Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Page 14 - September 12, 1994n

Shift of U.S.
Sovereignty to UN
Planned 50 Years Ago

. . . Asks some hard questions.

. . Where did this ''world government” and the relegation of a nation's military to the command of the United Nations idea come from, and what's that got to do with· the atomic bomb?



. . . .Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan recently asked some hard, questions, to wit: "Who betrayed the nation? Who was a "fellow traveler? Who was a dupe? Who was wrongly accused or falsely smeared?"
. . .Buchanan asks these questions regarding Pavel A. Sudoplatov's revelation that J. Robert Oppenheimer supplied the USSR with periodic data on the construction of the first atomic bomb. Sudoplatov headed the Soviet Intelligence Bureau on the Atomic Problem during World War II and has been going public with a number of Soviet historic secrets. (See The SPOTLIGHT, May 16).

. . .Who was wrongly accused
or falsely smeared?
. . .Buchanan's stated guess is that: "there is more, much more to come out." He is so right.
. . .Several high-ranking U.S. military officers were well aware as early officers were aware as early as 1942 that both secret data and material components of the atomic bomb were being surreptitiously provided to the Soviets. For any number of reasons, most chose — and still choose — to remain silent about the clandestine and treasonous transfer. Why?
. . .That same group of military officers also knew in 1945 that there was absolutely no military requirement to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

. . .Willing to surrender in the
spring of 1945 on the same
terms effected in August.

n .In fact, Emperor Hirohito, negotiating with the U.S. through the good offices of the Vatican in April/May 1945, was willing to surrender on the exact same terms effected in August — after the Soviet Union's entry into the war, and after the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
. . .The questions remain: Why was it done? Who were the high-level perpetrators? Who benefited?
. . .Keep in mind that since 1954 both the U.S. and the ex-USSR have exchanged — through the Pugwash Conferences — detailed atomic research and test results.
. . .The Pugwash Conferences were named after the Canadian estate of their host, internationalist-minded mdustrialist Cyrus Eaton, and were set in motion by a most curious pair indeed — Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell.

. . . Organized the Pugwash
Conferences along with
Albert Einstein.

. . .Earlier, it was financier Bernard Baruch who called the atomic bomb the "absolute weapon." He set himself up as the head of an international organization which he called the “United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.” This was in 1944, some 16 months before most of the cabinet — including then-Vice President Harry Truman — knew of the bomb's existence and before the initial meeting of a United Nations founding group. Truman, when he became president, appointed Baruch to just such a position.
. . .Baruch knew, of both coming events, for he was in on the planning — present at the creation — as was his good friend Albert Einstein.
. . .Both men were avowed "internationalists," both were touted by a slavish and controlled press as being "great men." Baruch, they said was a financier, philanthropist, "elder statesman" and "patriot." Einstein, they — said, was the "genius" and "pacifist."
. . .Both played a major role in setting up a one-world government based on fear, as viewed by the founders of the United Nations and so succinctly stated by Einstein in 1945:
. . ."Since I do not foresee that atomic energy is to be a great boon for a long time, I have to say that for the present it is a menace. Perhaps it is well that it should be. It may intimidate the human race into bringing order into its international affairs, which, without the pressure of fear, it would not do."

Albert Einstein said the U.S. government should give the secret of the atom bomb to a world government, formed by us, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Then, he said, these three great powers should "commit to the world government all of their military strength." Does that sound like what president Bill Clinton wants to do?


n.. .Einstein reveals himself in his two books, Why War? (an exchange of letters with Sigmund Freud) and The World as I See It. Also revealing was an article in The Atlantic Monthly (Nov., 1945), "Einstein on the Atomic Bomb."
. . .In the Einstein article, that learned professor spoke of the "secret of the bomb" which he felt should not be given to the United Nations, nor shared with the Soviet Union.


. . .Now comes the dichotomy. Einstein proposed instead that "The secret of the bomb should be committed to a world government and the United States should immediately announce its readiness to give it to a world government."
. . .Next, this "genius" proposed that such a world government should be founded by the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain — "the only three powers with great military strength."
. . .He added that each of these three Great Powers should “commit to the world government all of their military strength.”
. . .Does this idea trouble you just a little? How would such a world government be formed? Dr. Einstein enlightens us (and the world as he saw it):
. . .”Since the United States and Great Britain have the secret of the atomic bomb and the Soviet Union does not, they should invite the Soviet Union to prepare and present the first draft of a Constitution for the proposed world government.”
. . .Here is Einstein’s convoluted reasoning:
. . .”That action should help to dispel the distrust which the Russians already feel because the bomb is being kept secret, chiefly to prevent their having it. Obviously the first draft would not be the final one, but the Russians should be made to feel that the world government would assure them their security.”
. . .Dr. Einstein then proposes that smaller nations should be invited to join the world government, but would be free to stay out.
. . .”The world government would have power over all military matters and need have only one further power; the power to intervene in countries where a minority is oppressing a majority and creating the kind of instability that leads to war.”
. . .Einstein stresses that “There must be an end to the concept of a non-intervention, for to end it is part of keeping the peace.”
. . .He then speaks of the “minority” then ruling in the USSR.
. . .”While it is true that in the Soviet Union the minority rules, I do not consider the internal conditions there are of themselves a threat to world peace. One must bear in mind that the people in Russia did not have a long political education and changes to improve Russian conditions had to be carried through by a minority for the reason that there was no majority capable of doing it.”
. . .Einstein continues: “[A] world government is preferable to the far greater evil of wars, particularly with their intensified destructiveness.


. . .Here we see the eternal "threat” and "promise" of Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati and embodied in the French "Revolution" and again the Russian “Revolution.” It hung as a dark shadow over FDR and his New Deal, over Yalta and Potsdam, involving those three “Great Powers” of which Einstein speaks so eloquently. It contains both the “threat” and the “promise” and is embodied in its myriad “statutes and judgments.”
. . .Einstein, that noble American import from Germany via Switzerland, gives us "threat" and "promise" in spades.
. . .Toward the end of his lucid article the good doctor states: "Now that we have the atomic secret, we must not lose it, and that is what we should risk doing if we should give it to the United Nations organization or to the Soviet Union.
. . ."But we must make it clear, as quickly as possible, that we are not keeping the bomb a secret for the sake of our power, but in the hope of establishing peace in a world government, and that we will do our utmost to bring the world government into being."
. . .So we see throughout that strange article not only the dichotomies, but the promise of glorious world peace coupled with the threat of utter destruction.


. . .It was Einstein's British friend, Bertrand Russell, who stated boldly (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Oct., 1946) that it was necessary to interject fear of nuclear weapons in order to force all nations to give up their sovereignty and submit to the dictatorship of the United Nations.
. . .And it was this kind of thinking that prevailed at the second Pugwash Conference in 1958 which produced the policy that came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
. . .How did this concept of fear of nuclear power evolve?
. . .In May of that fateful year (1945) I was with a military force driving the remnants of the defeated Japanese out of North Burma. Our headquarters was in Namhkam, Burma and we would shortly head for Kunming, China.
. . .Simultaneously, our B-29s, flying from Pacific atolls, devastated Tokyo with a series of raids (May 27, 1945).
. . .Two days after the raids, acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew called on President Truman. He recommended that the president enlarge his previous statement. . ."unconditional surrender of Japan would mean neither annihilation nor enslavement". . .to include the statement that "surrender would not mean the elimination of the present dynasty if the Japanese people desired its retention."
. . .Truman favored this approach. He asked Grew to get a consensus from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and other advisors. Grew met with Stimson, Jim Forestall, Gen. George Marshall, John McCloy, Elmer Davis and Judge Samuel Rosenman on May 29, 1945.
. . .The gist of Grew's memo following the meeting reflected that he, Stimson, Forestall and Marshall favored the proposal, while the others "for certain military reasons" considered it "inadvisable" for the president to make such a statement.
. . ."The question of timing was the nub of the whole matter," Grew wrote. "I duly reported this to the president and the proposal for action was, for the time being, dropped."
. . .Of course, this "question of timing" had to do with the coming Potsdam Conference, its ultimatum issued to Japan from the three heads of government (Truman, Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill) and the belated entry of Soviet Russia into the war against Japan just days before the dropping of the atomic bombs and the surrender.
. . .As Grew would later write: "If surrender could have been brought about in May 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."
. . .Why did Rosenman, McCloy and Davis hold out at the meeting with Secretary of State Grew?
. . .What did they know and when did they know it? For a clue, I turn once more to a statement made by Grew to Stimson in a personal letter dated February 12, 1947:
. . ."If only it (had been) made clear that surrender would not involve the downfall of the dynasty."
. . .This point was clearly implied in Article 12 of the Potsdam Proclamation, to wit:
. . ."The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government."

From left, Great Britain's Winston Churchill, Harry Truman and the USSR's Josef Stalin yuck it up at Potsdam in 1945 after agreeing that atomic bombs should be dropped on Japan.

. . .The psychological spin behind exploding the bombs was to create such a worldwide fear of the power of nuclear energy that countries would give up their sovereignty, turn all their weapons and armed forces over to a world government and surrender their freedom.
. . .Which takes us right back to Einstein and his belief that "A world government is preferable to the far greater evil of wars."
. . .What he was saying in fact — and if we are to give any credence at all to his "brilliance," we must agree — that we can submit to absolute global despotism or be annihilated by the absolute weapon.
. . .In the final analysis, we come back to that very basic question asked in every dispute in ancient Rome: "Cui bono?" (that is, "who profits?").

. . .Col. Donn Grand Pre is a former military pilot and senior parachutist. He is a much-decorated veteran of combat in Burma during World War II and Korea, where he was wounded in 1953. Currently he is a farmer and businessman living in Reva, Virginia.

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.