Francis Parker Yockey: America's Two Ways of Waging War

[Der Weg 1951-07] An original translation of „Zwei Wege der Kriegführung Amerikas“

---

Title: America's Two Ways of Waging War [de: Zwei Wege der Kriegführung Amerikas]

Author: Francis Parker Yockey as “Ulick Varange”

“Der Weg” Issue: Year 05, Issue 07 (July 1951)

Page(s): 481-482

---

---

Dan Rouse’s Note(s):

Der Weg - El Sendero is a German and Spanish language magazine published by Dürer-Verlag in Buenos-Aires, Argentina by Germans with connections to the defeated Third Reich.

Der Weg ran monthly issues from 1947 to 1957, with official sanction from Juan Perón’s Government until his overthrow in September 1955.

Francis Parkey Yockey wrote Imperium under the name Ulick Varange, and this essay is attributed to U. Varange.

In this essay, Yockey's central contention is that America's warfare policies are inconsistent and tinged with pro-communist sentiments, leading him to advocate for European abstention from the Cold War struggle.

Source Document(s):

• [LINK] Scans of 1951 Der Weg Issues (archive.org)

---

---

---

Editor’s Note: The following essay is excerpted from Frontfighter, London, December 1950 and January 1951. BCM/Westropa Press, London, W.C. 1.

---

America's Two Ways of Waging War

by Ulick Varange

---

America has two distinct approaches to warfare: one when it marches against Europe, and another when it engages Asia. In the Second World War, it wielded one method against Europe, and a divergent one against Japan. That this pattern has held unchanged over the past five years is evidenced by the war America now wages in Korea.

Throughout the war’s entire course, up to this moment, the press and radio broadcasts have hourly revealed the identities and positions of American troops. This handed communist combat intelligence its work on a silver platter, courtesy of America’s own war command. Has anything of the sort ever marked America’s campaigns against Europe?

During the conflict, the staunch anti-communist Johnson was ousted as Secretary of the War Department, replaced by the pro-communist Marshall, who promptly engineered the collapse of Chiang Kai-shek’s regime and surrendered China to the Reds. For the full span of the Second World War, Marshall subordinated American efforts in the Pacific to the aims of Bolshevik Russia.

Thus, the American press offers only the stark fact of arrests of Jewish communist spies entangled in passing technical secrets to Russia. From a list of 1,500 such spies—delivered to the American President by the Canadian Prime Minister—only eight were detained. Convicted Russian spies are merely deported back to Russia. This stands in glaring contrast to the public frenzy unleashed by the Haupt case, where six of eight Europeans on a sabotage mission in America met their deaths.

In the Second World War, every German in the USA was herded into concentration camps. Yet during the Korean venture, no communists faced internment, persecution, or even a summons to register with authorities. An anti-communist law was passed—brushing aside Truman’s veto and the state administration’s resistance—by a Congress demanding communists report themselves; yet no legal form was set for this, nor any penalty fixed for ignoring it. As a result, all communists in America (90% Jews, it’s claimed) roam free, unshackled, despite their brazen refusal to comply.

Not just Marshall, architect of Red China, co-conspirator of Pearl Harbor, devastator of European cities; not just Truman, Stalin’s old admirer and personal friend, who serenaded him on the Potsdam piano, fierce foe of the “Anti-Communist Law,” executor of Roosevelt’s hate-fueled destruction; not just Acheson, proud ally of the Russian spy Hiss, wartime leader of the Russia-friendly faction, champion of Red China—no, every single member of the Washington regime bore sympathy for Bolshevism during the Second World War.

Not one among them opposed the policy of fattening that monster now called the Bolshevik empire. Not one lifted a voice for Europe’s aid in its fight against Bolshevism during that war. Not one now champions Europe’s liberation. Not one can wage war against Russia in any form, tangled as they are in Bolshevik schemes, stained with Bolshevik hues, and steeped in Bolshevik sympathies—mirroring their counterparts in Europe, like England’s Attlee, Strachey, and Shinwell, all avowed Bolsheviks.

What European could still take America’s planned war against Russia seriously? It’d be no different from Russian leaders promising Europe deliverance from American sway. The twin Bolshevisms of Washington and Moscow, plus a third from Tel Aviv, are too tightly knotted, too bound by recent history, for Europeans to do anything but toss them all into one reeking heap. Historians and scholars might fritter their lives teasing out these ties or splitting hairs between these three Bolshevisms. But for those summoned to fight—for Washington against Moscow, for a bumbling Truman against the serf-lord Stalin, for Frankfurter against Kaganovich, for American Negro dances and jazz against Shostakovich’s factory screeches, for dollar worship against machine idolatry, for America’s Marxist praxis against Russia’s Marxist dogma, for the iron-peddling Eisenhower against the man-eating Budyonny, for Sam Goldwyn against Lunacharsky—

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE ANSWER, AND THE LONDON PROCLAMATION FOR THE EUROPEAN LIBERATION FRONT DELIVERS IT:

“NO! EUROPE CARES FOR THIS PLANNED WAR AS MUCH AS FOR A CLASH BETWEEN TWO NEGRO TRIBES IN SUDAN.”

---