I 1972 vidnede Sutton overfor the Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 pm. Her fortalte han hvad hans forskning Amerikansk støtte til Sovetunionens industri og militær havde ført ham frem til. Han advarede om at USA bevidst støttede det kommunistiske regime som truede hele den vestlige verden og USA især USA og med atomkrig og forsøg på undergravelse af frihed og demokrati. Suttons advarsler og hans mange bøger som beviste sandheden i hvad han sagde, blev undertrykt og cencureret af regeringen. Sutton blev frosset ud af Hoover Instituttet hvor han havde sin stilling som professor. På grund af sandheden måtte han give afkald på sin karriere og sit arbejde. Resten af sit liv arbejdede han som uafhængig forfatter og foredragsholder. Nedenfor kan du læse, hvad han sagde på høringen i Miami Beach.
The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex
The information that I am going to present to you this afternoon is known to the Administration. The information is probably not known to the Senator from South Dakota or his advisers. And in this instance ignorance may be a blessing in disguise.I am not a politician. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. My job is to give you facts. Whether you like or dislike what I say doesn’t concern me. I am here because I believe – and Congressman Ashbrook believes – that the American public should have these facts. I have spent ten years in research on Soviet technology. What it is ?what it can do ? and particularly where it came from. I have published three books and several articles summarizing the work. It was privately financed. But the results have been available to the Government. On the other hand I have had major difficulties with U.S. Government censorship. I have about 15 minutes to tell you about this work.
In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology
Listening to Administration spokesman – or some newspaper pundits – you get the impression that trade with the Soviet Union is some new miracle cure for the world’s problems. That’s not quite accurate. The idea that trade with the Soviets might bring peace goes back to 1917. The earliest proposal is dated December 1917 – just a few weeks after the start of the Bolshevik Revolution. It was implemented in 1920 while the Bolsheviks were still trying to consolidate their hold on Russia. The result was to guarantee that the Bolsheviks held power: they needed foreign supplies to survive.
The history of our construction of the Soviet Union has been blacked out – much of the key information is still classified
Now at this point I’ve probably lost some of you. What I have said is contrary to everything you’ve heard from the intellectual elite, the Administration, and the business world, and numerous well-regarded Senators – just about everyone. Let me bring you back to earth.
First an authentic statement. It’s authentic because it was part of a conversation between Stalin and W. Averell Harriman. Ambassador Harriman had been prominent in Soviet trade since the 1930s and is an outspoken supporter of yet more trade. This is what Ambassador Harriman reported back to the State Department at the end of World War II:
{p. 255} “Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the War. Stalin* {* He, in original} said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union
Stalin could have said that the other one-third of large industrial enterprises were built by firms from Germany, France, Britain, and Italy. Stalin could have said also that the tank plants, the aircraft plants, the explosive and ammunition plants originated in the U.S. That was June 1944. The massive technical assistance continues right down to the present day. Now the ability of the Soviet Union to create any kind of military machine, to ship missiles to Cuba, to supply arms to North Vietnam, to supply arms for use against Israel ? all this depends on its domestic industry. In the Soviet Union about three-quarters of the military budget goes on purchases from Soviet factories.
This expenditure in Soviet industry makes sense. No army has a machine that churns out tanks. Tanks are made from alloy steel, plastics, rubber, and so forth. The alloy steel, plastics
So let’s take a look at the Soviet industry that provides the parts and the materials for Soviet armaments: the guns, tanks, aircraft.
The Soviets have the largest iron and steel plant in the world. It was built by McKee Corporation. It is a copy of the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana. All Soviet iron and steel technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. The Soviets use open hearth, American electric furnaces, American wide strip mills, Sendzimir mills and so on – all developed in the West and shipped in as peaceful trade.
The Soviets have the largest tube and pipe mill in Europe – one million tons a year. The equipment is Fretz-Moon, Salem, Aetna Standard, Mannesman, etc. Those are not Russian names. All Soviet tube and pipe making technology come from the U.S. and its allies. If you know anyone in the pace business ask them how many miles of tubes and pipes go into a missile.
The Soviets have the largest merchant marine in the world – about 6,000 ships. I have the specifications for each ship. About two-thirds were built outside the Soviet Union. About four-fifths of the engines for these ships were also built outside the Soviet Union. There are no ship engines of Soviet design. Those built inside the USSR are built with foreign technical assistance. The Bryansk plant makes the largest marine
About 100 Soviet ships are used on the Haiphong run to carry Soviet weapons and supplies for Hanoi‘s annual aggression. I was able to identify 84 of these ships. None of the main engines in these ships was designed and manufactured inside the USSR.All the larger and faster vessels on the Haiphong run were built outside the USSR. All shipbuilding technology in the USSR comes directly or indirectly from the U.S. or its NATO allies.
Let’s take one industry in more detail: motor vehicles.
All Soviet automobile, truck, and engine technology comes from the West: chiefly the United States. In my
Up to 1968 the largest motor vehicle plant in the USSR was at Gorki. Gorki produces many of the trucks American pilots see on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Gorki produces the chassis for the GAZ-69 rocket launcher used against Israel. Gorki produces the Soviet jeep and half a dozen other military vehicles. And Gorki was built by the Ford Motor Company and the Austin Company – as peaceful trade. In 1968 while Gorki was building vehicles to be used in Vietnam and Israel further equipment for Gorki was ordered and shipped from the U.S.
Also in
Don’t let’s kid ourselves. Any automobile manufacturing plant can produce military vehicles. I can show anyone who is interested the technical specification of a proven military vehicle (with cross-country capability) using the same capacity engine as the Russian FIAT plant produces.
{p. 258} The term “FIAT deal” is misleading. FIAT in Italy doesn’t make automobile manufacturing equipment – FIAT plants in Italy have U.S. equipment. FIAT did send 1,000 men to Russia for erection of the plant – but over half, perhaps well over half, of the equipment came from the United States. From Gleason, TRW of Cleveland and New Britain Machine Co.
So in the middle of a war that has killed 46,000 Americans (so far) and countless Vietnamese with Soviet weapons and supplies, the Johnson Administration doubled Soviet auto output. And supplied false information to Congress and the American public.
Finally, we get to 1972 under President Nixon.
The Soviets are receiving now – today, equipment and technology for the largest heavy truck plant in the world: known as the Kama plant. It will produce 100,000 heavy ten-ton trucks per year – that’s more than ALL U.S. manufacturers put together.
This will also be the largest plant in the world, period. It will occupy 36 square miles. Will the Kama truck plant have military potential?
The Soviets themselves have answered this one. The Kama truck will be 50 per cent more productive that the ZIL-130 truck. Well, that’s nice, because the ZIL series trucks are standard Soviet army trucks used in Vietnam and the Middle East.
Who built the ZIL plant? It was built by the Arthur J. Brandt Company of Detroit, Michigan.
Who’s building the Kama truck plant? That’s classified “secret” by the Washington policy makers. I don’t have to tell you why.
The Soviet T-54 tank is in Vietnam. It was in operation at Kontum, An Loc, and Hue a few weeks ago. It is in use today in Vietnam. It has been used against Israel. According to the tank handbooks the T-54 has a Christie type suspension. Christie was an American inventor. Where did the Soviets get a Christie suspension? Did they steal it?{p. 259} No, sir! They bought it. They bought it from the U.S. Wheel Track Layer Corporation.
However, this Administration is apparently slightly more honest than the previous Administration.
Last December I asked Assistant Secretary Kenneth Davis of the Commerce Department (who is a mechanical engineer by training) whether the Kama trucks would have military capability. In fact I quoted one of the Government’s own inter-agency reports. Mr. Davis didn’t bother to answer but I did get a letter from the Department and it was right to the point. Yes! We know the Kama truck plant has military capability, we take this into account when we issue export licenses.
I passed these letters on to the press and Congress. They were published.
Unfortunately for my research project, I also had pending with the Department of Defense an application for declassification of certain files about our military assistance to the Soviets. This application was then abruptly denied by DOD [Department of Defence]. It will supply military technology to the Soviets but gets a little uptight about the public finding out. I can understand that.
Of course, it takes a great deal of self-confidence to admit you are sending factories to produce weapons and supplies to a country providing weapons and supplies to kill Americans, Israelis, and Vietnamese. In writing. In an election year, yet.
More to the point – by what authority does this Administration undertake such policies?
Many people – as individuals – have protested our suicidal policies. What happens? Well, if you are in Congress – you probably get the strong arm put on you. The Congressman who inserted my research findings into the Congressional Record suddenly found himself with primary opposition. He won’t be in Congress next year.
If you are in the academic world – you soon find it’s OK to protest U.S. assistance to the South Vietnamese but never, never protest U.S. assistance to the Soviets. Forget about the Russian academics being persecuted – we mustn’t say unkind things about the Soviets.
{p. 260} If you press for an explanation, what do they tell you?
First, you get the Fulbright line. This is peaceful trade. The Soviets are powerful. They have their own technology. It’s a way to build
Second, if you don’t buy that line, you are told, “The Soviets are mellowing.” This is equally false. The killing in Israel and Vietnam with Soviet weapons doesn’t suggest mellowing, it suggests premeditated genocide. Today – now – the Soviets are readying more arms to go to Syria. For what purpose? To put in a museum?
No one has ever presented evidence, hard evidence, that trade leads to peace. Why not? Because there is no such evidence. It’s an illusion. It is true that peace leads to trade. But that’s not the same thing. You first need peace, then you trade. That does not mean [that] if you trade you will get peace.
But that’s too logical for the Washington policy makers and it’s not what the politicians and their backers want anyway.
Trade with Germany doubled before World War II. Did it stop World War II? Trade with Japan increased before World War II. Did it stop World War II?
What was in this German and Japanese trade? The same means for war that we are now supplying the Soviets. The Japanese Air Force after 1934 depended on U.S. technology. And much of the pushing for Soviet trade today comes from the same groups that were pushing for trade with Hitler and Tojo 35 years ago.
The Russian Communist Party is not mellowing. Concentrations camps are still there. The mental hospitals take the overload. Persecutions of the Baptists continues. Harassment of Jews continues, as it did under the Tsars.
{p. 261} The only mellowing is when a Harriman and a Rockefeller get together with the bosses in the Kremlin. That’s good for business but not much help if you are a G.I. at the other end of a Soviet rocket in Vietnam.
I’ve learned something about our military assistance to the Soviets. It’s just not enough to have the facts – these are ignored by the policy makers. It’s just not enough to make a common sense case – the answers you get defy reason.
Only one institution has been clearsighted on this question. From the early 1920s to the present day only one institution has spoken out. That is the AFL-CIO. From Samuel Gompers in 1920 down to George Meany today, the major unions have consistently protested the trade policies that built the Soviet Union. Because union members in Russia lost their freedom and unions members in the United States have died in Korea and Vietnam. The unions know – and apparently care.
No one else cares. Not Washington. Not big business. Not the Republican Party. And 100,000 Americans have been killed in Korea and Vietnam – by our own technology.
The only response from Washington and the Nixon Administration is the effort to hush up the scandal. These are things not to be talked about. And the professional smokescreen about peaceful trade continues.
The plain fact – if you want it – is that irresponsible policies have built us an enemy and maintain that enemy in the business of totalitarian rule and world conquest. And the tragedy is that intelligent people have bought the political double talk about world peace, a new world order and mellowing Soviets.
I suggest that the man in the street, the average taxpayer-voter thinks more or less as I do. You do not subsidize an enemy.
And when this story gets out and about in the United States, it’s going to translate into a shift of votes. I haven’t met one {p. 262} man in the street so far (from New York to California) who goes along with a policy of subsidizing the killing of his fellow Americans. People are usually stunned and disgusted.
What about the argument that trade will lead to peace? Well, we’ve had U.S.-Soviet trade for 52 years. The 1st and 2nd Five Year Plans were built by American companies. To continue a policy that is a total failure is to gamble with the lives of several million Americans and countless allies.
You can’t stoke up the Soviet military machine at one end and then complain that the other end came back and bit you. Unfortunately, the human price for our immoral policies is not paid by the policy maker in Washington. The human price is paid by the farmers, the students and working and middle classes of America. The citizen who pays the piper is not calling the tune ? he doesn’t even know the name of the tune.
Let me summarize my conclusions:
One: trade with the USSR was started over 50 years ago under President Woodrow Wilson with the declared intention of mellowing [blødgøre] the Bolsheviks. The policy has been a total and costly failure. It has proven to be impractical? This is what I would expect from an immoral policy.
Two: we have built ourselves an enemy. We keep that self-declared enemy in business. This information has been blacked out by successive Administrations. Misleading and untruthful statements have been made by the Executive Branch to Congress and the American people.
Three: our policy of subsidizing self-declared enemies is neither rational nor moral. I have drawn attention to the intellectual myopia of the group that influences and draws up foreign policy. I suggest these policies have no authority.
Four: the annual attacks in Vietnam and the war in the Middle East were made possible only by Russian armaments and our past assistance to the Soviets.
{p. 263} Five: this worldwide Soviet activity is consistent with Communist theory. Mikhail Suslov, the party theoretician, recently stated that the current détente with the United
Six: internal Soviet repression continues – against Baptists, against Jews, against national groups and against dissident academics.
Seven: Soviet technical dependence is a powerful instrument for world peace if we want to use it. So far it’s been used as an aid-to-dependent Soviets welfare program. With about as much success as the domestic welfare program. Why should they stop supplying Hanoi? The more they stoke up the war, the more they get from the United States.
One final thought. Why has the war in Vietnam continued for four long years under this Administration? With 15,000 killed under the Nixon Administration? We can stop the Soviets and their friends in Hanoi any time we want to. Without using a single gun or anything more dangerous than a piece of paper or a telephone call.
We have Soviet technical dependence as an instrument of world peace. The most human weapon that can be conceived. We have always had that option. We have never used it.
{end}
Torbens kommentarer:
Sutton levede i en tid uden internet. Al hans research kom fra direkte adgang til arkivmateriale takket være hans stilling som forsker ved det anerkendte Hoover Institut i Californien, USA. Som du sikkert bemærker når du læser ovenstående vidnesbyrd, så er Sutton fuld af forargelse over at den amerikanske regering har svigtet. Den kunne have skabt fred men den lukkede øjnene. Hvorfor, spørger Sutton. Svaret er enkelt: Fred var slet ikke et mål. Den magtelite som styrer USA er ikke nationalister. De er internationalister, eller sagt med vor tids begreb: De er globalister. Sutton omtaler Rockefeller som en af de magtfulde spillere der i al hemmelighed besøger russiske statsmænd i al hemmelighed. I David Rockefellers selvbiografi “Memoirs” kan man læse en ærlig udtalelse om hans involvering i bestræbelserne ……..:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one
world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
― David Rockefeller, Memoirs