Question: Yes, I'd just like to know, do you know why MacArthur failed to organize a successful resistance, to the Utopian takeover of the early 1960s, and if it is actually possible that a man such as he, had an incomplete understanding of, or commitment to, statesmanship?

LaRouche: Well, we know Gene McCarthy. He's still alive...

Question: General MacArthur...

LaRouche: Oh, General MacArthur. MacArthur? Well, that's a different story. Gene McCarthy, he's another case. He really came close, he came very close to doing some good. And he did something good. We can benefit from it today, even though technically it was a failure, but the near success he achieved -- partly -- is a lesson. Because he organized a student movement, and that was very useful. And we can learn lessons from that, and we can talk to Gene when he's in shape to talk about it, as he does with us, and learn a few lessons about his experience with that.

But MacArthur is a different case.

MacArthur was a .. The way to look at this, is that, in the summer of 1944, when the U.S. forces had broken through in Normandy, the Wehrmacht was defeated, in principle. That the end of the war was inevitable, or virtually inevitably at that point. Now, up to that time, Franklin Roosevelt had led the United States out of a depression, to become virtually the only economic power on this planet. And had won the war, effectively.

At that point, Roosevelt's enemies in the United States, who had had to put up with him, because he was saving the economy they had wrecked under preceding presidents, and because the war had been won, on which they depended on him entirely, for his leadership. They said, "we don't need him anymore."

At that point, he had a vice-president, Wallace. Roosevelt himself was ill, as a byproduct of having suffered poliomyelitis. He was a young man, relatively speaking, but he was in the process of dying from overwork, because of the complication of having had poliomyelitis as an adult. So, the enemy, the American Tories, the Wall Street crowd, went to work on two fronts.

First of all, they were determined to get rid of Roosevelt, and thought they could get rid of him, simply by waiting for him to die, which they expected would happen soon. On that point, we had a friend who died more recently, Max Corvo. Max Corvo was the chief of OSS operations in Italy, during the war in Italy, and he later became a friend of ours, a friend of mine, and he was very close to the head of the OSS, Donovan, who, in the period I'm speaking of, had walked out of a meeting with President Roosevelt, ashen-faced. "It's over. He's going to die." Which we got from Max. And Max was reliable on this kind of thing.

So, what they did, is, they put in an idiot, a nasty little idiot, Truman, as vice-president. Because they figured, Roosevelt's going to die, and you had a Truman ass-licker, that is, a Winston Churchill ass-licker, who's going to do everything the British wanted, against the Roosevelt policies in the postwar period.

So, he became vice-president, and then Roosevelt, on April 12 of the following year, died. At Warm Springs.

Now, in the meantime, there was a change in military policy. The bombing policy. The firebombing of Tokyo. The bombing of cities in Germany, like Magdeburg. A whole group of cities were bombed for no military reason, simply as killer operations. Firebombing.

Magdeburg was destroyed. Dresden was almost destroyed. By a needless bombing, done, with the aid of the Americans, under British direction, under so-called Bomber Harris, and this thing is all over the place in Germany -- the books are out, for the record -- the rage against the United States and Britain, in Germany, right now, is tremendous, on the basis of public exposure of this killer bombing, this racist bombing, against Germany -- needless bombing against civilian populations during that period.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally unnecessary. There was no military grounds for this bombing. Not a single U.S. life was saved aby that bombing. None. The idea that a million lives were saved, is a total lie, invented by people like Buckley.

MacArthur had before that, before the surrender, had written a report, or directed the writing of a report, which was his opinion to Washington, stating that Japan was defeated, there was no need to invade. Eisenhower was presented with, by the Administration, the Truman Administration, with the report that Truman was thinking of dropping the nuclear bomb on Japan. Eisenhower said, independently of MacArthur, it's crazy, Japan is a defeated nation, don't do it.

The bombs were dropped.

They were dropped because of Bertrand Russell, whose policy was preventive nuclear war.

So, what happened in this period, is they cooked up a phony war, between the Soviet Union and the United States and Britain. It was orchestrated by the British. Why? Why was this phony war orchestrated? Stalin had no intention of attacking the United States, or Western Europe. None. All a lie.

Truman, and Churchill, cooked it up. Why?

Because of Bertrand Russell. The doctrine which took over, with the Truman nomination in the Democratic nominating convention of the summer of 1944, was what is called the utopian doctrine. The doctrine of H.G. Wells, and his Open Conspiracy. The doctrine which had been orchestrated through the nuclear community, by Bertrand Russell personally. Bertrand Russell was the orchestrator of the doctrine of preventive nuclear war. "We bomb them now pre-emptively, to force them, and force the world, to give up national sovereignty, and accept world government."

This is the policy of the Al Gore of the Bush Administration, Dirty Dick Cheney.

Okay? So that's the policy.

MacArthur, like Eisenhower -- Eisenhower, with all his Eisenhowever -- adhered to the traditional defense doctrine and the traditional foreign policy of the United States. MacArthur did not fight any unnecessary battles in the Pacific. The navy did, the Marine Corps did. Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary. MacArthur said, you take strategic points, you control the entire Pacific logistically. Japan is an island nation. It cannot survive without raw materials from her neighboring countries. If you effectively blockade the main islands of Japan, Japan must surrender. You don't have to kill anybody more. So, you fight battles where you have to fight them, in order to establish the control, logistical control points, over the Pacific region. Once you've established that, you've won the war. It's not kill power that's iportant; it's logistics. It's strategy, logistics.

So, that's MacArthur's policy.

The Navy, which is more crazy, or one faction of the Navy which is more crazy, more pro-British -- and that's a whole other story -- went into wars, conducted independent wars, independent of MacArthur, in the Pacific, to get their dibs in, for their policies.

So what happened at the end of the war, you had a fight, which is going on to the present day. The professional military, especially the Army and Marine Corps, the ground forces, their policy is... the policy of the war against Iraq is insane! They may not say it publicly while they're still serving, but they'll say it as retired officers. And they'll have their friends say it, if they don't want to say it themselves.

The U.S. military is opposed to this war, as a piece of insanity.

But this crowd, that wants the war, are the Utopians, the same people, that launched this policy, essentially a rightwing, New Roman Empire, world conquest, "everybody's our slave", "terrify everybody," etc. and "use nuclear weapons to intimidate people into line.

There is no war against Iraq. There's a war against the Islamic world. It's a kind of Roman imperial limes war. And that's what the issue is. The MacArthur represented that, the opposition to that, he was the leader really. He was the greatest military leader the United States had, in that period. They got rid of him! And they gave us the Moonies instead. That's true, But that's another story.

-30-