In the Name of Peace

The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office and the radio station, severing Katanga’s communications with the outside world.... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.’s action was intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the world know what was going on in Katanga....1
• Smith Hempstone,

Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends, 1962

Early in 1987, millions of American television viewers tuned in to watch the dramatic ABC mini-series, Amerika. What they saw was a grim, menacing portrayal of life in our nation after it had been taken over by a Soviet-controlled United Nations force. Their TV sets showed a foreboding picture of America as an occupied police-state, complete with concentration camps, brainwashing, neighborhood spies, and Soviet-UN troops, tanks and helicopter gunships enforcing “the rule of law.” Liberals angrily denounced the mini-series, claiming it demonized both the Soviets and the UN and insisting that it would rekindle anti-communist hysteria at a time when Soviet-American relations were at their best point since the end of World War II.


The fact that Soviet troops were at that very time committing real atrocities against the peoples of Afghanistan didn’t matter. UN officials, furious about the way their organization was being portrayed, even tried to have the program cancelled.2 Why all the furor? Is the UN’s image so sacrosanct or the goal of U.S.-Soviet rapprochement so sacred that even fictional tarnishing is akin to blasphemy? After all, it was just a television program. Haven’t there been scores of highly acclaimed Hollywood productions depicting the U.S. military and American patriots in similarly bad or even far worse light? Besides, the totalitarianism depicted in Amerika could never happen here. Could it?


Dress Rehearsal?

You may be surprised to learn that it has already happened here. No, not in the same manner and on the same scale as viewers saw in the television series, but in an alarming real-life parallel of that dramatic production. What follows is the true, but little-known story of the “invasion” of about a dozen American cities by “UN forces,” as told by economist/author Dr. V. Orval Watts in his 1955 book, The United Nations: Planned Tyranny.

At Fort MacArthur, California, and in other centers, considerable numbers of American military forces went into training in 1951 as “Military Government Reserve Units.” What they were for may appear from their practice maneuvers during the two years, 1951-1952. Their first sally took place on July 31, 1951, when they simulated an invasion and seizure of nine California cities: Compton, Culver City, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Huntington Park, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, South Gate and Torrance. The invading forces, however, did not fly the American flag. They came in under the flag of the United Nations, and their officers stated that they represented the United Nations.

These forces arrested the mayors and police chiefs, and pictures later appeared in the newspapers showing these men in jail. The officers issued manifestoes reading “by virtue of the authority vested in me by the United Nations Security Council.” At Huntington Park they held a flag-raising ceremony, taking down the American flag and running up in its place the United Nations banner.

On April 3, 1952, other units did the same thing at Lampasas, Texas. They took over the town, closed churches, strutted their authority over the teachers and posted guards in classrooms, set up concentration camps, and interned businessmen after holding brief onesided trials without habeas corpus.

Said a newspaper report of that Texas invasion:

“But the staged action almost became actual drama when one student and two troopers forgot it was only make-believe. ‘Ain’t nobody going to make me get up,’ cried John Snell, 17, his face beet-red. One of the paratroopers shoved the butt of his rifle within inches of Snell’s face and snarled, ‘You want this butt placed in your teeth? Get up.’”

The invaders put up posters listing many offenses for which citizens would be punished. One of them read:25

“Publishing or circulating or having in his possession with intent to publish or circulate, any printed or written matter ... hostile, detrimental, or disrespectful ... to the Government of any other of the United Nations.”

Think back to the freedom-of-speech clause of the United States Constitution which every American officer and official is sworn to support and defend. What was in the minds of those who prepared, approved and posted these UN proclamations? The third practice seizure under the United Nations flag occurred at Watertown, New York, August 20, 1952, more than a year later than the first ones.


It followed the same pattern set in the earlier seizures in California and Texas.
Is this a foretaste of World Government, which so many Americans seem to want?3 Who ordered these “mock” UN invasions? And to what purpose were they carried out? Do answers to these questions really matter? Or are these merely idle concerns about curious but irrelevant events that happened decades ago and have no bearing on our lives today?

Events, developments, and official policies in the succeeding years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, indicate that the mock invasions of the early 1950s do matter and that they do have a bearing on our lives today. The dress-rehearsal takeovers of American cities described above occurred just six years after the founding of the United Nations, while the organization was still enjoying widespread public support. American military personnel were at that very time fighting and dying under the UN flag in Korea.


But as recounted in our previous chapter, a decade later in September of 1961, the President of the United States would propose a phased transfer of America’s military forces to the UN. Under such a plan, our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, even our nuclear arsenal, would be given over to UN command, making it possible for our nation’s military forces to be used in a real UN invasion at some future date anywhere in the world.

Interestingly, the Kennedy Freedom From War plan differed little from one proposed earlier that same month by the Soviet-dominated “nonaligned” nations at a conference held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.4 And it was merely an expansion of the policy enunciated by Secretary of State Christian Herter (CFR) during the latter days of the Eisenhower Administration. But few Americans even saw, and fewer still ever read and understood the incredible disarmament document. For those who did see, read and understand it, however, there could be no doubt that it created a path leading to global .

If the American public had been aware of Freedom From War and a number of then-classified government studies being prepared at that time - each of which spelled out even more explicitly the intent of government and Establishment elitists to surrender America to an all-powerful United Nations - there may well have been a popular uprising that would have swept all of the internationalist schemers from public office and public trust.

In February 1961, seven months before the President released the Freedom From War plan to the public, his State Department, led by Secretary of State Dean Rusk (CFR), hired the private Institute for Defense Analyses (contract No. SCC 28270) to prepare a study showing how disarmament could be employed to lead to world government. On March 10, 1962, the Institute delivered Study Memorandum No. 7, A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations, written by Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR).5


Dr. Bloomfield had himself recently served with the State Department’s disarmament staff, and while writing his important work was serving as an associate professor of political science and director of the Arms Control Project at the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This Bloomfield/IDA report is especially significant because the author is uncharacteristically candid, eschewing the usual euphemisms, code words, and double-talk found in typical “world order” pronouncements meant for public consumption. The author believed he was addressing fellow internationalists in a classified memorandum that would never be made available for public scrutiny. So he felt he could speak plainly.

Here is the document’s opening passage, labelled SUMMARY:

A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which “world government” would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization.... [T]he present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.

Dr. Bloomfield was still fudging a little as he began. The phrase “some ability to employ physical force” was more than a slight understatement, as the bulk of the report makes abundantly clear. He continued:

The principal features of a model system would include the following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace - including taxing powers - with all other powers reserved to the nations; (2) an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon; (3) governmental powers distributed among three branches...; (4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court....6

“The notion of a ‘UN-controlled world’ is today a fantastic one,” the professor wrote. “... Political scientists have generally come to despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of political realities. But fresh minds from military, scientific, and industrial life ... have sometimes found the logic of world government - and it is world government we are discussing here - inescapable.”7

Dr. Bloomfield then cited Christian Herter’s speech of February 18, 1960, in which the Secretary of State called for disarmament “to the point where no single nation or group of nations could effectively oppose this enforcement of international law by international machinery.”8 To this CFR-affiliated academic, who had recently worked for the disarmament agency where Herter’s speech had most likely been written, there was no question about the meaning of the Secretary of State’s words. “Here, then,” said Bloomfield, “is the basis in recent American policy for the notion of a world ‘effectively controlled by the United Nations.’ It was not made explicit, but the United States position carried the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and enforce its judgments.”9 Then, to be absolutely certain that there would be no confusion or misunderstanding about his meaning, he carefully defined his terms:

“World” means that the system is global, with no exceptions to its fiat: universal membership. “Effectively controlled” connotes ... a relative monopoly of physical force at the center of the system, and thus a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization.... “The United Nations” is not necessarily precisely the organization as it now exists.... Finally, to avoid endless euphemism and evasive verbiage, the contemplated regime will occasionally be referred to unblushingly as a “world government.”10 [Emphasis added]

If government is “force” - as George Washington so simply and accurately defined it - then world government is “world force.” Which means that Bloomfield and those who commissioned his report and agreed with its overall recommendations wanted to create a global entity with a monopoly of force - a political, even military power undisputedly superior to any single nation-state or any possible alliance of national or regional forces. It is as simple as that.

“The appropriate degree of relative force,” the Bloomfield/IDA study concluded, “would ... involve total disarmament down to police and internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a significant conventional capability at the center backed by a marginally significant nuclear capability.”11 Again and again as the following excerpts demonstrate, the study drives its essential points home:

  • “National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN control.... [W]ithout it, effective UN control is not possible.”12

  • “The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of sovereign power from the states to a supranational government.”13

  • “The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of their military power by individual nations.”14

Putting Theory Into Practice

While Dr. Bloomfield was still writing his treatise for global rule, the hapless residents of a small corner of Africa were experiencing the terrible reality of “a world effectively controlled by the United Nations.” The site chosen for the debut of the UN’s version of “peacekeeping” was Katanga, a province in what was then known as the Belgian Congo. The center of world attention 30 years ago, the name Katanga draws a complete blank from most people today.

Katanga and its tragic experience have been expunged from history, consigned to the memory hole. The region appears on today’s maps as the Province of Shaba in Zaire. But for one brief, shining moment, the courageous people in this infant nation stood as the singular testament to the capability of the newly independent Africans to govern themselves as free people with a sense of peace, order, and justice. While all around them swirled a maelstrom of violent, communist-inspired revolution and bloody tribal warfare, the Katangese distinguished themselves as a paradigm of racial, tribal, and class harmony.15 What they stood for could not be tolerated by the forces of “anti-colonialism” in the Kremlin, the U.S. State Department, the Western news media, and especially the United Nations.16

The stage was already set for the horrible drama that would soon unfold when Belgium’s King Baudouin announced independence for the Belgian Congo on June 30, 1960. The Soviets, who had been agitating and organizing in the Congo for years, were ready. Patrice Lumumba was their man, bought and paid for with cash, arms, luxuries, and all the women, gin, and hashish he wanted. With his Soviet and Czech “diplomats” and “technicians” who swarmed all over the Congo, Lumumba was able to control the Congo elections.17


With Lumumba as premier and Joseph Kasavubu as president, peaceful independence lasted one week. Then Lumumba unleashed a communist reign of terror against the populace, murdering and torturing men, women, and children. Amidst this sea of carnage and terror, the province of Katanga remained, by comparison, an island of peace, order, and stability. Under the able leadership of the courageous Moise Kapenda Tshombe, Katanga declared its independence from the central Congolese regime. “I am seceding from chaos,” declared President Tshombe, a devout Christian and an ardent anti-communist.18


These were the days when the whole world witnessed the cry and the reality of “self determination” as it swept through the African continent. Anyone should have expected that Katanga’s declaration of independence would have been greeted with the same huzzahs at the UN and elsewhere that similar declarations from dozens of communist revolutionary movements and pip-squeak dictatorships had evoked.

But it was Tshombe’s misfortune to be pro-Western, pro-free enterprise, and pro-constitutionally limited government at a time when the governments of both the U.S. and the USSR were supporting Marxist “liberators” throughout the world. Nikita Khrushchev declared Tshombe to be “a turncoat, a traitor to the interests of the Congolese people.”19 American liberals and the rabble at the UN dutifully echoed the hue and cry.

To our nation’s everlasting shame, on July 14, 1960, the U.S. joined with the USSR in support of a UN resolution authorizing the world body to send troops to the Congo.20 These troops were used, not to stop the bloody reign of terror being visited on the rest of the Congo, but to assist Lumumba, the chief terrorist, in his efforts to subjugate Katanga. Within four days of the passage of that resolution, thousands of UN troops were flown on U.S. transports into the Congo, where they joined in the campaign against the only island of sanity in all of black Africa.


Smith Hempstone, African correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, gave this firsthand account of the December 1961 UN attack on Elisa, the capital of Katanga:

The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office and the radio station, severing Katanga’s communications with the outside world.... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.’s action was intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the world know what was going on in Katanga....

A car pulled up in front of the Grand Hotel Leopold II where all of us were staying. “Look at the work of the American criminals,” sobbed the Belgian driver. “Take a picture and send it to Kennedy!” In the backseat, his eyes glazed with shock, sat a wounded African man cradling in his arms the body of his ten-year-old son. The child’s face and belly had been smashed to jelly by mortar fragments.21 The 46 doctors of Elisabethville - Belgian, Swiss, Hungarian, Brazilian, and Spanish - unanimously issued a joint report indicting the United Nations atrocities against innocent civilians.


This is part of their account of a UN attack on a hospital:
The Shinkolobwe hospital is visibly marked with an enormous red cross on the roof.... In the maternity, roof, ceilings, walls, beds, tables and chairs are riddled with bullets.... 4 Katangan women who had just been delivered and one new-born child are wounded, a visiting child of 4 years old is killed; two men and one child are killed....22 The UN atrocities escalated. Unfortunately, we do not have space here to devote to relating more of the details of this incredibly vicious chapter of UN history - even though the progress toward establishing a permanent UN army makes full knowledge of every part of it more vital than ever.


Among the considerable body of additional testimony about the atrocities, we highly recommend The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin; Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schuyler; Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends by Smith Hempstone; and 46 Angry Men by the 46 doctors of Elisabeth. In 1962, a private group of Americans, outraged at our govern’s actions against the freedom-seeking Katangese, attempted to capture on film the truth about what was happening in the Congo.


They produced Katanga: The Untold Story, an hour-long documentary narrated by Congressman Donald L. Jackson. With newsreel footage and testimony from eyewitnesses, including a compelling interview with Tshombe himself, the program exposed the criminal activities and brutal betrayal perpetrated on a peaceful people by the Kennedy Administration, other Western leaders, and top UN officials. It documents the fact that UN (including U.S.) planes deliberately bombed Katanga’s schools, hospitals, and churches, while UN troops machine-gunned and bayoneted civilians, school children, and Red Cross workers who tried to help the wounded. This film is now available on videotape,23 and is “mustviewing” for Americans who are determined that this land or any other land shall never experience similar UN atrocities.

After waging three major offensive campaigns against the fledgling state, the UN “peace” forces overwhelmed Katanga and forced it back under communist rule. Even though numerous international observers witnessed and publicly protested the many atrocities committed by the UN’s forces, the world body has never apologized for or admitted to its wrongdoing. In fact, the UN and its internationalist cheering section continue to refer to this shameful episode as a resounding success.24 Which indeed it was, if one keeps in mind the true goal of the organization.


Following the Policy Line

Why did the government of the United States side with the Soviet Union and the United Nations in their support of communists Lumumba and Kasavubu and their denunciation of Tshombe? Why did our nation supply military assistance to and an official endorsement of the UN’s military action against Katanga? The answer to both questions is that our government was guided by the same “world order” policy line laid out by the New York Times in its hard-to-believe editorial of August 16, 1961:

[W]e must seek to discourage anti-Communist revolts in order to avert bloodshed and war. We must, under our own principles, live with evil even if by doing so we help to stabilize tottering Communist regimes, as in East Germany, and perhaps even expose citadels of freedom, like West Berlin, to slow death by strangulation.25

Further elaboration on this theme is revealed in a 1963 study conducted for the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by the Peace Research Institute. Published in April of that year, here’s what our tax dollars produced:

Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we benefit enormously from the capability of the Soviet police system to keep law and order over the 200 million odd Russians and the many additional millions in the satellite states. The break-up of the Russian Communist empire today would doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a good deal more catastrophic for world order....26

“We benefit enormously?” Who is this “we”? Certainly not the American taxpayer, who carried the tax burden for the enormous military expenditures needed to “contain” Soviet expansionism. And who determined that freedom must be sacrificed in the name of “world order”? Dr. Bloomfield, in the same classified IDA study cited earlier, again let the world-government cat out of the bag. If the communists remained too militant and threatening, he observed,

“the subordination of states to a true world government appears impossible; but if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might well lose whatever incentive it has for world government.”27 (Emphasis added)

In other words, the world order Insiders were faced with the following conundrum: How do we make the Soviets menacing enough to convince Americans that world government is the only answer because confrontation is untenable; but, at the same time, not make the Soviets so menacing that Americans would decide to fight rather than become subject to communist tyrants? Are we unfairly stretching these admissions? Not at all. Keep in mind that from the end of World War II, up to the very time these statements were being written, the communists had brutally added Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Hungary, East Germany, China, Tibet, North Vietnam, and Cuba to their satellite empire and were aggressively instigating revolutions throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

And, as was later demonstrated by the historical research of Dr. Antony Sutton and other scholars, all of these Soviet conquests had been immeasurably helped by massive and continuous transfusions from the West to the Kremlin of money, credit, technology, and scientific knowledge.28 It was arranged for and provided by the same CFR-affiliated policy elitists who recognized in the “communist dynamic” they created an “incentive” for the people in the West to accept “world government.”


Project Phoenix

The U.S. Departments of State and Defense funded numerous other studies about U.S.-USSR convergence and world order under UN control. In 1964, the surfacing of the Project Phoenix reports generated sufficient constituent concern to prompt several members of Congress to protest the funding of such studies.29 But there was not enough pressure to force Congress to launch full investigations that could have led to putting an end to taxpayer funding of these serious attacks on American security and our constitutional system of government.

Produced by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Phoenix studies openly advocated “unification” of the U.S. and USSR.30 The following passages taken from Study Phoenix Paper dated June 4, 1963 leaves no doubt about this goal:

Unification - ... At present the approach ... may appear so radical that it will be dismissed out of hand; nevertheless, its logical simplicity ... is so compelling that it seems to warrant more systematic ....

Today, the United States and the Soviet Union combined have for all practical purposes a near monopoly of force in the world. If the use and direction of this power could somehow be synchronized, stability and, indeed even unity might be within reach.31 The Phoenix studies, like many other government reports before and after, urged increased U.S. economic, scientific, and agricultural assistance to the Soviet Union. These recommendations are totally consistent with the long-range “merger” plans admitted to a decade before by Ford Foundation President Rowan Gaither. And both Republican and Democratic administrations have followed the same overall policy ever since. But world order think-tank specialists like Bloomfield realized that the incremental progress made through these programs was too slow. He even lamented that reaching the final goal “could take up to two hundred years.”32


Bloomfield then noted that there was “an alternate road” to merger and eventual world government, one that “relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.”33 The taxpayer-funded academic explained that “the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”34 Incredible? Impossible? Couldn’t happen here? Many Americans thought so 30 years ago - before “perestroika,” the Persian Gulf War, propaganda about global warming, and other highly publicized developments. But by the fall of 1990, Newsweek magazine would be reporting on the emerging reality of,

“Superpowers as Super” and “a new order.... the United States and the Soviet Union, united for crisis management around the globe.”35 (Emphasis added)

In a seeming tipping of his hat to Bloomfield, President Bush would state in his official August 1991 report, National Security Strategy of The United States: “I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis was the crucible of the new world order.”36 The CFR’s house academics were already beating the convergence drums. Writing in the Winter 1990 issue of Foreign Policy (published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Thomas G. Weiss (CFR) and Meryl A. Kessler exhorted: “If Washington is to seize the full potential of this opportunity, it will have to ... begin to treat the Soviet Union as a real partner.” The long-planned partnership began to take form officially with the signing of “A Charter for American- Russian Partnership and Friendship” by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on June 17, 1992. Among the many commitments for joint action in this agreement, we find the following:

  • “... Summit meetings will be held on a regular basis”

  • “The United States of America and the Russian Federation recognize the importance of the United Nations Security Council” and support “the strengthening of UN peace-keeping”

  • The parties are determined “to cooperate in the development of ballistic missile defense capabilities and technologies,” and work toward creation of a joint “Ballistic Missile Early Warning Center”

  • “In view of the potential for building a strategic partnership between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, the parties intend to accelerate defense cooperation between their military establishments ...”

  • “The parties will also pursue cooperation in peacekeeping, counter-terrorism, and counternarcotics missions”37

Before this charter had even been signed, however, our new “partners” were already landing their bombers on American soil. Airman, a magazine for the U.S. Air Force, reported in large headlines for the cover story of its July 1992 issue: “The Russians Have Landed.” The cover also featured a photo of the two Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers and an An-124 transport which had landed on May 9th at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. An accompanying article noted that the Russians were given,

“a rousing salute from a brass band and a thrilled gathering of Air Force people and civilians who waved U.S. and Commonwealth of Independent States flags.”

The long-standing plan of the Insiders calls for a merger of the U.S. and the USSR (or Commonwealth of Independent States as it has become) and then world government under the United Nations (see Chapter 5). Details leading to completion of the plan are unfolding week after week, month after month, before an almost totally unaware America.



1. Smith Hempstone, Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends (New York: Frederic A. Praeger, 1962), p. 190.
2. Graham Hancock, Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989), p. 108.
3. V. Orval Watts, The United Nations: Planned Tyranny (New York: Devin-Adair, 1955), pp. 7-8.
4. Adlai E. Stevenson, “Working Toward a World Without War” in Disarmament: The New U.S. Initiative, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication 8, General Series 5, released September 1962 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), p. 19.
5. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, Institute For Defense Analyses, March 10, 1962. Prepared for IDA in support of a study submitted to the Deparment of State under contract No. SCC 28270, February 24, 1961.
6. Ibid., p. iv.
7. Ibid., p. 1.
8. Ibid., p. 2.
9. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
10. Ibid., p. 3.
11. Ibid., p. 19.
12. Ibid., p. 23.
13. Ibid., p. 25.
14. Ibid.
15. See, for example, Philippa Schuyler, Who Killed The Congo? (New York: Devin-Adair, 1962.)
16. See, for example, G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1964), Part I, “Katanga: A Case History,” Chapter 4, “The Moderates.”
17. See, for example, Griffin, p. 11.
18. See, for example, Griffin, Chapter 3, “Seceding From Chaos.”
19. Hempstone, p. 68.
20. UN document S/4347. See also: Griffin, p. 16; and Hempstone, pp. 110-111.
21. Hempstone, pp. 190-93.
22. The 46 Civilian Doctors of Elisabethville, 46 Angry Men (Belmont, MA: American Opinion, 1962; originally published by Dr. T. Vleurinck, 96 Avenue de Broqueville, Bruxelles 15, 1962), pp. 60-63.
23. Congressman Donald L. Jackson (narrator), Katanga: The Untold Story, available on video (VHS, 59 minutes) from American Media, Westlake Village, CA.
24. See, for example: Richard N. Gardner, “The Case for Practical Internationalism,” Foreign Affairs, Spring 1988, p. 837.
25. “Protest Over Berlin,” New York Times editorial, August 16, 1961.
26. “The Political Control of An International Police Force,” by Walter Millis. Published by the Peace Research Institute, Inc. April 1963 under U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Grant ACDA/IR-8, Volume II, p. A-14.
27. Bloomfield, p. 12.
28. See, for examples: Medford Evans, The Secret War for the A-Bomb (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953); Joseph Finder, Red Carpet (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983); George Racey Jordan, USAF (Ret.), Major Jordan’s Diaries (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952); Charles Levinson, Vodka Cola (London and New York: Gordon & Cremonesi, 1978).
And see especially the following works by Antony C. Sutton: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930 (Stanford University, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1968); Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945 (Stanford University, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1971); Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945-1965 (Stanford University, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1973); National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1973); The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (Billings, MT: Liberty House Press, 1986).
29. See, for example, Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA), quoted in Congressional Record - House, February 10, 1964, pp. 2720-24.
30. See, for example, Vincent P. Rock, “Common Action for the Control of Conflict: An Approach to the Problem of International Tension and Arms Control,” July 1963, summary document of a Project Phoenix Study performed by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Also see “Study Phoenix Paper, June 4, 1963,” p. 33, quoted in Congressional Record House, May 13, 1964.
31. Ibid.
32. Bloomfield, p. 21.
33. Ibid., p. 22.
34. Ibid.
35. Douglas Waller and Margaret Garrard Warner, “Superpowers as Superpartners,” Newsweek, September 17, 1990, p. 27.
36. National Security Strategy of the United States, The White House, August 1991, p. v.
37. A Charter for American-Russian Partnership and Friendship, signed by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on June 17, 1992 (seven-page document released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary, June 17, 1992), pp. 2, 4-5.

Back to Contents