The evidence I have accumulated is not secret, although it has never before been presented in one document. I would, however, make it clear that the reader looking for "ear-to-the-keyhole" stories will be disappointed.

The facts are themselves startling enough, and because of this I have felt it necessary to provide full documentation. Emphasis in all cases, except where otherwise stated, is my own.

CHAPTER 1. THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WORLD

In every inhabited part of the world the forces of communism and democracy are locked together in combat. In this struggle there are no neutral territories. In some countries the Communists are firmly entrenched, in others, such as the United States and the British Commonwealth, the free peoples hold positions of immense strength. There is, however, a vast no man's land composed of nations in which the issue is in the balance, where probably within the next two decades the supremacy of one side or another will decide the fate of mankind for centuries to come.

This is not an all-out military struggle, and it is unlikely to develop into one, fought even with conventional weapons. A nuclear war, with whole cities being blasted out of existence in a matter of seconds, is even more unlikely. Such events would be the products of madmen. These do not exist among the leaders and potential leaders of the free nations. Nor does Khrushchev, even when he is in his cups, show the slightest inclination to risk the destruction of what he and his forerunners have taken such pains to build. The evidence of the Berlin blockade, Korea and the Middle East show beyond doubt that armed conflict on a global basis is not part of Soviet strategy.

Indeed there is no reason why it should be. The Russian leaders are realists. They know that the third world war is already in progress, and believe that they are winning it. This great and decisive struggle for supremacy is being fought, not between sputniks in outer space, but between economic systems on earth.

The weapons are marketable commodities such as cars, tractors, industrial equipment, power stations and consumer goods of all types. The main armies are not soldiers, but salesmen who, operating as a disciplined force, have been told to get into world markets and drive out the products of the western democracies. That is the new war. It is based upon the simple truth that Britain-still regarded as the main bulwark against the spread of communism-is either a great trading nation or is not a great nation. Deprived of our trade we become a comparatively unimportant island in the North Sea. We would be incapable of de fending ourselves, of maintaining our population or playing our full part in world affairs. Without a constant and sufficient supply of food and raw materials from overseas we are doomed. We know that, and so do the Russians. We are also the heart of a great Commonwealth, and the mainspring of the sterling area. Break this country through destroying its economy and the dream of world communism comes much nearer to reality.

This type of warfare is the more dangerous because of its subtlety. We may not awaken before it is too late. For this reason the Soviet Union runs the most efficient and most costly propaganda machine in the world. Day in and day out it conducts a barrage against the minds of the free peoples. By lies, half-truths and innuendoes, it seeks to weaken our morale, undermine faith in our way of life, and above all to direct our attention away from the real danger. Not the least important part of the Soviet trade-war machine exists inside Britain's key exporting industries. There, under the guise of militant trade unionism, a constant battle is going on against the productive efficiency without which we cannot in the long run meet the Soviet challenge.

These Soviet agents, many of whom hold important positions in the Trade Union Movement, have caused concern among such men as Bill Carron, president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who has described them as subversives "acting under the dictates of a foreign power with the declared purpose of wrecking Britain's economy." 1

It is in this light that the activities of Communists everywhere must be assessed. They are part of a plan, which has been avowed by all Russian leaders from Lenin to Khrushchev, to establish communism on a world basis. Like Hitler, these men, and the theoreticians before them, have frankly declared both their aims and the methods through which they hope to achieve them. Unlike

1 Empire News, Sept. 8, 1957.

Hitler they have relentlessly pursued these aims without unnecessary risk of armed conflict. They are not men in a hurry.

There is a further similarity. When Hitler was proclaiming his intentions from the housetops, many people either dismissed him as a crank, or in any event refused to heed the warning. So it is today. Leaders of British public opinion, perhaps influenced by the day-to-day propaganda utterances of the Soviet leaders, are reluctant to accept Communist avowals at their true value. We cannot complain that they have not been constantly and concisely expressed. Over a century ago, for example, the Communist Manifesto, the first fundamental document of modern communism, was simple, straightforward, and to the point. It stated:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. In it the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite."

This was given reality by the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia in 1917. The world movement achieved a base from which it could reach out into the farthest corners of the globe. Adherents in all countries have since then consciously accepted the doctrine that the U.S.S.R. is the Communist heartland, and that its rulers are the potential masters of all mankind.

Directives circulated through hosts of subsidiary organizations have since poured out from the Kremlin, and been accepted and acted upon without question by party members and supporters in every country. These Soviet agents straddle the earth, ready to subordinate everything, their country, their trade unions, their families and even themselves, to the task of ensuring Soviet domination. Their duty has, in spite of the heavy Marxist jargon, never been more clearly expressed than by P. E. Vishinsky, the Soviet theoretician who stated in 1948:

"At present the only determining criterion of revolutionary proletarian internationalism is: Are you for or against the U.S.S.R., the motherland of the world proletariat? An internationalist is not one who verbally recognizes international solidarity or sympathizes with it. A real internationalist is one who brings his sympathy and recognition up to the point of practical and maximal help to the U.S.S.R. in support and defense of the U.S.S.R. by every means and in every possible form. Actual cooperation with the U.S.S.R., the readiness of the workers of any country to subject all their aims to the basic problem of strengthening the U.S.S.R. in their struggle this is the manifestation of revolutionary proletarian internationalism on the part of workmen in foreign countries. * * * The defense of the US.S.R., as of the socialist motherland of the world proletariat, is the holy duty of every honest man everywhere and not only of the citizens of the U.S.S.R.""

This welding of international Communist forces into one mighty army directed and controlled by Russia, and owing unqualified allegiance to those in power in that country, has been a prime task of party members everywhere since 1917. Any sign of deviation or movement toward national communism has been ruthlessly suppressed, either by mass executions where Communists rule, or expulsion from the party where dissident comrades are fortunate enough to live in a democracy.

How this army could be used to achieve world conquest was outlined by Lenin many years ago, and incorporated in volume V, page 141, of his Selected Works. It so impressed Stalin that he repeated the general theme in a major speech in 1924, and it has since been included in every edition of his works (the most recent being in English in 1943 and in Russian in 1949).

This important directive boils down to four essentials:

1. Building up the strength of the Soviet Union.

2. Organizing subversion in the industrialized capitalist states.

3. The fomenting of revolt in colonial countries.

4. A final onslaught, using whatever methods are most suitable in the light of prevailing conditions in the country or countries concerned.

The struggle for the world

The essential aim was summarized in the following statement: "The victory of socialism in one country is not a self-sufficient task. The revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as

* "Problems of Philosophy," Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1948.

a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in all countries. For the victory of the revolution in one country, in the present case Russia *** is the beginning of and the groundwork for the world revolution." 3

These are the words of Stalin, taken from Problems of Leninism published in 1941. They declare the blunt truth-that Soviet foreign policy is one of worldwide expansion.

The example of Hungary shows exactly the conditions under which the Soviet leaders will go to war. They will do so when the victim is helpless to retaliate, when they feel they are secure from armed intervention by other nations, and when the use of Soviet armed strength is necessary to obtain or retain complete and absolute control.

Korea and Malaya are instances of an attempt to achieve conquest by proxy, although in each case the immediate aim was almost certainly more economic than military. The importance of Malayan rubber to the economies of Western Europe and to the stability of the sterling area is as evident to the Russians as it is to us.

The Korean war, apart from sparking off a propaganda campaign in which the Russians out-Goebbeled Goebbels, also caused the British Labor Government to embark upon an arms program which, by diverting men and materials from badly needed schemes for capital development, and the manufacture of products for export, struck a severe blow against our economy. It also paved the way for many of the industrial troubles from which we have since suffered. Those who doubt the ability of Russia to exert immense influence in this country might ponder over the fact that from 1950 onward our whole budgetary structure was conditioned by the Soviet military adventure in Korea.

The shift of emphasis from military conflict to trade war was foreshadowed by Stalin in a treatise published just before his death. Referring to the economic integration of the Communist bloc, he stated:

The result is a fast pace of industrial development in these countries.

It may

be confidently said that, with this pace of industrial development, it will soon come to pass that these countries will not only be in no need of imports from capitalist countries, but will themselves feel the necessity of finding an outside market for their surplus products.

But it follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the world's resources by the major capitalist countries will not expand, but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the world market will deteriorate, and that their industries will be operating more and more below capacity.

Since then this has become the spearhead of the Russian attack. It has dominated life behind the Iron Curtain, where the interest of workers, particularly in the satellites, have, as we shall see in ensuing chapters, been sacrificed to achieve capital formation in excess of that justified by existing productive capacity. Indeed, it is important to reemphasize that the drive for trade mastery has little in common with normal commercial rivalries between competitor countries. Inside the Communist countries it is planned, conducted, and financed as a military operation to be successfully concluded without regard for cost. Further, the attack has been launched with the active assistance of Communists working in every democratic country.

By 1955 the progress already made justified the Soviet announcement that communism has become a world system which is in economic competition with capitalism.

Khrushchev was even more specific when, at a reception held at the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow, he told a British reporter that "Your system will collapse through economic competition with communism."

The Communists, then, have made no secret of their aims or their methods. Political penetration, the actuality or threat of military attack, and the trade war are the avowed weapons to be used to achieve an avowed aim.

Yet in spite of warnings, and the lessons of postwar history, there are still people in high places who believe that the Kremlin is peopled by men and women dominated by fear of encirclement by hostile capitalist powers, and who have only to be given a little encouragement to become good neighbors with whom schemes for the mutual advancement of all countries can be worked out.

"Problems of Leninism," Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1941, p. 113. Stalin: "Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.," Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, p. 36. Sunday Times, Nov. 13, 1955.

In other words, they believe that the Russians are taking steps toward world domination with great reluctance, not because it is an integral part of the Communist creed, but in self-defense against the machinations of the democratic powers.

When Mr. Aneurin Bevan, then Britain's "Shadow" Foreign Minister, visited Moscow in 1957, he returned to express the view that the utterances of Soviet leaders could be dismissed as ritualistic exercises. These deserve to be categoried as famous last words. Seldom has such a dangerous statement been made by such an important man.

There is nothing ritualistic about Khrushchev's reaction when Hungary attempted to break away from the Soviet empire. Nor was it provoked by a neighborly desire to safeguard Hungarian democracy. His action was provoked by fear that if Hungary succeeded in achieving its freedom, the other satellites in which a great deal of restlessness existed would quickly follow suit.

Anyone who believes that the Communists are playing theoretical games must have slumbered since the Hitler-Stalin Pact, in August 1939, made the Second World War inevitable. This began a period of open expansion. Of the three main powers ultimately engaged in the war against Nazi Germany, only the Soviet Union gained territory.

Poland was invaded. This was followed by the attack on Finland, the annexation of Bessarabia and Bukovina, and forcible incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Those who believe that there is an easy way to peaceful coexistence with communism should note that Russia had freely negotiated nonaggression pacts with all these countries.

This expansionist phase, reminiscent of imperialism at its worst, received a setback when Hitler rounded on his ally and invaded the Soviet Union.

Once victory in Europe had been achieved, however, Russian imperialism went on with renewed impetus.

What makes this postwar period one of the great water sheds of history is that the extension of Russian control to other countries coincided with an even greater movement of withdrawal and noncommitment on the part of the democracies. At each successive stage, barriers against Communist penetration were weakened over large areas inhabited by millions of people. Russia herself became enriched by the addition of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Eastern provinces of Poland, Bessarabia, and Bukovina from Rumania, the CarpathianRuthenia province of Czechoslovakia, half of East Prussia from Germany, slices of Finland, Tannu Tuva, Dairen, and Port Arthur from China, and the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin from Japan. Quite an impressive record for a power said to be in the forefront of the fight against imperialism.

Further, it was Russia who provided aid to the Communists in China and helped to achieve the overthrow of the Nationalist Government which, incidentally, had been recognized by Stalin and Molotov in words oddly reminiscent of Hitler's solemn promises to Poland.

China thus became part of a gigantic Sino-Soviet bloc that is now in the process of becoming one huge industrial unit, from which, sooner or later, goods will flow into world markets in ever-increasing quantities.

Once in power, the Chinese Communists followed the example of their Soviet tutors. Tibet was invaded and occupied, North Korea and North Vietnam were subjugated.

It is instructive to examine the methods used by the Soviet rulers to extend the Communist base. Georgia provides a very early example of double dealing. In March 1920, the Soviet Government signed a treaty in which it unreservedly acknowledged the independence and sovereignty of the Georgian State, and renounced voluntarily all the sovereign rights which had appertained to Russia with regard to the people and territory of Georgia. It also pledged itself not to interfere in any way in Georgia's internal affairs.

In February 1921, Soviet troops invaded Georgia, and Tiflis, the capital, fell to the Bolsheviks. On the day this happened Georgia was proclaimed a Soviet republic.

The annexation of eastern Poland is another instance of Communist duplicity. In the spring of 1939, while Britain, France, and Poland were negotiating with the U.S.S.R. to form an alliance against Nazi Germany, Stalin's agents were secretly in consultation with Hitler himself. The result was a nonaggression pact between the two countries, under which the eastern half of Poland was recognized as a Soviet sphere of interest. The Nazis invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, and thus sparked off the most destructive war in the history of man. By prearrangement, the Soviet Army marched in from the east.

Soviet Foreign Minister, Molotov, speaking on October 31, 1939, boasted: "One swift blow to Poland, first by the German Army, and then by the Red army, and nothing remained of this ugly offispring of the Versailles Treaty."" Bessarabia and the northern province of Bukovina were acquired by the simple procedure of massing Red army troops on the Rumanian frontier, and delivering an ultimatum that the Rumanian forces move out of these areas and be replaced by Soviet military units, and that all railways, bridges, airfields, factories, and powerplants be handed over in good order.

The Russians moved in on June 28, 1940, and by a combination of force and bullying, seized these territories.

Another classic example of Soviet foreign policy in action occurred in Finland. In the autumn of 1939 Russia demanded territorial concessions and attempted to obtain them by diplomatic bullying and threats of force. When these maneuvers failed, the Soviet Government decided to invade.

In defiance of the Russo-Finnish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934, an armed attack was launched on November 30, 1939. Finland promptly appealed to the League of Nations, and as a result Russia suffered expulsion from that body. The Finns held out until March of the following year, when they were compelled to surrender large areas including Karelia, in which was situated Viipuri, their second largest town.

Further hostilities broke out in June 1941, and when an armistice was signed 3 years later, the Soviet Union had, by armed aggression, acquired nearly 18,000 square miles-about one-eighth of Finland's total territory-and a population of nearly 600,000 people. Two-thirds of these chose to be resettled in other parts of their country rather than remain under Soviet rule.

The fate of the Baltic States, like that of eastern Poland, was settled by the secret pact agreed by Hitler and Stalin in 1939. All three, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, had signed nonaggression pacts with the U.S.S.R.

When the war broke out they gave way to severe diplomatic pressure and reluctantly accepted pacts of mutual assistance which gave the Soviet Armies the right of admittance into their territory.

Molotov, surely one of the most cynical statesmen in history, gave his assurance that these agreements "strictly stipulate the inviolability of the sovereignty of the signatory states, and the principle of noninterference in each other's affairs. They are based upon mutual respect for the political, social and economic structure of the contracting parties, and are designed to strengthen the foundations for peaceful, neighborly cooperation between our peoples."

Molotov said this when he knew that Stalin, by agreement with Hitler, had already decided to annex these countries.

When the Baltic States were finally occupied by the Red army in 1944, the people did not surrender without a struggle. Russia embarked upon a campaign of terror, execution and mass deportation which lasted for several years. Thousands of Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians were dispatched to Siberia, and thousands more fled to West Germany and Britain. One of the most pathetic incidents reported was that 30,000 Estonians set out for Sweden in an armada of small boats, a venture, which was estimated to have cost nearly 10,000 lives.

The methods used in all three cases followed the familiar pattern-broken treaties, duplicity and ultimatum backed by force. With the fate of Finland staring them in the face, the three tiny countries, with a total population of less than 6 million, had no alternative but to yield.

Rigged elections on the usual Communist lines took place, and the grisly farce was played out to the end when at their own request Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, their peoples, culture, traditions and way of life, vanished behind the Iron Curtain.

With the war over, Russia was not content to rest on her very considerable territorial gains. She began to export revolution in earnest. Trained Communist cadres, Soviet troops and political police armed with an established technique for rigging elections, poured into Eastern European countries.

The principles of Potsdam and Yalta were speedily jettisoned, and many European satesmen had their first practical experience of Communist doubletalk and double-think. Clauses in the agreements were distorted beyond recognition. "Democratic elements," for instance, was so twisted that it referred only to Communists and their sympathizers. "Fascists" and "reactionaries"

Speech to the Fifth (Extraordinary) Session of the Supreme Soviet, Oct. 31, 1939.