist for the likes of National Review, which is rather impressive. Perhaps. The Politician is a book – actually it’s a letter written to friends – about Dwight Eisenhower. Welch’s thesis is that Eisenhower is a Communist or is controlled by Communists. After reading the book, I don’t believe that Ike was a commie, however I believe that if I had been a Commie in the US in ’52 or ’56 that I probably would have voted Ike. Or as Welch puts it: “In April, 1957, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President of the United States on the Socialist ticket, stated that ‘the United States is making greater strides toward socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt.’” That’s really saying something! Instead of providing my thoughts, I think I provide some tastes of Welch’s evidence. Much of it is impossible to include since it would take up too much space, but here is a small, abbreviated sampling. If you’re looking for more evidence, basically the entire book is just a chronicle of evidence – read the whole thing if you need more: … […]

  23. […] them complaining of course), all while Portugal maintained a careful balance.  Seeing the fate of those that got involved this may have been Salazar’s ultimate accomplishment.  Now, a good […]

  24. […] here’s that ol’ commie Ike himself warning us against letting the Red Empire win. Need to let the Soviets have a fighting […]

  25. Whoa….such a handy site.|

  26. […] a fellow traveler, or willing to do their bidding. Robert Welch might not convince you that President Eisenhower was a communist himself, but the idea that he knowingly worked with them is easy to […]

  27. […] a fellow traveler, or willing to do their bidding. Robert Welch might not convince you that President Eisenhower was a communist himself, but the idea that he knowingly worked with them is easy to […]

  28. […] (1967) ilustra outras perdas . Hawthorn Books, inc, Nova York. Bacque diz a verdade sobre como Eisenhower  assassinou milhares de prisioneiros de guerra alemães APÓS a rendição. Muitos daqueles […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: