Over the years I’ve posted events or issues of immediate concern regarding Venezuela. My lack of ongoing follow-ups on those is simply due to the nature of this blog, which is not current events or news, but rather more of an interest in lesser known background and historical material.
Nevertheless, every once in a while, it is good to update certain matters raised in past posts.
This post’s title covers the essence: “Venezuelan Navy Captain Dies After Signs of Torture”. His autopsy revealed 38 torture related injuries. To this day, no one has been prosecuted for this atrocity. And that is one reason why such abominations have persisted. The latest that we know of is the case of Rocío San Miguel who in February of this year was arrested in Maiquetía, the international airport which serves Caracas, as she and her daughter were about to board a plane for a short trip to Miami. She has become one of the many “forced disappearances” in that stricken land. Last we know is that she has been charged for terrorism and conspiracy (seems that such charges are favorites of an entrenched ruling class) and is now in the Helicoide, a notorious detention center known for the brutality of its caretakers. In short, the brazen illegal and immoral treatment of the Navy captain has become a portent of worse events thereafter.
As a side note, the Helicoide was almost completed during the presidency of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. However, the army-led coup put off the completion for decades as the structure originally intended as a futuristic shopping mall with drive-in boutiques — with all spaces pre-sold, providing sufficient financing for its construction — became a state-owned torture chamber.
The situation has worsened but at least its reality is better known than the inhumane treatment of citizens who have fallen into the clutches of the Communist dictatorship. It is very unfortunate that many who have crossed the Darien Gap and reached our borders do not mean us well. Unfortunate because many more do mean us well and are simply grateful to have been able to escape Venezuela.
It is difficult for us to appreciate the difficulty — physically and psychologically — of many thousands good folks who escape. Venezuelans are similar to Russians in this regard. They do not see themselves ever leaving their land. The pull is just too strong. They are like Dr. Zhivago: “He’ll never leave, [no matter how disastrously he has been treated].” However, the situation has become so unbearable that many have indeed taken the fateful step to go. I know one head of family who always told me, “I will never leave. No reason to do so.” He is now in another country along with his wife and children. There comes a time when one must take steps previously inconceivable.
Venezuela is headed to presidential elections on July 28 of this year (2024). However, shameless attempts to game the results since the early 21st Century have left the Venezuelan people worse than jaded. They “know” elections mean nothing in their country.
Nevertheless, there is palpable excitement this year and the hope is that the results will be so overwhelming for the opposition that the usual shenanigans won’t succeed. Many, however, are not so sanguine. Since the early 2000s the regime has muscled through ultracrepidarian power plays which have placed the counting of the votes in their own hands. Stalin was known to have said: “I consider it completely unimportant who will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how (cited by his former secretary, Boris Bazhanov).”
I believe Venezuelans will vote this year, even if the opposition candidate lands in the Helicoide. But we will have to wait and see how the vote counting goes.
The war drums on the part of the Venezuela ruling class against the people of Guyana has not receded. However, the silence on this issue on the part of western media is deafening. The issue is alive and threatening, right in our own back yard, while we are invited to “Look! A squirrel!” towards Ukraine and the Middle East.
Throughout history all self-described Socialist regimes have promoted wars, not only against their own peoples but against other countries. Venezuela is no exception.
In addition, as is well-known, in the last two or three years the United States strategic oil reserves have been depleted to an unheard of level. Should there be oil disruptions because of a Venezuela – Guyana conflict coupled with Middle Eastern uncertainty (Saudi Arabia’s king has been hospitalized), we could experience disruptions not seen in many years.
When we pray for our friends in Venezuela, we also pray for ourselves in the United States.
In 2019, economist Steve Hanke published a short video on X (formerly Twitter) that is still relevant today. True, Chile has since again succumbed to the Socialist siren call but not to Venezuela’s degree.
Here is the Hanke video, which is worth another look:
“To understand the Mexican situation it must be understood in the beginning that the present is more or less the normal condition of Mexico; the era of peace during the Díaz regime from 1876 to 1910 was an abnormal period in the [post-colonial] history of that country. All revolutions in Mexico work along conventional lines and the present series of revolutions are in no material sense different from those that beset the country from 1810 to 1876; the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government [emphasis mine].” — William F. Buckley, Sr., testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Relations, December 6, 1919 (7 years before the major outbreak of the Cristiada)
Mike Ashe will soon be posting on the unjustly memory-holed Mexican Cristiada or Cristeros War of the early 20th Century.
However, events do not simply “occur” by spontaneous generation or by a sudden explosion of sentiment or rebellion. There are leaders and, more importantly, philosophies that have taken root or to which key elements of society have submitted, which in turn can lead a culture or civilization to heights of achievement or depths of torment and depravity.
To better grasp the immensity and the nature of the calamity which befell Mexico and, by extension, the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is worthwhile — and necessary — to take a moment to review what went before.
1810 — We begin with a brief allusion to 1810, which is the date usually associated with the initiation of Mexico’s independence from Spain. Invariably, historians generalize with comments such as, “revolt against a large reserve of resentment” or “the pressure cooker finally exploded” and more such terminology. This is found in scholarly as well as popular, Wikipedia type essays.
However, the first thing one must notice about the date, 1810, is that it is barely two decades after the storming of the Bastille and the ensuing French Revolution, which Lenin, a century later, criticized because the Jacobins stopped the terror, something he (Lenin) was determined not to do. And his disciple, Stalin, agreed and fully proved his devotion to Lenin’s counsel. Even after tens of millions of deaths later, large swathes of American colleges and elites indulge their love affair with the French Revolution and its Communist progeny.
Clarence B. Carson wrote, “What particularly intrigued revolutionary socialists, Karl Marx among them, about the French Revolution was the drastic changes it made in the lives and ways of a people. It demonstrated, at least for them, in embryo form, the potentialities for changing man and men in society by revolution…. In sum to … totally reconstruct society.”
With that background, let us briefly consider what happened in 1810 when “Father Hidalgo” allegedly shouted his call for independence from Spain. “During the siege of Guanajuato, his followers captured the city granary in which nearly five hundred Spaniards and criollos [descendants of Spaniards] had taken refuge, many of them women and children. The massacre that followed shocked [all] throughout Mexico….” This event, and others like it, identify the atrocities in Mexico with those in France and with the rest of South America and the Caribbean, as witness Haiti and Venezuela.
In other words, Mexico and Hidalgo were no different than Venezuela and Bolivar and the denouement of each is unsurprisingly similar: massacres, rapes of women, girls, and boys, cold blooded murders of prisoners, invalids, hospital patients, and other defenseless men and women, blighted fields, mines and manufactures burned and buried, homes and offices delivered to pillage, and much more.
In my childhood and youth I invariably heard comments expressing alarm or marvel at the alleged Spanish propensity for cruelty and pillage as seen in the Spanish colonies’ 19th century revolutions. Well, in the first place, a propensity to evil is in all men; however, more importantly, what those comments alluded to were acts that were totally alien to the Spanish colonies. To see such acts in Europe, one would have to visit revolutionary France, not Spain. It is truly a wonder how France and its nefarious, hateful Jacobin ideology gets a free pass.
Just as it can be mystifying to contemplate today’s college professors and their benighted students’ dangerous infatuation with modern Jacobinism, including an overriding hatred of Christianity.
This explains Mr. Buckley’s comments on Mexican revolutions from 1810 to 1876 quoted above.
1876 – 1911 — This was the “Porfiriato” the rule of Porfirio Díaz. As alluded to in Mr. Buckley’s testimony (see quote above), this was a time of post-colonial peace and order not seen before or since.
The Cristero period, which officially began in 1926 under the Plutarco Calles administration, was actually sown in 1911 with the Francisco Madero administration. Madero was opposed to Christianity, or at least any ecclesiastical manifestation of it. He was deposed and allegedly murdered in 1913.
But we must briefly consider how Francisco Madero became president of Mexico.
Madero had launched a revolution from San Antonio, Texas, declaring himself president in November, 1910. Men such as Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco rallied to him in northern Mexico, creating and fomenting turmoil and mayhem, which eventually culminated in the resignation of Porfirio Díaz in May, 1911, who sincerely wished to avoid further bloodshed.
Francisco Madero was elected president in October, 1911, hailed as the “apostle of democracy”. However, discontent with his administration set in almost immediately and rebel factions erupted throughout Mexico. For example, Zapata rebelled against Madero in November, 1911, barely a month after the elections.
Similar to like men in politics today, Madero was an aristocrat, having been schooled by private tutors in Paris and in the United States. He had little in common with the peon classes that he waxed lyrical about. He had promised everything to everyone and therefore pleased no one.
More worrisome, disorder and lawlessness were such that the Mexican ambassador to the United States resigned in December, 1912, saying, “I lied to the American government for ten months telling them that the Mexican revolution would be over in six weeks…. The truth is that the situation is desperate.”
General Victoriano Huerta was a soldier and natural leader. His drinking was legendary — think Ulysses S. Grant. One example of his fearlessness occurred in Cuernavaca. He was in a hotel when a group passed in the street shouting, “Death to Huerta!” The General “heard the cry, got up, and walked to the door — alone, ‘Here is Huerta,’ he said. ‘Who wants him?'”
General Huerta had been a loyal and dedicated soldier, having fought under three presidents: Porfirio Díaz, Francisco de la Barra (interim president between Díaz and Madero), and Francisco Madero. In over 40 years of service, he had applied for only two leaves.
After putting down multiple rebellions against Madero, General Huerta was once again called upon to defeat yet another insurrection in Mexico City, in February, 1913. It was during this event that he decided to work to depose President Madero. He saw that lawlessness persisted in Mexico and lives and properties of citizens as well as foreigners were continually in danger. The fighting in Mexico City was frightful but is beyond the scope of this post.
Suffice it to say that the government forces were defeated after much property damage and human carnage. Americans as well as diplomats from other nations flocked to the American embassy for shelter. The ambassador demanded that all combatants respect American rights. The patience of the ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson (no relation to Woodrow Wilson, who was to be inaugurated as president in March, 1913) was exhausted and he worked to seek a permanent solution that would protect American and foreign interests and people in Mexico, believing that would also protect the Mexican people.
“This situation is intolerable … I am going to bring order,” declared the ambassador, who then worked with British, Spanish, and German ministers, whose countries had the largest colonies in Mexico City. In addition, twenty-five Mexican senators urged President Madero to resign. Madero rebuffed all approaches.
Concurrently, General Huerta was completing his preparations for a coup which took place February 18, 1913. At 5:10 P. M., the cathedral bells sounded and a large crowd assembled. The people “wildly cheered” Huerta and a general air of celebration prevailed. American newspapers reported that President Taft and his cabinet showed “great relief”.
There were many delicate negotiations between the factions which are beyond the scope of this post. In sum, negotiations were concluded but General Huerta refused to declare himself president. He wished to follow constitutional norms. While Madero was prisoner, he was technically still the president, since he had not resigned.
Huerta, although “in de facto control, cooperated with Congress and the Foreign Minister to secure legal title to the presidency.” He requested Congress to convene and expressed a desire to “place himself in accord with the National Representation” to “find a legal solution” to the crisis.
On February 19 Francisco Madero signed his resignation, which was submitted to the Congress later that morning. The Congress, which had a Maderista majority, accepted the resignation by an overwhelming vote and at 11:15 A. M. the Congress confirmed Huerta as constitutional president by a vote of 126-0.
Thus Huerta assumed the presidency not at the time of the coup, but upon the resignation of Madero and the vote of the Congress, in accordance with Mexico’s constitution at the time.
Turmoil still persisted as several factions refused to recognize Huerta or even the Congress. Added to the tensions were rumors of Madero’s ambitions to foment yet another revolution akin to his actions against Porfirio Díaz in 1910.
On February 22, 1913, after 10 P. M. Francisco Madero and the former vice president, José María Pino Suárez, were shot as they were being transferred from the presidential palace to the penitentiary. There were several “versions” purporting to explain the assassinations, including that relatives of persons killed on orders of Madero’s government attacked the convoy transporting the prisoners. However, there is general agreement that, at the least, President Huerta should have taken more serious precautions to protect Madero. Of course, the most accepted version is that Huerta’s cabinet, including Huerta, ordered the shooting.
Whatever the truth, the fact of repercussions became clear upon the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson, whose actions led directly to the Cristiada.
(To be continued)
Expected to be released in March, 2023. Pictured: William F. Buckley Sr. (1881-1958) Francisco Madero (1873-1913) Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson (1857-1932) Victoriano Huerta (1854-1916)
The prior post in this series (El Bogotazo I) reviewed Fidel Castro’s violent career in Cuba during high school and college, including arrests and questioning for suspicion of murder and more. This is important background for today’s post, which picks up in 1948, when the United States, concerned by Communist infiltration throughout Latin America, recommended the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS), an idea which was quickly seized upon by South American countries.
The function of this new organization was to provide a forum for the nations in the American continent to meet to discuss and address regional problems. For example, fast forward to 1962: President Rómulo Betancourt demanded and got the expulsion of Cuba from the OAS given repeated, proven attempts by Fidel Castro to subvert and overthrow the government of Venezuela, including shipments of armaments and men to Communist guerrilla groups operating under Castro. See Spurning Fidel.
The OAS was to be inaugurated during an international conference taking place in Bogota, Colombia in April, 1948. Although one could argue the site was appropriate, nevertheless, one could also argue that the timing was all wrong. Colombia was gearing up to hold presidential elections less than two years later, in 1950, and the Unión Nacional de Izquierda Revolucionaria (UNIR, translated “National Union of the Revolutionary Left”) were vocal in asserting those elections would be won by their candidate, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a radical leftist populist.
Gaitán’s extremist nature was obvious, as witness his frequently repeated motto: “If I advance, follow me, if I retreat, push me, if I betray you, kill me, and if I die, avenge me! To the charge!” His bellicosity was not empty rhetoric. A few months before the OAS conference, he called for a march against the conservative government, “The March of Silence”, to which over 100,000 came, many of them fully armed.
To add to tensions, Rómulo Betancourt, who had assumed the temporary presidency of Venezuela by means of a military coup d’etat, and who was still known for his Communism, which was later abandoned (see Envy), had signaled his support for Gaitán and did not denounce rumors signaling that should the elections be fraudulent (interpreted to mean, should Gaitán lose), Venezuela would support the overthrow of Colombia’s conservative government. Talk about chickens coming home to roost: a little over a decade later, Betancourt led the expulsion of Castro from the OAS for having sought the overthrow of his government.
Opposed to the creation of the OAS, Argentina and the Soviet Union agreed together to sabotage it by surreptitiously financing a conference of Latin American “students” to denounce “Yankee aggression”, meaning the creation of the OAS. This conference would be held simultaneously with the OAS inauguration conference. The Soviet Union and Argentina sought to capitalize on the smoldering animosity between Colombia and Venezuela as well as the anti-American Zeitgeist in Latin American universities.
Argentina emerged from the Second World War as a major economic power. However, Juan Domingo Perón, yet another leftist military leader (see Right-Wing Military for discussion on military leftism) helped overthrow its government in a military coup and was its dictator from 1946 to 1955. He was very anti-American and had close ties with Nazi Germany and later the Soviet Union. Like all good Communists, he took Argentina from economic dominance to massive expropriations and economic decline. Argentina eventually became the poster child of hyperinflation which was eventually broken in the 1990s.
Perón and Stalin were determined to cause chaos in Bogota. They promoted, financed, and ensured the inauguration of the Congreso Estudiantil Latinoamericana (Latin American Student Congress) to be held alongside the assembly creating the OAS. The promotion and organization of the students to attend that congress was headquartered in Havana, Cuba, led by Fabio Grobart. The Congress itself was to be led by Gustavo Machado. And the star attraction of the Congress would be none other than Gaitán himself.
That would be the fuel. The lit matches would be groups of revolutionary Latin American students from all geographic points, directed from Argentina. These would travel separately and converge in Bogota a few days before the inauguration of the OAS. Their objective was to engage in violent street actions and sabotage operations ostensibly to prohibit the establishment of the OAS. The hard-nosed reality behind their purpose was actually to foment chaos.
Among the student groups traveling to Bogota would be a handpicked group of four from Havana, Cuba. And one of the four was Fidel Castro, fully in his element.
Juan Domingo Perón (1895-1974). Similar to Hugo Chavez, Perón was very charismatic and remained popular despite disastrous policies which did great economic harm to Argentina. He was overthrown and exiled in 1955 by a militar coup. Nevertheless, from exile, he used the Argentinian left and the Communist guerrillas to sow widespread chaos and lawlessness, eventually paving the way for his return to power in 1973. Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) was yet another left-wing military leader who was diligent and successful in creating havoc, chaos, and death in the bloody 20th century. His “alliance” with the United States and England during World War II allowed unprecedented Soviet access to allied military and diplomatic sources which harmed the West and from which she has yet to fully extricate. Rómulo Betancourt (1908-1981), circa 1945, a time when his sympathies continued to lean heavily to port, creating long-lasting animosity with neighboring Colombia, and throwing fuel to an increasingly volatile environment. Jorge Eliécer Gaitán (1903-1948). “If I advance, follow me, if I retreat, push me, if I betray you, kill me, and if I die, avenge me! To the charge!” He was assassinated in April, 1948.
“The ‘continuity of the great work of Chávez’ does not rest on Maduro’s shoulders only. A large supporting politico-military cast of Fidel Castro devotees is key to maintaining the Communist regime in place. Above all, these powerful and dangerous functionaries admire and keenly study the Cuban regime’s ability to maintain herd control over the Cuban people while ensuring their perpetual grip on total power, all under the complacent gaze of a great part of the world.” — Diego G. Maldonado (pseudonym)
In this, our final post in the series on the Cuba – Venezuela nexus, we address the question asked in the prior installment: Cuba’s reason for these asymmetrical exchanges and contracts with astronomical profit margins is “to provide the island with needed currency. But what is Venezuela’s reason for them?”
In these posts, we’ve gotten a glimpse of Venezuela’s financial rescue of the bankrupt Cuban fiscal house. Reliable, recent figures are hard to come by and sketchy when obtained; however, most intelligence sources as well as financial publications agree that Venezuela has been Cuba’s principal source of revenue since the turn of this century. And that, at devastating financial and productivity cost to Venezuela.
But, as far as the Venezuelan regime is concerned, this devastation to the country has been well worth the pain because it has enabled the imposition of the Cuban political model onto Venezuela. A model which, above all else, maintains the rulers in perpetual power through electoral fraud, economic and social devastation, and intimidation.
As noted in other posts, the Venezuelan electoral process is “owned” by the long-dead Chavez, thereby assuring perpetuity to the state. As per Stalin, “It doesn’t matter who votes (or how many people vote), what matters is who counts the votes.” This aphorism has been vindicated time and again in Venezuela, and only cynics and fools discount it or ignore it. The effects of the collapse of Venezuela’s currency, the utter scarcity of foodstuffs, and the frightening level of crime have had the effect of propelling the largest ever emigration in Latin American history. But some have also discerned an incipient silver lining: the regime is actually talking about some electoral reforms. We’ll see.
As for the economic devastation visited on the country, Amherst Professor Javier Corrales well summarizes its purpose: “Maduro prefers economic devastation … because misery destroys civil society, and that in turn destroys all possibility to resist tyranny.” I would add that the terrible crime now rampant in Venezuela also reduces the will to resist tyranny. How effective would you be in promoting opposition to sitting politicians or filing complaints against a corrupt, unjust bureaucracy, when most of your time is focused on keeping vandals away from your front door?
Finally, to mount a truly effective opposition, the Venezuelan people would have to first overthrow a very well rooted, multi-faceted Cuban intelligence apparatus and its control accoutrements that are now pervasive. This domination pervades all civil institutions in Venezuela, even including the issuance of passports and cédulas, the Venezuelan internal passport card, without which a citizen pretty much is barred from everyday life (a powerful argument against anything even approaching this in the United States, by the way).
It betrays ignorance (and insensitivity) to minimize the deleterious impact of the cuban regiment’s experience in corralling (figuratively and literally) and demoralizing dissidence to the administrative state, i.e., the bureaucracy that was spawned with the advent of democracy in the late 40s and early 50s and has been thoroughly co-opted by the Cuba – Venezuela Nexus. Sowing fear and desperation are very valuable tools to those whose raison de e’tre is to perpetuate themselves while accumulating ever increasing power over others.
There is much more to Castro’s interest in Venezuela, an interest which predates his notoriety and which has had nefarious effects on both Cuba and Venezuela, as well as the rest of Latin America. We will touch upon this interesting and ever current subject on occasion.
Banner at Venezuela oil refinery: Alianza Bolivariana Para Los Pueblos de Nuestra América. A Cuba – Venezuela project seeking to integrate all Latin American countries. Other posts will address this age-old dream which actually existed during the Spanish colonial era.
The Home Page of this blog quotes the late great Whittaker Chambers as the source for its title: The Pull of the Land.
Although crediting Mr. Chambers for the title, I’ve said nothing about him beyond that. Going forward I hope to rectify this oversight, because, in probably the only sentence Arthur Schlesinger Jr. ever wrote with which I agree, “Whittaker Chambers has written one of the really significant American autobiographies. When some future Plutarch writes his American Lives, he will find in Chambers penetrating and terrible insights into America in the early twentieth century.”
Chambers was, and continues to be today, sixty years after his death, a controversial figure. He was a Communist spy, when Americans were told emphatically that no such thing existed. He then converted, after focusing on his infant daughter’s ear and submitting to his epiphany which insisted that such a marvel could not have come into existence absent an all-powerful God.
He went underground to avoid assassination by his erstwhile comrades and emerged publicly as a journalist, writing in The American Mercury and, most notably in Time and Life, two of the famous publications of Henry R. Luce, the others being Fortune and Sports Illustrated. Luce deeply respected and admired Whittaker Chambers, but he could not have anticipated the next, explosive era in Chambers’ life.
In 1948 he was subpoenaed to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). However, this was not the first time he had come forward to alert the United States federal government of Communist infiltration in its highest echelons. Almost a decade earlier, he had spoken with a top State Department official, Adolph A. Berle, identifying Communist cells and names of individuals with critical access. Berle took the information to President Franklin Roosevelt, who promptly dismissed it, even though the Communists named included his special assistant, Lauchlin Currie, who would also become the president’s Special Representative to China, Alger Hiss, who would eventually go on to preside over the United Nations Charter Conference, and Victor Perlo, who had clearance at the secret bombsight project at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
A cursory review of that decade reveals several of the earth shattering events of the 20th century, including the fall of China to Mao Tse Tung, the fall of the Iron Curtain across central Europe, and the creation of the United Nations on terms disadvantageous to the United States. One could bicker about “who lost” what, but one cannot ignore the role played by agents who had been identified by Chambers a few years before Pearl Harbor.
In his testimony in 1948, Chambers repeated his testimony and was promptly denounced by Alger Hiss who went to his grave denying his being a Communist agent. The contrast between the two men was dramatic. And instructive. Handsome, Ivy League, well-spoken, neat, fit vs. Crooked teeth, college dropout, mumbler, disheveled, poor health. President Harry Truman mocked Chambers calling him a “Red Herring” and refused to take action on the allegations.
Hiss was eventually convicted of perjury.
Allen Weinstein researched the case extensively, believing that Hiss was not a spy. But he, like many after reviewing the record, came to believe Chambers. The Venona Project whereby, after the fall of the Soviet Union, many, but not most, by far, files were deciphered and published, confirmed that Hiss was working for the Soviets, as testified by Chambers over four decades earlier. The list of Americans in the files was astounding. Hayden Peake, curator of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Historical Intelligence Collection has stated, “No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated.”
Every single name in Chambers’ testimony was in the Venona lists. And he is hated to this day by the usual suspects.
Whittaker Chambers wrote the deeply moving and genuinely classic American autobiography, Witness, from which I took the title to this blog.
He also wrote what many considered an explosive essay about the Yalta conference attended by Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, the WWII allies, in 1945. Explosive because Stalin was our “ally” and the essay did not reflect positively about the Soviet Union’s intentions. The staff at Time and Life rose in outrage and a “delegation” visited Chambers’ editor to urge the essay not be published. The editor, T. S. Matthews was so shaken, that he held the piece for a week, but eventually proceeded to publish it. Time was inundated with what today we would call “hate mail” along with cancellation requests. How could Time question the motives of our faithful Communist ally?
The essay was “Ghosts on the Roof”. The murdered Czar and his family, descend “with the softness of bats” upon the roof of their old palace and meet the muse of history already there. They proceed to discuss the conference now unfolding beneath them and the Czar announces his unabashed admiration of Stalin and his own conversion to Marxism, “What statesmanship! What vision! What power!” he exclaims. “And now … the greatest statesmen in the world have come to Stalin. Who but he would have had the sense of historical fitness to entertain them in my expropriated palace!”
Sitting next to a gravely ailing President Roosevelt was Alger Hiss. Roosevelt would die 3 months later.
Three years later, when Chambers’ prescience could not be ignored, Time republished the essay, saying it was worth a second reading.
We’ll write more about Chambers in future posts.
Lauchlin Currie (1902-1993). Member of President Franklin Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust”. Alger Hiss (1904-1996). High ranking official in Roosevelt and Truman administrations. His guilt has been hotly disputed to this day. However, the overwhelming consensus among historians is that he was indeed guilty, as confirmed by the unanimous report of the bipartisan Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy in 1997. Whittaker Chambers (1901-1961) A classic autobiography. A WWII US progaganda poster Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, right of center in the photo. He was ailing at the time. To his left, our right, is Alger Hiss. Josef Stalin is in the shadows at left. “The President seemed placid and frail,” wrote Winston Churchill. Churchill’s bodyguard, Walter Thomson, in his memoirs, recalled seeing Churchill “weeping over the concessions Roosevelt made to Stalin at Yalta. ‘Why, Thomson, did they allow the president, almost dying on his feet, to be there…? All Europe will suffer from the decisions made at Yalta.'”
