Jewish Propaganda and Soviet Infiltration

This broadcast aired on Monday, August 26, 2024, between 8 and 9PM Eastern Time, WBCQ Radio in Monticello, Maine, 7490kHz. Below you can find a slightly edited transcript of this radio show. Download an mp3 file of this show here (right-click, and pick “Save Link As…” from context menu).
All broadcasts and podcasts by Hadding Scott’s “Devil’s Advocate Radio” are also accessible on X/Twitter @UnapprovedRadio.

Welcome to The Devil’s Advocate. I am your host, Hadding Scott. This program is sponsored by ARMREG Ltd. That’s A-R-M-R-E-G Ltd., a seller of historical revisionist books. There will be information about ARMREG Ltd. at the end of this broadcast. Please do listen to that.

Since I brought up in my last broadcast the question of fanaticism and propaganda here in the United States, and how it is that the USA got dragged into the Second World War and gets dragged into wars in general, I have been reading observations by conservative American authors about how that happens. A very conspicuous factor in the United States and in Britain in the 1930s was Jewish agitation. American conservative authors, of course, tend not to talk about this.

I found a British author, however, who has some things to say about it. Sidney Rogerson, in his 1938 book Propaganda in the Next War, gave some space to talking about Jewish war agitation from a British perspective. This was an extremely influential book that was read by British diplomats, but, as I understand, was banned from public sale in Britain in 1939, because it reveals so much.

Rogerson says that ordinary British people had tended to be sympathetic to Germany. Certainly, British pro-German sentiment was evident in 1936, with the photographs of Adolf Hitler being visited by former Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and later with a visit by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. You may also have seen the photographs of the royal princesses Elizabeth and Margaret raising their arms in the Roman salute.

Rogerson explains the role of Jews in war agitation, starting with the First World War.

“Before 1914, Russia was the great persecutor of the Jews, and Germany was quick to spark a propaganda capital that could be made out of England’s alliance with Russia.”

Let me just insert here a passage from page 141 of Rogerson’s book, about how Britain overcame the stigma of alliance with Russia in the First World War, and persuaded Jews to support the Entente:

“It has been estimated that of the world Jewish population of approximately 15 millions, no fewer than five millions are in the United States. 25 percent of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War, we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorff to be the master stroke of Allied propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America, but to Jews in Germany as well.”

With that great shift in Jewish sympathies following the Balfour Declaration, Hollywood and Jewish-controlled mass media in general, of which there was already a great deal, began to make anti-German propaganda. Some say that Zionist Jews close to President Woodrow Wilson also influenced him to take the USA to war, even though Wilson had been re-elected on the slogan, “He kept us out of war!”, he took the USA to war anyway. And the influence of these advisers, these Jewish friends of his, explains the change of direction, doesn’t it? But back to Rogerson on page 63:

“In the next war, the boot will be on the other leg. All over the world, and especially in the USA, Jews will be active against Germany, and the Jew is a natural and very energetic propagandist, though perhaps not a very far-seeing one. There are, however, cross-currents in the tide of world Jewry. The identification of Russian Jews with Communism, for example, and Palestine, another of our war propaganda hens which come home to roost, which should warn us not to rely too much on having world Jewry entirely in our favor.”

Rogerson continues on page 76:

“At present, we are, with traditional readiness, giving shelter to large numbers of persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria. It would be against nature if these immigrants, whether permanent or in passage, did not harbour resentment against the countries which had expelled them. It should not be grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism to point out that a great many of them are making an active propaganda to incite feeling against Germany.”

And on page 92:

“The eagerness with which Jewish partisans seize each and every opportunity to ram home propaganda regarding their persecution is nearing the danger line. It is bringing the Jewish problem into prominence, always an undesirable thing to do from the Jewish point of view, and thereby indirectly reinforcing the anti-Semitic propaganda put out by Germany. Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain, where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti-Semitic.”

And anti-Semitism, according to Rogerson,

“seldom breaks out except during a period of serious trade depression or unless driven underground. The former may arrive in the near future, and the latter is now being done as a result of the Jewish anti-German propaganda.”

So, Rogerson is saying that in 1938 ordinary British people could see Jewish agitation for war. They could see Jews agitating for war. And they resented it.

Elsewhere, Rogerson mentions that, even during the First World War, working-class British people continued to feel that they and the Germans were very much alike. British people had never wanted to go to war against Germany, and they certainly did not want to go to war again, just as American and French people did not want to go to war again. Furthermore, many viewed the revivified Germany under Adolf Hitler as an effective bulwark against the Soviet menace, so that attacking Germany would make no sense.

Rogerson also incidentally, you may have noticed, validated what has been contemptuously called the stab-in-the-back legend. Rogerson wrote in that book in 1938 that Jews, even in Germany, had indeed turned against Germany during the First World War because of the Balfour Declaration. Another factor in the Jewish turn against Germany during the First World War, however, which Rogerson does not mention, what I think is a likely factor, is the overthrow of the Tsar in early 1917.

Even Jews who were not themselves communists may have felt less disposed to support Germany after the elimination of that hated Russian monarch. In any case, Rogerson indicated in 1938 that Jewish attitudes toward wars were all about Jewish interests, and not about British or American interests. In the USA, the constant Jewish agitation against Germany from 1933 forward seems to have laid the foundation for war.

The cross-currents that Sidney Rogerson mentioned, Zionism and Communism, interfered with the effectiveness of this Jewish agitation to some extent. Because during the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from October 1939 to June 1941, that was the non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, communists in general around the world became anti-war activists. Certainly, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a trying moment for some communist Jews. But it is clear enough that many continued to support Comrade Stalin, because so many of the Soviet spies uncovered in the 1940s and early 1950s happened to be Jews.

Zionist Jews, for their part, undermined efforts to isolate and destroy Germany economically by making the Haavara Agreement, facilitating emigration of Jews from Germany to Palestine, in a deal that allowed Hitler’s Germany to acquire desperately needed foreign currency. During the war, some Zionist Jews also became anti-British terrorists. The future Prime Minister Menachem Begin is a famous example of this.

While Jewish agitation in the 1930s had spent several years trying to influence American attitudes toward Hitler’s Germany, penetration of the government and other important institutions by Soviet agents and sympathizers seems to have been the crucial factor in taking the USA to war.

In that era of the Great Depression, communism had become somewhat fashionable. Americans from a lineage of Protestant fanatics, like many New Englanders, also often became communists. Communist folk singer Pete Seeger was a famous example of this. Consequently, some of the top names in Soviet subversion of the USA during the Second World War were not Jewish. Enough of the subversives were Jews, however, that the charge of anti-Semitism became an effective weapon against investigations of communist subversion.

The accusation of anti-Semitism was very loudly employed, for example, against Senator Joseph McCarthy, driving him in 1952 to hire the reckless and generally unhelpful Roy Cohn and G. David Schein as assistants to shield him against this charge of anti-Semitism, and they actually contributed to his downfall because of their recklessness.

Today, of course, the charge of anti-Semitism is again being used very conspicuously to stifle criticism. Of course, today there is no Soviet foreign influence, but instead it’s Israeli foreign influence. The accusation of anti-Semitism is explicitly being used to stifle criticism of the State of Israel. Criticism of the State of Israel is written into what’s called the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, published by something called the International Holocaust Remembrance Association. Obviously, this International Holocaust Remembrance Association is all about stifling criticism of the State of Israel. Much of Holocaust propaganda is about stifling criticism of the State of Israel.

There are some important analogies between what happened in the era of the Second World War and what is happening today.

I mentioned in an earlier broadcast John T. Flynn. John T. Flynn was a founding member of the America First Committee, who was quite prominent. He was a prominent journalist and an advisor to senators. He wrote a book that was published in 1954 called While You Slept. This was a retrospective on the hijacking of U.S. foreign policy during the Second World War for the benefit of the Soviet Union. Flynn talks about various forms of propaganda as one form of subversion and about the infiltration of media and government. Thus, there are two areas of focus in Flynn’s book, subversion through the formation of public opinion and subversion of policy. The former subversion of public opinion, the misleading of the people, is a prerequisite for being able to implement bad policies, policies that are bad for the people, which is what happened in the Second World War.

When this book appeared in 1954, Senator Joseph McCarthy had been for four years a focus of attacks in mass media for his statements about communist infiltration and influence in the federal government. Specifically, in regard to the distortion of foreign policy in favor of the Soviet Union, especially in East Asia, which led to a communist takeover in China and North Korea, and ultimately the USA’s military intervention in Korea in 1950. So therefore, the communist takeover in East Asia was quite a hot issue in the early 1950s.

Flynn’s book can be seen partly as a defense of Senator McCarthy, but it is also a defense of the Hollywood investigations of the immediate post-war period. And also there was an investigation in 1941, before the USA even got into the war, because there was evident Hollywood agitation for war in late 1941.

More broadly, however, this is a book about how the American people were, as Flynn puts it, drugged into going to war, drugged into going to war. This is about how the American people were led into a war that four-fifths of them did not want.

It is never mentioned in mainstream media’s representations today of what they like to call McCarthyism, that this happened as a reaction to events during and related to the Second World War. It was evident then, and even more evident today, that pro-Soviet Hollywood did try to drag the USA to war in 1941. And it was evident that U.S. foreign policy was manipulated by Soviet sympathizers and by outright Soviet agents during the war.

John T. Flynn, however, is more careful than Senator McCarthy had been. Flynn emphasizes that, unlike McCarthy in his less cautious moments, he does not say that all of these pro-Soviet manipulators were Communist Party members or Soviet agents. Instead, Flynn talks about intellectualism and intellectual trendiness as forces that made some influential persons into dupes of Soviet interests.

We can see something similar today where you have all these Israel-first politicians and Israel-first media people who are, in most cases, certainly not Mossad agents. But they’ve just got this idea that it’s good to support the State of Israel at all costs, even to the detriment of the USA, they should support the State of Israel. It was the same kind of thing during the Second World War in relation to supporting the Soviet Union. Same kind of thing. Same attitude.

When Donald Trump revived the slogan America First in 2016 and then was elected president, this very obviously caused enormous consternation for the people who want the USA constantly attacking foreign countries. Neocons like William Crystal were very conspicuously hostile toward Trump. And in the Republican primaries, billionaires tried very hard to displace Trump with their preferred candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who would have been more friendly to their agenda.

Given the association of America First with anti-interventionism, those Zionist warmongers should have been upset, especially since Trump had attacked their biggest project so far, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as a terrible blunder. Historical amnesia, however, seems to have facilitated sweeping all of that under the rug. They pretend now that America First does not mean anti-interventionism. I saw some questioning of Republican politicians recently by independent journalist Michael Tracy, very interesting guy, who asked these politicians about the rather obvious contradiction between America First and support for the State of Israel, which has had and is likely to continue having some terrible consequences for the United States of America.

The response of these Republican politicians was that there is no contradiction between America First and Israel First. They’re one and the same. The best way to support the United States of America is to support the State of Israel. I don’t know how anybody can believe that.

The same kind of argument was used during the Second World War. People who wanted the USA to support the Soviet Union, because they loved the Soviet Union, claimed that the best way to defend the USA was to support the Soviet Union. The Secretary General of the Communist Party USA, Earl Browder, even said, “Communism is 20th century Americanism,” even though being a member of the Communist Party USA meant strictly following the line laid down by Moscow.

Going to war to save the Soviet Union and going to war to save the State of Israel, which is what the invasion of Iraq was all about; it’s also what the destruction of Libya and the planned destruction of Syria and the currently ongoing attempt to destroy Russia; it’s what these things are all about. These are projects to save the State of Israel from having to face adversaries.

But anyway, they’re all justified with the same argument. Going to war to save the Soviet Union and going to war to save the State of Israel are argued in the same way.

“It’s better to fight them over there than to wait and fight them over here.”

Even though the prospect of ever having to fight them over here is essentially zero. Unless our government brings in a bunch of undesirable immigrants, as it has been doing for some time now.

Of course, today we also have AIPAC, the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, effectively buying federal elected officials without even being required to register as a foreign agent. This ability to corrupt public officials overtly without consequence is an advantage that Soviet subversion during the Second World War did not have. Furthermore, anti-communism was a strong majority attitude in the USA back in the 1930s and 40s, although an influential minority held the opposite view.

It is a thoroughly verified fact today that there were Soviet agents occupying influential positions in the Roosevelt administration. Most prominently, there was Harry Dexter White, who guided Roosevelt into approving the Morgenthau Plan at the Quebec Conference in 1943. And there was Alger Hiss, who guided Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference, where many concessions were made to Soviet interests.

In this matter of pro-Soviet influence, an important but also puzzling character is Harry Hopkins. The biggest influence on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with the possible exception of his perversely and annoyingly idiosyncratic wife and cousin, Eleanor, seems to have been this Harry Hopkins.

Who was Harry Hopkins? Harry Hopkins was born in the Midwest of parents who had traveled there from other places. His father, David Aldona Hopkins, was a Yankee from Bangor, Maine, and his mother, Anna Pickett, was a Protestant religious fanatic from Hamilton, Ontario. With that kind of parentage, it is not altogether surprising that Harry Hopkins became a professional do-gooder. He and an older sister became social workers and implementers of what was known in those days as the social gospel.

After graduating from Grinnell College in 1912, Harry Hopkins took a job at Christadora House, a settlement house among the Jewish immigrants in New York City’s Lower East Side. In 1913, Harry Hopkins took a position with the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. In that period, Harry Hopkins also married his first wife, a Jewish woman of leftist political views, which were very likely also already Harry Hopkins political views.

In that era, Christian socialism was a thing, and it could also happen that Christians losing their faith in the supernatural, but retaining their universalist morality, might become socialists or even communists. This was, for example, the case of the parents of Roger Waters, who had been Pink Floyd Roger Waters. His parents, he said, had been some form of fanatical Christian, and then sometime early in the Second World War, they became communists instead.

By 1915, the municipal government of New York had taken notice of Harry Hopkins, and he was appointed the executive secretary of the city’s Bureau of Child Welfare. Then he worked for the American Red Cross and became president of the American Association of Social Workers, which he had helped to found, and he did other things along those lines. Hopkins became the protégé of Eleanor Roosevelt, whose husband and cousin, Franklin, was at that time governor of New York. And so in 1932, Harry Hopkins was made president of New York’s Relief Administration. Then the following year, when Franklin Roosevelt became president of the United States, Harry Hopkins was taken to Washington to do similar work at the federal level.

At the same time that Harry Hopkins had made a career out of being ostentatiously concerned for the poor and downtrodden, he was also a snob who despised ordinary Americans. He was, as you might say, perversely idiosyncratic, like Eleanor Roosevelt. It’s a personality syndrome that is easy to hate. Hopkins was also a spendthrift and a gambler, tendencies which are normally considered a red flag for national-security considerations.

By the late 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be grooming Hopkins as his successor, but then Harry Hopkins had a serious bout with stomach cancer, leading to the surgical removal of a large part of his stomach. This caused Harry Hopkins to be chronically malnourished for the rest of his life. He died in 1946. The grooming of Hopkins as a successor ended, and Roosevelt ran for an unprecedented third term instead.

On the 10th of May 1940, Harry Hopkins was invited to take up residence in the White House’s Lincoln Bedroom. It almost seems as if, for most of Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms, Harry Hopkins became the de facto president of the United States. Roosevelt was greatly influenced by Hopkins, and he would send Hopkins on long missions across the ocean with a letter of introduction stating that whatever would have been said to President Roosevelt should instead be said in total confidence to Harry Hopkins.

Harry Hopkins was Franklin Roosevelt’s chief emissary to Winston Churchill, and became the administrator of Lend-Lease when that program started in March 1941. It was Harry Hopkins who urged President Franklin Roosevelt to use U.S. naval patrols to guard convoys of war material on their way to Britain in the Western Atlantic before any state of war between the United States and Germany existed. This was bound to involve the United States of America in an undeclared naval war against Germany, and that is indeed what happened.

What was Harry Hopkins’s qualification to recommend something like this? He was an administrator of relief agencies who had never served in any armed forces whatsoever. This was the son of a religious fanatic mother who had built a career on his apparent impulse to assist the unfortunate. That, however, all takes place within the sheltered confines of orderly civilization.

Is it not possible that somebody like that, a social worker, turned loose in the wild world of foreign policy, might be disposed to commit some serious blunders? War and foreign policy are no place for moral fanaticism as a motive. Yet, there he was, apparently exerting an enormous influence on President Franklin Roosevelt in foreign policy. Roosevelt brought Harry Hopkins along to the conferences at Casablanca, Cairo, Tehran and Yalta, but not to the conference in Quebec.

I became interested in this question of the influence of Harry Hopkins because I was trying to find an explanation for Franklin Roosevelt’s insane and highly destructive demand for unconditional surrender, which was promulgated at the Casablanca conference in early 1943. I have not seen credit explicitly given to Harry Hopkins, but from what I’m reading so far, it seems that he is very likely the culprit.

This program is sponsored by ARM Reg Ltd., a seller of historical revisionist books. Listen at the end of this program for details about our sponsor.

Conservative columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote in 1951:

“Harry Hopkins was beyond question a communist, though probably not a member of their party. Many communists aren’t. He gave himself away when, with the war well won, he wrote happily over the prospect of our drafting both men and women for enforced labor at fixed wages, wherever any commissar should send us. The wife to one area, the husband to another. Hopkins gloated over the thought of a genteel moral woman in a religious American home, compelled to keep boarding house for any riffraff that might be billeted upon her by some group of terrorists with a grudge against her. It was vicious. That told me all about Harry Hopkins.”

Conscription of civilian labor was something that had been publicly proposed by Eleanor Roosevelt shortly after Pearl Harbor. And Westbrook Pegler wrote about this several times during the war. But apparently they never stopped pushing this idea of a civilian labor conscription. Pegler attributes this to a progressive agenda that really existed independently of the war. He quotes from Harry Hopkins, who had written:

“No American anywhere not in the war effort should be allowed to decide for himself how much he will do or how much he will give. Women who cannot work in factories and shops will perform such essential tasks as caring for children whose mothers are working in munitions plants. Workers will have to be billeted in homes, and many a social leader will become a boarding housekeeper. Doctors and dentists will go to communities where they are most needed. Some students will quit high school. I see no reason for wasting time on non-essentials such as Chaucer and Latin. A diploma can only be framed and hung on a wall. It does mean you and it won’t blow over.”

Harry Hopkins was saying that American citizens would have to do these things on the command of the federal government. So, what he was advocating was very clearly totalitarianism. That quote comes from Westbrook Pegler’s Fair Enough column of February 16th, 1945.

In Pegler’s assessment, direction of private citizens’ lives was an agenda of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins that existed entirely independent of the war. And really, the war was just being used as a pretext for it. That was his opinion. And I’m not sure if that’s exactly communism, but that combined with Hopkins’s admiration of Joseph Stalin are understandable reasons why Pegler would label Harry Hopkins a communist. Back to Westbrook Pegler:

“Biographer Robert Sherwood writes that Hopkins sacrificed much in devoted service to our country. That is incorrect. Hopkins served Stalin and Soviet Russia, not my country. He admired Stalin. He had contempt for the Americans who were too damned dumb to understand. He earned the honor of burial in the Kremlin.”

That appeared in the Rome News Tribune of the 18th of June, 1951.

Well, was Harry Hopkins a Soviet agent? Westbrook Pegler says that he was loyal to the Soviet Union and to Stalin, not to the USA. But what exactly does that mean? In 1990, KGB: The Inside Story, a book by Soviet defector Oleg Gordievsky, revealed the identities of many former Soviet agents, including Michael Strait, who, as editor of the New Republic, had once labeled concern about Soviet infiltration of American institutions as witch hunting. Gordievsky in his book also confirmed that many accused Soviet agents had been correctly accused, and also revealed that Duncan Lee, who was William Donovan’s assistant in the OSS, had been a Soviet agent. And that’s in a column by Jeffrey Hart that appeared on the 2nd of November, 1990.

In 2001, right-wing newspaper columnist William Rusher revealed that some recently revealed disencrypted Soviet spy messages revealed that Harry Hopkins had indeed been a Soviet agent. He explains it this way:

“As a law student in the late 1940s, I became fascinated with the revelations of communist penetration of American society, including Soviet espionage against the US government. The sworn testimony of former spy couriers Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley made it plain, at least to me, that hundreds of highly placed American citizens had betrayed their country to advance the cause and ultimate victory of the Soviet Union. What no one but a few intelligence professionals knew was that in the early 1940s, our government had recorded thousands of coded messages from Soviet agents in Washington and New York to their Moscow superiors. And in the ensuing years, they had managed to decode many of them. These messages clearly demonstrated that our side in the great controversy was right. Alger Hiss had indeed been a Soviet spy, as charged. So had Julius Rosenberg and scores of others. Yet, for reasons still not explained, this enormously important information was withheld from the American public until a few short years ago, when Senator Daniel Moynihan insisted that the damning documents be declassified.”

It was 1995 when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan demanded that these disencrypted spy messages be published. Before those decoded intercepts were published, it was possible for leftists and liberals to deny the full extent of Soviet penetration of the U.S. government and various sensitive positions, calling witnesses like Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley liars.

These Soviet spy messages had been intercepted and decoded by the United States Army. At the instigation of General Omar Bradley in June of 1945, and again in 1948 and 1950, the fact of a massive Soviet penetration of the federal government by Soviet agents was brought to the attention of President Truman, who apparently did not want to believe it and did not want to know. Truman seemed to regard Soviet subversion as a can of worms that he was terrified to open, apparently because of the likely political consequences. Certainly, it would be embarrassing for his Democratic Party and President Roosevelt and himself to reveal that their administrations had been full of foreign subversives.

In particular, such a revelation would reinforce the contention of America Firsters, like John T. Flynn and Congressman Hamilton Fish and other mainly Republican America Firsters, that it was foreign subversion, Soviet subversion, that had caused the USA to be dragged into the disastrous Second World War, which in 1945 was already beginning to look pretty bad with all the gains that had been granted to the Soviet Union in Europe and in East Asia.

By ignoring and suppressing this information, these decoded Soviet spy messages, President Truman and later presidents could continue to pretend that the Second World War really had been a good and just war; that all the sacrifice of American lives had been worthwhile; and also that Truman’s go-ahead to use the atomic bombs had been justified.

Back to William Rusher:

“There are still many Americans alive who can remember when the chief confidant of President Franklin Roosevelt was a man named Harry Hopkins, and they will be understandably astonished to learn that in a message dated May 29, 1943, Ishak Akhmerov, the chief Soviet illegal agent in the United States at the time, referred to an Agent 19 who had reported on discussions between Roosevelt and Churchill in Washington, at which the agent had been present. Only Harry Hopkins meets the requirements for this agent’s identity. Small wonder that Akhmerov, in a lecture in Moscow in the early 1960s, identified Hopkins by name as, quote, the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States, close quote. It took 50 years to bludgeon Alger Hiss’ defenders into admitting that this suave bureaucrat Alger Hiss, who rose to be the chief of the State Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs, had actually been a Soviet agent all along. And it will probably take another 50 to force FDR’s admirers to concede that their hero’s closest confidant and advisor was yet another Soviet agent.”

Since William Rusher referred to a statement by Soviet spymaster Ishak Akhmerov, I checked the source of that statement, which turns out to be Chapter 8 of Colonel Oleg Gordievsky’s book KGB: The Inside Story, which was published in 1990. Gordievsky says that, early in his career in the KGB, in the early 1960s, he attended a lecture given by Ishak Akhmerov, the former spymaster of illegal Soviet agents in the USA, who was by then in his 60s.

“The main subject of his lecture was the man who he alleged was the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States, Harry Hopkins, the closest and most trusted advisor of President Roosevelt.”

After learning about Harry Hopkins’s importance, Gordievsky says that he discussed Hopkins with a number of KGB officials.

“All believed that Hopkins had been an agent of major significance.”

Gordievsky says that Hopkins and Akhmerov, the spymaster, were already in contact even before Hopkins’s first visit to the Soviet Union in May 1941. About a month after the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, Hopkins got FDR’s assent for another visit to the Soviet Union. Says Gordievsky:

“No previous Western envoy had received a reception like it.”

Hopkins was highly flattered and seems to have given to the Soviet government, to the best of his ability, whatever it wanted, and anybody who tried to put limits on this generosity became Harry Hopkins’s enemy.

“Hopkins pleased the Russians by insisting on aid without strings. The American military attaché, Major John Yeaton, tried to persuade Hopkins to demand the right to send military observers to the front as a quid pro quo.”

But Hopkins would have none of that. This military attaché, John Yeaton, said that Hopkins became extremely upset at criticisms of Stalin.

“When I impugned the integrity and methods of Stalin, he could stand it no longer and shut me up with an intense, I don’t care to discuss this subject further.”

Stalin asked Harry Hopkins to arrange the removal of what he called anti-Soviet American officials. When Harry Hopkins was in charge, whatever Stalin wanted, Stalin got. Accordingly, the military attaché John Yeaton was replaced by Philip Faymonville, who happened to be an NKVD agent, and this was done in spite of warnings about Faymonville from American military intelligence. Likewise, the head of the Soviet desk in the State Department, Loy Henderson, was removed in spite of the protests of the conservative Secretary of State, Cordell Hull.

“When Stalin next encountered Hopkins at the Tehran conference in 1943, he went out of his way to greet him by walking over and warmly shaking his hand.”

If you looked closely at Harry Hopkins on that occasion, perhaps you would have seen little pink hearts rising from Harry Hopkins’s head as he swooned.

Critics of President Roosevelt’s demand for unconditional surrender warned that crushing Germany and Japan as military powers would leave large power vacuums at the eastern and western ends of the Soviet empire, and that Soviet power would certainly fill those vacuums.

This expansion of Soviet dominance was anticipated and dreaded by many, but it also happens to have been exactly the result that Roosevelt and Hopkins expected. Harry Hopkins chaired the President’s Soviet Protocol Committee, which reported in August 1943:

“Since Soviet Russia is the decisive factor in the war, she must be given every assistance, and every effort must be made to obtain her friendship. Likewise, since without question she will dominate Europe on the defeat of the Nazis, it is even more essential to develop and maintain the most-friendly relations with Russia.”

That’s quoted on page 290 of Gordievsky’s book. For whatever reason, Harry Hopkins’s only concern about how to deal with the Soviet Union seems to have been whether the USA was being friendly enough or should perhaps try to be even friendlier. Hopkins’s meetings with the Soviet spymaster Iskak Akhmarov were secret, and he never spoke about them to anyone. Gordievsky says that these meetings “remained unknown and unsuspected in the West until revealed by Gordievsky.” Surely the NKVD had made a psychological profile of Harry Hopkins in order to know how best to manipulate him. It seems that they had calculated that this snobbish do-gooder Harry Hopkins would be susceptible to flattery.

“Akhmarov’s technique in his contacts with Hopkins was to say that he brought personal and confidential messages from Stalin. He flattered Hopkins, making him believe he had a unique role to play at a critical period in the development of Soviet-American relations. What is certain is that Hopkins came to feel an extraordinary admiration for and confidence in Stalin.”

A few years later, the publication of the Venona Papers confirmed that Hopkins did secretly meet with Akhmarov. Gordievsky says that he gradually arrived at the conclusion that Harry Hopkins had never been a conscious agent. What gives some credence to that supposition is Harry Hopkins’s obvious lack of caution.

He made no secret of his pro-Soviet attitude. Certainly Westbrook Pegler, who without any of the secret information that we now have, had no hesitation about labeling Hopkins a communist.

Contrast this to Harry Dexter White, who definitely was a Soviet agent and was very careful to avoid any appearance of that kind. Maybe with his limited life expectancy after having had a large part of his stomach removed, Harry Hopkins was simply not disposed to being cautious. Remember too that Harry Hopkins was a notorious gambler. He liked taking risks. This too was a reason why he should never have been trusted in a sensitive position.

William Rusher points out that in the Soviet spy messages, Harry Hopkins was called Agent 19. Would Harry Hopkins have been called Agent 19 if he had been merely a dupe who could be flattered into blabbering secrets? This is all the more striking given that Harry Hopkins notably did not exhibit loose lips toward anybody else.

It seems that Hopkins must have known that he was a spy. Nonetheless, David Roll, the author of a recent biography of Harry Hopkins, gives a talk about Hopkins that you can find on YouTube, wherein he gives not the slightest hint of any of this. So, William Rusher was perfectly correct in his guess that the Roosevelt fanboys would ignore the evidence against Harry Hopkins, just as they ignored the evidence against Alger Hiss.

Regardless of what Harry Hopkins may have been thinking, his effect as the dominant influence on President Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War was certainly a disaster for the USA and for the white world.

You remember I mentioned that Pete Seeger was one of those communists who suddenly became anti-war for the duration of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That was from August 1939 to June 1941. Pete Seeger had a musical group called the Almanac Singers, and they were communists, they were all communists, and they recorded songs that followed the Communist Party line, the pro-Soviet line. And sadly for them, they had just released an album of anti-war songs in May of 1941, only to have Operation Barbarossa commence on June 22nd, 1941, which means all those anti-war albums had been pressed, released, distributed, and they had to be clawed back from the stores. Well, here’s a song from that album.

“It was on a Saturday night and the moon was shining bright. They passed the conscription bill. And the people they did say, for many miles away, was the president and his boys on Capitol Hill.

Old Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt. We damn near believe what he said. He said, I hate war and so does Eleanor, but we won’t be safe till everybody’s dead.

When my poor old mother died, I was sitting by her side, promising to war I’d never go. But now I’m wearing cocky jeans and eating army beans, and I’m told that J.P. Morgan loves me so.

I have wandered over this land, a Roman working man, no clothes to wear and not much food to eat. But now the government puts the bill, gives me clothes and feeds me swill, gets me shot and puts me underground six feet.

Old Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt. We damn near believe what he said. He said, I hate war and so does Eleanor, but we won’t be safe till everybody’s dead.

Why, nothing can be wrong if it makes our country strong. We gotta get tough to save democracy. And though it may mean war, we must defend Singapore. This don’t hurt you half as much as it hurts me.

Old Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt. We damn near believe what he said. He said, I hate war and so does Eleanor, but we won’t be safe till everybody’s dead.”

I think that’s a great song.

Franklin Roosevelt had started conscription and was doing other preparations for war, all the while saying, “I hate war. I do not want to send your sons off to war.” Meanwhile, he had every intention of doing exactly that.

Are you someone who is seeking to truly understand the profound lessons of our past? Look no further. At ARMREG, we are dedicated to empowering all who seek to know the truth and shame the devil. Through meticulously researched books about World War II and the Holocaust, each title offers crucial and often neglected insights and perspectives that help the honest reader to honor those who have gone before us and to enlighten future generations.

Visit us at ARMREG.co.uk. That’s A-R-M-R-E-G dot C-O dot U-K, to explore our collection and to join us in preserving and promoting real history. Remember, truth in history matters, and ARMREG is committed to sharing it with the world. Please do visit my sponsor ARMREG.

That’s A-R-M-R-E-G. A-R-M-R-E-G dot C-O dot U-K.

You can find me on Twitter/X: @UnapprovedRadio. @UnapprovedRadio on Twitter, and I’m also at this moment on live voice-chat on Paltalk. You can find me, username H-A-D-D-I-N-G on Paltalk right at this moment.