A FOREIGN POLICY FOR AMERICANS

A FOREIGN POLICY FOR AMERICANS

Made available in electronic form on Mises.org with the permission

and encouragement of Robert Taft, the grandson of the author and former
governor of Ohio.
COPYRIGHT, 1 9 5 1 , BY ROBERT A. TAFT

COPYRIGHT, 1 9 5 1 , BY COWLES MAGAZINE, ING.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES AT
THE COUNTRY LIFE PRESS, GARDEN CITY, N.Y.
Foreword by the Author

I HAVE WRITTEN this book to emphasize the fact
that the freedom of the people of the United States is in serious
danger from the foreign policy of the present Administration.
I have frequently written of the danger to liberty at home from
the constant increase in the activity, the spending, and the
power of the Federal Government, but today the threat from
foreign policy is even greater. We have wandered far from its
true purpose to preserve the peace and liberty of the people of
the United States. Even when the purpose has been correctly
understood, mistakes of judgment have led us into dangerous
paths. We are embarked on a voyage at this moment in which
a continued failure of understanding and judgment may wreck
the greatest adventure in freedom the human race has ever
known.
Our forefathers came to a continent of forests, wide plains,
and savages. They lived by the work of their own hands. Those
who did not wish to work for another man opened new land
for themselves. There was no trace in their hard, free life of a
caste system or a feudal system or an inherited aristocracy.
More than a century before Marx was born a frontier equality
in social relations gave usand still gives usan unequaled
social democracy in the true sense of those Communist-perverted words. The pioneers, who carried with them one book,
the Bible, also laid up for us a moral capital which has not yet
been exhausted.
Out of this society of free men great leaders have sprung at

every crisis in our history. They have resembled each other
singularly. In basic qualities of profound morality, courage,
common sense, and foresight Lincoln was one with Washington.
Today we face threats to our liberty and moral foundation
from abroad and from our foreign and domestic programs.
Distance has been so diminished by the airplane, and weapons
have become so destructive, that this threat must be met on a
world scale. If we are foolish in our use of our strength, we
shall not survive; and with our freedom will disappear the
little that remains of freedom in the rest of the world.
Po^vexj^ithput foresight leads to disaster.-Our international
relations have been conducted with so little foresight since
1941 that six years after vast military victories in Europe and
Asia we face a more dangerous threat than any that has
menaced us before. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen
have not failed us. Our political leaders have. By 1941 anyone
who was not bamboozled by Soviet psychological warfare
knew that the Soviet Government was a predatory totalitarian
tyranny intent on establishing Communist dictatorship throughout the world. But our leaders failed to foresee that the Soviet
Union would turn against us after the defeat of Germany and
Japan. They made no attempt to insure our future against that
eventuality. They brought forth no positive policy for the creation of a free and united Europe or for the preservation of the
independence of China. They preferred wishful thinking to
facts, and convinced themselves that Stalin would co-operate
with them to create a free world of permanent peace. So at
Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam they handed Stalin the freedom
of eastern Europe and Manchuria, and prepared our present
peril.
Their foresight was such that in face of all the facts, as late
as May 4, 1950, according to the New York Times, President
Truman "asserted repeatedly that he saw no possibility that
the 'cold war' wojulddevelop into a shooting war and even

promised to reduce the defense budget next year."
On June 25, 1950, the Korean war began. The deaths and
wounds that Americans have suffered there have at least
served to educate our national Administrationafter the
event. It has been the most expensive education that the people of the United States have ever paid for.
What is the record?
In 1945, when Mr. Truman became President, the Soviet
Union was exhausted. Much of its industry was destroyed. It
had no atomic bomb, no long-range bombing planes, no serious navy. Its hold on eastern Europe was shaky. China was
our ally and the Chinese Communists were hemmed into a
small area.
President Truman held such power as no man had ever held
before. Our air force was incomparably superior to any other.
Our navy was more powerful than the combined navies of the
rest of the world. Our army was a superb fighting force at the
peak of efficiency. Our industrial plant, by far the greatest in
the world, was intact. We alone had the atomic bomb which
guaranteed the speedy destruction of any nation that might
dare to risk war with us. We could have seized and held the
initiative for the creation of a free and peaceful world. Our
leaders did not know how or where to lead.
Today Stalin has atomic bombs and long-range bombers
capable of delivering them on the United States. He has 175
Soviet divisions, and 60 satellite divisions in Europe, and a
Chinese Communist army of about 3,000,000 in Asia. He has
some 50,000 tanks and more than 15,000 tactical aircraft. His
Indo-Chinese accomplices are draining the strength of the
French Army. His guerrillas are withstanding the British Army
in Malaya. He has riveted an iron control on eastern Europe.
China is his ally. To face Stalin's 225 divisions the Western
democracies and ourselves are scheduled to have thirty divisions in Europeperhapsby the end of 1951. Moreover,
Soviet psychological warfare has been so successful in Western
Europe that one fourth of the French and one third of the
Italians vote Communist.
In 1941 Stalin ruled 180 million subjects and was not sure
that he or his empire would survive. In 1951 Stalin directs 800
million people. Unless our foreign policy is conducted more
competently than it has been during the past ten years, our
very survival is in doubt. There may be infinite arguments as
to the wisdom of many steps in our foreign policy since 1943.
But there can be little argument as to its results.
There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. Our national administration has had good
intentions.
We do not need to seek further than the Sermon on the
Mount to know the first step we must take if freedom under
God is to survive in our country and in the rest of the world:
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down,
and cast into the fire.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
Contents
1. What Are the Purposes of a Foreign Policy?
11
2. The Place of the President and Congress in Foreign

Policy
21
3. International Organization as a Means of Securing

Peace with Liberty
4. The Russian Menace. How It Was Created
37
47
5. The Russian Menace. How Do We Meet It Throughout the World?

6. The Russian Menace. How Do We Meet It in
Europe?
82
7. The Russian Menace. How Do We Meet It in the

Far East?
103
8. The Battle Against Communist Ideology Throughout

the World
114
Appendix
64
122
1. What Are the Purposes of a Foreign

Policy?
NO ONE can think intelligently on the many complicated problems of American foreign policy unless he decides
first what he considers the real purpose and object of that
policy. In the letters which I receive from all parts of the
country I find a complete confusion in the minds of the people
as to our purposes in the worldand therefore scores of
reasons which often seem to me completely unsound or inadequate for supporting or opposing some act of the Government. Confusion has been produced because there has been no
consistent purpose in our foreign policy for a good many years
past. In many cases the reason stated for some actionand
blazoned forth on the radio to secure popular approvalhas
not been the real reason which animated the Administration.
Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign
policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of the
United States. The American Revolution was fought to establish a nation "conceived in liberty." That liberty has been defended in many wars since that day. That liberty has enabled
our people to increase steadily their material welfare and their
spiritual freedom. To achieve that liberty we have gone to war,
and to protect it we would go to war again.
Only second to liberty is the maintenance of peace. The
12
A Foreign Policy for Americans
results of war may be almost as bad as the destruction of liberty

and, in fact, may lead, even if the war is won, to something
very close to the destruction of liberty at home. War not only
produces pitiful human suffering and utter destruction of
many things worth-while, but it is almost as disastrous for the
victor as for the vanquished. From our experience in the last
two world wars, it actually promotes dictatorship and totalitarian government throughout the world. Much of the glamour
has gone from it, and war today is murder by machine. World
War II killed millions of innocent civilians as well as those in
uniform and in many countries wiped out the product of
hundreds of years of civilization. Two hundred and fifty thousand American boys were killed in World War II and hundreds
of thousands permanently maimed or disabled, their lives often
completely wrecked. Millions of families mourn their losses.
War, undertaken even for justifiable purposes, such as to
punish aggression in Korea, has often had the principal results of wrecking the country intended to be saved and spreading death and destruction among an innocent civilian population. Even more than Sherman knew in 1864, "war is hell."
War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to
protect American liberty.
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference
with other nations was based on the principle that this policy
was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to
maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the
days of George Washington that has been the policy of the
United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always
avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any
commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any
military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free
to interfere or not interfere according to whether we consider
the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this
country. It was the policy of the free hand.
I have always felt, however, that we should depart from this
What Are Purposes of Foreign Policy?
13
principle if we could set up an effective international organization, because in the long run the success of such an organization should be the most effective assurance of world peace and
therefore of American peace. I regretted that we did not join
the League of Nations.
We have now taken the lead in establishing the United Nations. The purpose is to establish a rule of law throughout the
world and protect the people of the United States by punishing
aggression the moment it starts and deterring future aggression
through joint action of the members of such an organization.
I think we must recognize that this involves the theory of a
preventive war, a dangerous undertaking at any time. If, therefore, we are going to join in such an organization it is essential
that it be effective. It must be a joint enterprise. Our Korean
adventure shows the tremendous danger, if the new organization is badly organized or improperly supported by its members
and by the public opinion of the people of the world.
The United Nations has failed to protect our peace, I believe, because it was organized on an unsound basis with a veto
power in five nations and is based, in fact, on the joint power
of such nations, effective only so long as they agree. I believe
the concept can only be successful if based on a rule of law and
justice between nations and willingness on the part of all nations to abide by the decisions of an impartial tribunal.
The fact that the present organization has largely failed in its
purpose has forced us to use other means to meet the present
emergency, but there is no reason to abandon the concept of
collective security which, by discouraging and preventing the
use of war as national policy, can ultimately protect the liberty
of the people of the United States and enforce peace.
I do not believe it is a selfish goal for us to insist that the overriding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the
maintenance of the liberty and the peace of the people of the
United States, so that they may achieve that intellectual and
14
material improvement which is their genius and in which they

can set an example for all peoples. By that example we can do
an even greater service to mankind than we can by billions of
material assistanceand more than we can ever do by war.
Just as our nation can be destroyed by war it can also be
destroyed by a political or economic policy at home which
destroys liberty or breaks down the fiscal and economic structure of the United States. We cannot adopt a foreign policy
which gives away all of our people's earnings or imposes such
a tremendous burden on the individual American as, in effect,
to destroy his incentive and his ability to increase production
and productivity and his standard of living. We cannot assume
a financial burden in our foreign policy so great that it
threatens liberty at home.
It follows that except as such policies may ultimately protect
our own security, we have no primary interest as a national
policy to improve conditions or material welfare in other parts
of the world or to change other forms of government. Certainly we should not engage in war to achieve such purposes.
I don't mean to say that, as responsible citizens of the world,
we should not gladly extend charity or assistance to those in
need. I do not mean to say that we should not align ourselves
with the advocates of freedom everywhere. We did this kind of
thing for many years, and we were respected as the most disinterested and charitable nation in the world.
But the contribution of supplies to meet extraordinary
droughts or famine or refugee problems or other emergencies
is very different from a global plan for general free assistance
to all mankind on an organized scale as part of our foreign
policy. Such a plan, as carried out today, can only be justified
on a temporary basis as part of the battle against communism,
to prevent communism from taking over more of the world
and becoming a still more dangerous threat to our security. It
has been undertaken as an emergency measure. Our foreign
policy in ordinary times should not be primarily inspired by
the motive of raising the standard of living of millions through-
15
out the world, because that is utterly beyond our capacity. I

believe it is impossible with American money, or other outside
aid to raise in any substantial degree the standard of living of
the millions throughout the world who have created their own
problems of soil destruction or overpopulation. Fundamentally, I doubt if the standard of living of any people can be
successfully raised to any appreciable degree except by their
own efforts. We can advise; we can assist, if the initiative and
the desire and the energy to improve themselves is present. But
our assistance cannot be a principal motive for foreign policy
or a justification for going to war.
We hear a great deal of argument that if we do not deliberately, as part of a world welfare program, contribute to the
raising of standards of living of peoples with low income they
will turn Communist and go to war against us. Apart from
such emergency situations as justified the Marshall Plan, following World War II, I see no evidence that this is true. Recent wars have not been started by poverty-stricken peoples,
as in China or India, but by prosperous peoples, as in a Germany led by dictators. The standard of living of China or
India could be tripled and yet would still be so far below the
United States that the Communists could play with equal
force on the comparative hardships the people were suffering.
Communism is stronger today in France and Italy than in
India, though the standard of living and distribution is infinitely better in the first two countries.
However, I think as a general incident to our policy of
protecting the peace and liberty of the people of the United
States it is most important that we prevent the building up of
any great resentment against the success and the wealth which
we have achieved. In other words, I believe that our international trade relations should be scrupulously fair and generous and should make it clear to the other peoples of the world
that we intend to be fair and generous.
For the same reason, and as a contribution to world economic progress, I believe that some program like the Point
16
Four program is justified to a limited extent, even if the Russian threat were completely removed. I supported the general
project of a loan to Brazil to enable that country to build up a
steel industry to use the natural resources which are available
there. I believe that the policy not only assisted the development of that country in some degree but that in the long run it
contributed to the growth of trade between Brazil and the
United States and therefore to our own success in that field. But
such programs should be sound economic projects, for the most
part undertaken by private enterprise. Any United States Government contribution is in the nature of charity to poor countries and should be limited in amount. We make no such
contribution to similar projects in the United States. It seems to
me that we should not undertake any such project in such a
way as to make it a global plan for sending Americans all over
the world in unlimited number to find projects upon which
American money can be spent. We ought only to receive with
sympathy any application from these other nations and give it
fair consideration.
Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to
bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is
perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom. In 1941
President Roosevelt announced that we were going to establish
a moral order throughout the world: freedom of speech and
expression, "everywhere in the world"; freedom to worship God
"everywhere in the world"; freedom from want, and freedom
from fear "everywhere in the world." I pointed out then that the
forcing of any special brand of freedom and democracy on a
people, whether they want it or not, by the brute force of war
will be a denial of those very democratic principles which we
are striving to advance.
The impracticability of such a battle was certainly shown by
the progress of World War II. We were forced into an alliance
with Communist Russia. I said on June 25, 1941, "To spread
the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship airplanes
and tanks and guns to Communist Russia. If, through our aid,
17
Stalin is continued in power, do you suppose he will spread the

four freedoms through Finland and Estonia and Latvia and
Lithuania? Do you suppose that anybody in Russia itself will
ever hear of the four freedoms after the war?" Certainly if
World War II was undertaken to spread freedom throughout
the world it was a failure. As a matter of fact, Franklin Roosevelt never dared to go to war for that purpose, and we only
went to war when our own security was attacked at Pearl
Harbor.
There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world. They
rightly point out that the United States is so powerful today
that we should assume a moral leadership in the world to solve
all the troubles of mankind. I quite agree that we need that
moral leadership not only abroad but also at home. We can
take the moral leadership in trying to improve the international
organization for peace. I think we can take leadership in the
providing of example and advice for the improvement of
material standards of living throughout the world. Above all,
I think we can take the leadership in proclaiming the doctrines
of liberty and justice and in impressing on the world that only
through liberty and law and justice, and not through socialism
or communism, can the world hope to obtain the standards
which we have attained in the United States. Our leaders can
at least stop apologizing for the American system, as they have
been apologizing for the past fifteen years.
If we confine our activities to the field of moral leadership
we shall be successful if our philosophy is sound and appeals
to the people of the world. The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to
moral leadership. They are inspired with the same kind of New
Deal planned-control ideas abroad as recent Administrations
have desired to enforce at home. In their hearts they want to
force on these foreign peoples through the use of American
18
A Foreign Policy for
Americans
money and even, perhaps, American arms the policies which

moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound
strength of its principles and the force of its persuasion. I do
not think this moral leadership ideal justifies our engaging in
any preventive war, or going to the defense of one country
against another, or getting ourselves into a vulnerable fiscal
and economic position at home which may invite war. I do not
believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military
force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the
United States except to defend the liberty of our own people.
In order to justify a lend-lease policy or the Atlantic Pact program for mutual aid and for arming Europe in time of peace
or the Marshall Plan or the Point Four program beyond a
selective and limited extent, any such program must be related
to the liberty of the United States. Our active partisanship in
World War II was based on the theory that a Hitler victory
would make Germany a serious threat to the liberty of the
United States. I did not believe that Germany would be such
a threat, particularly after Hitler brought Russia into the war,
and that is the reason I opposed the war policy of the Administration from the elections of 1940 to the attack on the United
States at Pearl Harbor in December 1941.1 The more recent
measures for Marshall Plan aid on a global scaleand to the
extent of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money
and the Atlantic Pact arms program are and must be based
on the theory that Russia today presents a real threat to the
security of the United States.
While I may differ on the extent of some of these measures,
I agree that there is such a threat. This is due principally to the
facts that air power has made distances so short and the atomic
bomb has made air power so potentially effective that Russia
today could do what Hitler never could doinflict serious and
perhaps crippling injury on our cities and on our industrial
a
See Appendix.
19
plants and the other production resources which are so essential

to our victory in war.
Furthermore, the Russians combine with great military
and air power a fanatical devotion to communism not unlike
that which inspired the Moslem invasion of Europe in the
Middle Ages. The crusading spirit makes possible a fifthcolumn adjunct to military attack which adds tremendously
to the power and danger of Russian aggression. The Russian
threat has become so serious today that in defense of the
liberty and peace of the people of the United States I think we
are justified in extending economic aid and military aid to
many countries, but only when it can be clearly shown in each
case that such aid will be an effective means of combating
Communist aggression. We have now felt it necessary in order
to protect the liberty of the United States against an extraordinary special threat to adopt a policy which I do not believe should be considered as part of any permanent foreign
policy. We have been forced into this not only because of the
power of Soviet Russia but because the United Nations has
shown that it is wholly ineffective under its present charter.
The new temporary policy may be outlined as follows:
1. We have had to set up a much larger armed force than
we have ever had to do before in time of peace, in order to
meet the Communist threat. I believe this effort should be
directed particularly toward a development of an all-powerful
air force.
2. We have had to adopt as a temporary measure the policy
of extending economic and military aid to all those countries
which, with the use of such aid, can perhaps prevent the extension of Russian military power or Russian or Communist
influence. We have backed that up by announcing definitely to
Russia that if it undertakes aggression against certain countries
whose independence is important to us it will find itself at war
with us. This is a kind of Monroe Doctrine for Europe.
3. We have had to adopt a policy of military alliances to
deter, at least, the spread of Communist power. To control sea
20
and air throughout the world, the British alliance is peculiarly

important. Again, we hope that with the decline of Russian
power and the re-establishment of an international organization for peace such alliances may be unnecessary.
I opposed that feature of the Atlantic Pact which looked
toward a commitment of the United States to fight a land war
on the continent of Europe and therefore opposed, except to a
limited degree, the commitment of land troops to Europe. Except as we find it absolutely essential to our security, I do not
believe we should depart from the principle of maintaining a
free hand to fight a war which may be forced upon us, in such
a manner and in such places as are best suited at the time to
meet those conditions which are changing so rapidly in the
modern world. Nothing is so dangerous as to commit the
United States to a course which is beyond its capacity to perform with success.
In the course of later chapters I shall discuss the wisdom of
this temporary policy and apply it to the particular situations
which we face throughout the world. But it must always be
considered, I believe, as a temporary expedient. It cannot
avoid the possible danger of involving us in war with Soviet
Russia, but it should not provoke a war which otherwise might
not occur.
The main point of this preliminary statement, however, is to
emphasize that our foreign policy must always keep in mind,
as its ultimate goal, the peace and security of the people of the
United States. Most of our Presidents have been imbued with
a real determination to keep the country at peace. I feel that
the last two Presidents have put all kinds of political and policy
considerations ahead of their interest in liberty and peace. No
foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted without
reservation or diversion to the protection of the liberty of the
American people, with war only as the last resort and only to
preserve that liberty.
2. The Place of the President and

Congress in Foreign Policy
NO ONE can question the fact that the initiative in
American foreign policy lies with the President. But, if I can
judge from my mail and from many considered editorial expressions, the American people certainly do not believe or
intend that his power shall be arbitrary and unrestrained. They
want a voice in the more important features of that policy,
particularly those relating to peace and war. They expect their
Senators and Congressmen to be their voice. Before discussing
the correctness of the principles of foreign policy, therefore, I
shall try to define the place of Congress and the President
under our Constitution. The debates in the Senate in early
1951 had even more to do with the question of who shall determine policy than with policy itself.
There can be no question that the executive departments
have claimed more and more power over the field of foreign
policy at the same time that the importance of foreign policy
and its effect on every feature of American life has steadily increased. If the present trend continues it seems to me obvious
that the President will become a complete dictator in the entire
field of foreign policy and thereby acquire power to force upon
Congress all kinds of domestic policies which must necessarily
follow.
The fundamental issue in the "great debate" was, and is,
22
Americans
whether the President shall decide when the United States

shall go to war or whether the people of the United States
themselves shall make that decision. Also, for many years the
State Department has been developing a theory that almost
any action can be taken by executive agreement, which does
not absolutely require any congressional approval at all, instead of by the treaty method prescribed in the Constitution.
Undoubtedly, the necessity of obtaining a two-thirds vote in
the Senate is very difficult and has encouraged many people
to think that this development was necessary. But if the treaty
method is not satisfactory, then the Constitution should be
amended to provide for the approval of all executive agreements and to define the scope of and effect of such agreements
much more clearly than at present.
More and more the State Department has assumed to do
many things which are beyond its power in the field of trade,
by an executive agreement known as the General Agreement
on Tariff and Trade (GATT). It has insisted that the Executive have the power to raise and lower tariffs, through reciprocal trade agreements, within constantly widening limits and
without the slightest shadow of a standard prescribed by law.
Political agreements as important as those made at Yalta have
never been submitted to Congress at all.
The execution of international agreements, such as the
United Nations Charter and the Atlantic Pact, has now given
rise to extended claims that the President can do anything
which can be related to those treaties and anything recommended by the international commissions there created, without any consultation whatever with Congress.
I think it is fair to say that the State Department has
adopted an attitude of hostility toward Congress and an unwillingness to submit any matter to Congress if it thinks it can
possibly carry it through without such submission. It shows a
complete distrust of the opinion of the people, unless carefully
nursed by State Department propaganda.
The matter was brought to an issue by the intervention of
President, Congress in Foreign Policy
23
the President in the Korean War without even telling Congress

what he was doing for several weeks. And it was brought still
further to the fore by the proposal that we commit troops to an
international army under the control of a council of twelve
nations. I do not think that the American people have ever
faced a more serious constitutional issue or one which in the
end may present a greater threat to their freedom.
In the long run, the question which the country must decide
involves vitally not only the freedom of the people of the
United States but the peace of the people of the United States.
More and more, as the world grows smaller, we are involved
in problems of foreign policy. If in the great field of foreign
policy the President has the arbitrary and unlimited powers he
now claims, then there is an end to freedom in the United
States not only in the foreign field but in the great realm of
domestic activity which necessarily follows any foreign commitments. The area of freedom at home becomes very circumscribed indeed.
If the President has unlimited power to involve us in war,
then I believe that the consensus of opinion is that war is more
likely. History shows that when the people have the opportunity to speak they as a rule decide for peace if possible.
It shows that arbitrary rulers are more inclined to favor war
than are the people at any time. This question has become of
tremendous importance, perhaps greater than any particular
problem of troops to Europe or the manner in which the
Korean War shall be conducted. The claims made by the
President of the United States and by various documents presented to the Senate by the executive representatives far exceed
the powers claimed by President Roosevelt during World War
II, those claimed by President Truman when the United
Nations Charter was passed, and those claimed by President
Truman when the Atlantic Pact was adopted.
On January 4, last, President Truman, commenting on the
Coudert resolution to bar him from sending more troops to
Europe without the consent of Congress, said emphatically
24
that he did not need the permission of Congress to take such

action.
On January 11, at a press interview, according to the Washington Post:
"Mr. Truman, whose right to send troops to Europe recently
was challenged by Senator Taft, said he had the power to send
them any place in the world. This, he said, had been repeatedly
recognized by Congress and the Supreme Court.
"A reporter asked Mr. Truman in effect what would happen if
Congress tried to tie his hands by putting restrictions in the appropriation bills for the forces to be sent to Europe.
"That, said the President, was up to Congress. If they wanted
to go to the country about it, he said, he would go with them
and he recalled that he licked them once."
At the President's conference a week later, on January 18,
according to the press:
"He repeated that his constitutional authority to send American forces to Europe to take up their positions in an integrated
European army was clear and did not depend upon the consent
of Congress. What he would be glad to have, he said in substance,
was a Senate expression that affirmed his constitutional authority."
Furthermore, a document was submitted to Congress, entitled Powers of the President to Send the Armed Forces Outside the United States, dated February 28, 1951, which was
printed, though not endorsed, by the Joint Committees on
Foreign Relations and Armed Services of the Senate. This
document contains the most unbridled claims for the authority
of the President that I have ever seen written in cold print. In
effect, the document asserts that whenever in his opinion American foreign policy requires he may send troops to any point
whatsoever in the world, no matter what the war in which the
action may involve us. The document also claims that in sending armed forces to carry out a treaty the President does not
require any statutory authority whatever, and it does not recog-
25
nize the difference between a self-executing treaty and one

which requires, even by its own terms, congressional authority.
It ends with the most sweeping claims for power:
As this discussion of the respective powers of the President and
the Congress in this field has made clear, constitutional doctrine
has been largely molded by practical necessities. Use of the Congressional power to declare war, for example, has fallen into
abeyance because wars are no longer declared in advance. The
Constitutional power of the Commander in Chief has been exercised more often, because the need for armed international
action has grown more acute. The long delays occasioned by the
slowness of communications in the eighteenth century have given
place to breathtaking rapidity in the tempo of history. Repelling
aggression in Korea or Europe cannot wait upon Congressional
debate. However, while the need for speed and the growth in the
size and complexity of the armed forces have enlarged the area
in which the powers of the Commander in Chief are to be
wielded, the magnitude of present-day military operations and
international policies requires a degree of Congressional support
that was unnecessary in the days of the nineteenth century.
That seems a very gracious concession to Congress. Congress
no longer has any power to act. It is simply given the right to
support the President after the President has acted. I was
shocked in the very beginning of this controversy by the speed
with which blind partisans in the administration rushed to the
defense of the proposition that the President can make war and
warlike commitments. Senator Connally, the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, made this extraordinary assertion on the floor of the Senate:
The scope of the authority of the President as Commander in
Chief to send the Armed Forces to any place required by the
security interests of the United States has often been questioned,
but never denied by authoritative opinion.
That certainly is a complete misrepresentation of the discussion of these constitutional powers which has taken place since
the foundation of the nation.
26
Americans
As soon as I made my speech of January 5, 1951, the New

York Times rushed to get Professor Henry Steele Gommager
to throw together in a day or two a superficial article, published
in its Sunday magazine at that time, in which he asserts that
the President has the right to start war whenever he sees fit to
do so.
Editors of many newspapers and magazines accepted without question the State Department's claims, made without any
basis, that history books have listed more than one hundred and
thirty cases where United States Presidents sent United States
armed troops into action "to defend the national interest."
The most interesting but alarming thing is that there seem
to be so many responsible people in the country who follow
the party line of the State Department in foreign policy with
complete blindness as to where it may lead, in spite of the fact
that it has led us a long way toward disaster recently and in
spite of the fact that it may be the opposite of a policy adopted
six months earlier. In so doing they blithely dismiss all interest
in the maintenance of popular government under the Constitution. They are obviously afraid of popular government,
thinking that the people are too dumb to understand foreign
policy and might oppose policies which these blind followers
favor but which the people think may lead to war.
Of course, the President has wide powers in foreign policy,
but the framers of the Constitution provided expressly that
only Congress could do certain things. Those powers are expressed in Section 8 of Article I. Of course, Congress is given
the power, and the exclusive power
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make
rules concerning captures on land and water.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money
to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
That reflects a certain and definite suspicion of a possible
desire on the part of some President to set up a great perma-
27
nent military force. Further powers of Congress as stated in

Section 8:
To provide and maintain a navy.
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces.
There are other powers, such as calling forth the militia and
"disciplining the militia.
The Constitution also provides that the President shall have
the power to make treaties, but only by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur. The President's relationship to the armed forces
is stated only in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States . . .
There is one very definite limitand I think it is admitted
by every responsible authority who has discussed the problem
on the President's power to send troops abroad: he cannot
send troops abroad if the sending of such troops amounts to the
making of war. I think that has been frequently asserted; and
whenever any broad statements have been made as to the
President's power as Commander in Chief to send troops anywhere in the world the point has been made that it is always
subject to that particular condition.
Perhaps no one has been quoted more on this general subject than has my father, who discussed this question in various
lectures, articles, and books. My father had wide experience,
as governor general of the Philippines, Secretary of War, and
President of the United States. He never served in a legislative
body, and, if anything, I think he leaned toward the power of
the Executive. The clearest statement of the question, I believe,
is contained in his article in the June 6, 1916, number of the
Yale Law Journal, from which I quote:
When we come to the power of the President as Commander in
Chief, it seems perfectly clear that Congress could not order bat-
28
ties to be fought on a certain plan, and could not direct parts of

the Army to be moved from one part of the country to another.
The power to declare war is given to Congress. . . . This is
necessarily a limitation on the power of the President to order the
Army and the Navy to commit an act of war. It was charged
against President Polk that he had carried on a foreign war
against Mexico before Congress had authorized it or declared it,
and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the act of President Wilson in seizing Veracruz was an act of war without congressional authority, at the time it was committed, though a resolution authorizing it was pending, and had passed one House and
was passed in a very short time after the act by the other House,
constituting a valid ratification.
It is not always easy to determine what is an act of war. The
President has the authority to protect the lives of American citizens and their property with the Army and the Navy. This grows
out of his control over our foreign relations and his duty to recognize as a binding law upon him the obligation of the Government
to its own citizens. It might, however, be an act of war if committed in a country like England or Germany or France which
would be unwilling to admit that it needed the assistance of another government to maintain its laws and protect foreign relations, but would insist that injuries of this sort must be remedied
through diplomatic complaints and negotiations. . . . Of course,
the President may so use the Army and Navy as to involve the
country in actual war and force a declaration of war by Congress.
Such a use of the Army and Navy, however, is a usurpation of
power on his part. (Italics mine.)
Some may feel that if the President can do certain things
there is no sense in arguing that he has no right to do them.
But the division and limitation of powers is the very basis of
our constitutional system, and decisions regarding the proper
limits of such powers affect the validity of many other actions,
such as the right of Congress to pass legislation to restrain the
President's authority to send troops abroad in such a way as to
involve the country in war. True, the President perhaps cannot
be prevented from usurping power, but we can only presume
29
the President will follow constitutional laws passed by the people's representatives.
Most of the cases which have been cited as authority for the
President sending troops abroad are cases where the use of our
troops was limited to the protection of American citizens or
of American property.
The Boxer Rebellion is frequently cited; but in that case
troops were sent into China because the legations in Peking
were besieged and the legitimate Chinese Government was unable to defend them against the rebellious Boxers. So the various nations sent their troops there, in order to rescue those who
were in the legations. That was a clear effort to protect American lives, to protect American diplomatic lives which were
threatened contrary to the law of nations; and certainly it was
not an act which would necessarily involve us in war.
The case of the Mexican rebellion is referred to, and it was
referred to by my father, who said that President Polk's right
was challenged. It was challenged by a very distinguished
American, Abraham Lincoln, who on February 15, 1848,
wrote his law partner with reference to Polk's use of the Army
against Mexico:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever
he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him
to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for
such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study
to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect. If today
he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to
prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him?
You may say to him "I see no probability of the British invading
us," but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."
Lincoln said further:
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power
to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following
reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing
their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the
30
good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they
resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should
hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.
I do not believe history will defend as lawful the action of
President Theodore Roosevelt in seizing Panama.
On the other hand, that action was certainly not the making
of war.
The administration pamphlet to which I have referred cites
the case of Iceland and says that none of the constitutional
restrictions was regarded by President Roosevelt "as a limitation on his power to use the Navy in the North Atlantic Area
or send troops to Iceland and Greenland and other places."
My own view is that President Roosevelt clearly usurped authority when he sent American troops to Iceland to replace
the British troops there in 1941, and I made a vigorous protest
at the time on the floor of the Senate and was supported also
by Senator Danaher. I quote from the speech which I made
on July 10, 1941, and which, as far as I remember, was answered by no one except Senator Connally.
Mr. President, on Monday the President of the United States
notified the Senate that forces of the United States Navy had
already arrived in Iceland in order to supplement, and eventually
to replace, the British forces now stationed there. This action was
taken in accordance with an understanding reached by the President with the Prime Minister of Iceland, frankly inspired, however, according to the Prime Minister, by the British Minister to
Iceland, who explained to him that British forces in Iceland were
required elsewhere, and suggested that he apply to the United
States for forces. The Prime Minister stressed the fact that the
United States forces must be strong enough to meet every eventuality; and the President promised that the Government of the
United States would immediately send troops, apparently including the United States Army as well as the Navy, to supplement,
and eventually to replace, the British forces now there. Judging
31
from the various press reports, it is likely that 80,000 American

boys are in course of being sent to Iceland 2400 miles from any
American territory, and substantially a part of the continent of
Europe.
In my opinion, the President has no legal or constitutional right
to send American troops to Iceland. It is not an agreeable task for
me to question the authority of the President to take any action
which he has taken in the name of the Government of the United
States; but I believe it would be most unfortunate if the Senate
of the United States should acquiesce without protest in acts of
the President which might nullify for all time the constitutional
authority distinctly reserved to Congress to declare war.
It would be a tremendous stretching of the Constitution to say
that without authority from Congress the President of the United
States can send hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to
Europe when a war is raging over that entire Continent, and the
presence of American troops would inevitably lead to war. The
President cannot make aggressive war. Neither can he intervene
in a war between two other nations, because such intervention,
even though it does not immediately involve a physical attack on
one of the combatants, is clearly the making of war.
There has been no attack on the United States and no threat
of attack. The action of the President is not only beyond the powers which the Constitution has granted to him, but it is a deliberate violation of his pledge to the American people.
The speech which I made in the Senate on March 29, 1951,
refers to various supporting statements by J. Reuben Clark,
Assistant Secretary of State under the Hoover administration,
by Quincy Wright, professor at the University of Chicago, and
by Attorney General George E. Wickersham. We have perhaps
even more eminent authority to the effect that the President
has no right tosend troops abroad in such a way as to intervene
in a war between two nations. When the Germans broke
through in France in June 1940 Mr. Roosevelt gave every encouragement to France and England to go on fighting. The
32
Americans
end of his letter of June 15, 1940, to Premier Reynaud is enlightening, and I quote:
In these hours which are so heart-rending to the French people
and yourself, I send you the assurances of my utmost sympathy,
and I can further assure you that so long as the French people
continue in defense of their liberty, which constitutes the cause
of popular institutions throughout the world, so long will they rest
assured that materiel and supplies will be sent to them from the
United States in ever increasing quantities and kind.
I know that you will understand that these statements carry
with them no implication of military commitments. Only the
Congress can make such commitments.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Yet Harry S. Truman in the case of Korea undertook to do
exactly the thing which Franklin Roosevelt said he had no
power to do.
In the case of Korea it was claimed that the intervention
could take place under the United Nations Charter on the call
of the Security Council. Of course the Security Council never
acted under Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter,
and even if it had done so the obligation to send troops is
clearly limited by Article 43. That Article provides that troops
can only be called for when an agreement has been entered
into with the Security Council specifying the number and character of the assistance to be furnished. No such agreement has
ever been entered into. The United Nations Participation Act
of 1945, approved by President Truman, also made it clear that
any agreement which required the providing of military aid
must be subsequently approved by Congress, and, of course, it
never has been. Not only that, but President Truman sent a
cable from Potsdam when the United Nations Charter was
under consideration, in which he said: "When any such agreement or agreements are negotiated, it will be my purpose to ask
the Congress by appropriate legislation to approve them." The
33
charter was adopted largely on that assurance, but now the

President's claims are far beyond what they were then.
The State Department itself admits that the action of the
Security Council in the Korean case was only a recommendation under Article 39. If the President can carry out every
recommendation of the Security Council or the General Assembly supported by the vote of the American representative
whom he can direct, then he has almost unlimited power to do
anything in the world in the use of either troops or money. The
Security Council might recommend that the nations should
rebuild the canals on the Tigris and Euphrates and establish a
vast Garden of Eden in the Kingdom of Iraq. According to the
argument made, the President would then have power to use
all American forces to establish such an economic project. On
the same theory, he could send troops to Tibet to resist Communist aggression or to Indo-China or anywhere else in the
world, without the slightest voice of Congress in the matter. If
that could be the effect of an international treaty, we had better watch closely the approval of any such treaty in the future.
Of course, it is not.
My conclusion, therefore, is that in the case of Korea, where
a war was already under way, we had no right to send troops
to a nation, with whom we had no treaty, to defend it against
attack by another nation, no matter how unprincipled that
aggression might be, unless the whole matter was submitted to
Congress and a declaration of war or some other direct authority obtained.
The question of sending troops to Europe is certainly much
more complicated. There is no doubt about the President's
power to send troops to occupied Germany. There is no question that he can send them if he wants to do so, as Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy. Whether Congress could limit
the number to be sent is a point which may be open to question. However, certainly the President has the power to do so
if Congress does not act.
I think he can station troops in a friendly country if such
34
Americans
country asks that the troops be sent and if there is no imminence of attack and if they are stationed there for some possible
convenience in repelling a general attack upon the United
States itself.
Particularly, it seems to me that the President of the United
States may station air forces and may send the Navy to odd
places throughout the world, as Presidents have done many
times, because the sending of such forces does not necessarily
involve or threaten involvement in war. Such forces can be
easily withdrawn in case an attack is made upon the country.
There is no question about their remaining there and becoming
involved in a war, if our country determines that it does not
wish to become involved in a war.
But it seems clear to me that the sending of troops without
authorization by Congress to a country under attack, as was
done in Korea, is clearly prohibited. The sending of troops under
the Atlantic Pact as a part of a defensive operation against
Russia without previous authority from Congress appears to
me to be also prohibited, because the fact that these countries
are threatened by an actual attack is the very justification and
reason for sending the troops. The only reason for sending
troops is to defend a country against a threatened military attack which would necessarily involve the United States in war.
The European Army Project, however, goes further than
merely sending troops to implement the Atlantic Pact. It involves the sending of troops to an international army similar to
that which was contemplated under the United Nations Charter. It is an international army, apparently established by
twelve nations, with a commander who is appointed by the
twelve nations. It seems to me perfectly clear that the President's power as Commander in Chief does not extend to the
delegation of that power to a commander who is chosen by
any other nation or any other group of nations. I think it is
perfectly clear that he cannot enter into an agreement of that
kind to set up an international army without submitting the
agreement to Congress.
35
The proponents of executive power have referred to many

statements from the writings of Professor Edward S. Corwin
of Princeton, a noted authority on constitutional law, but on
this subject he says:
The outstanding fact about the Administration's proposal from
the point of view of constitutional law is that it raises a question
of first impression. The proposal is novel, unprecedented and
consequently the precedents do not apply to it, except perhaps
in the case of Iceland in 1941. The Administration's present proposal incurs the danger of precipitating war, and it raises vast
questions regarding finance and the internal welfare of the country. Congress has the right to safeguard its war-declaring power,
and it is duty bound to protect the domestic interests to which its
other powers extend. In fact, the right of the President to merge
American forces with an army, which he cannot exclusively command, seems very dubious. Congressional authorization under the
necessary and proper clause would seem to be essential.
Throughout the 1951 debate the Administration tried to
avoid this question of setting up an international army, but
there can be no doubt that that was in fact the project, as I
point out in Chapter Five.
Under that project the President actually appointed General
Eisenhower, in a letter in which he stated:
The North Atlantic Treaty nations have agreed on the defense
organization for Europe and at their request I have designated
you as supreme allied commander, Europe. I view their request as
a pledge that their support of your efforts will be complete and'
unequivocal.
When the President of the United States went that far he
exceeded his authority. Up to that point, what was done at
Brussels was a recommendation of the Council under the Atlantic Pact. When the President undertook to carry out that
recommendation he usurped the powers of Congress. He had
no authority to carry out that particular agreement made at
Brussels, without submitting it to Congress.
36
Apparently the Administration is afraid that there was such

an exceeding of authority, for it has represented the whole
project now as merely the sending to Europe of a few divisions,
which we can withdraw at any moment, but only to co-operate
with the other nations in case war comes in a general defense
under the terms of the Atlantic Pact.
But whether there is to be an American army or an international army, I do not believe the President has the power without congressional approval to send troops to one country to
defend it against a possible or probable attack by another
country.
Such action may perhaps be authorized by treaty, but it has
not been authorized either by the United Nations Charter, as
I have shown, or by the Atlantic Pact.
In my opinion, the Senate resolution and the concurrent
resolution adopted by the Senate on April 4, 1951, was a clear
statement by the Senate that it has the right to pass on any
question of sending troops to Europe to implement the Atlantic
Pact, that it is unconstitutional for the President to send any
troops abroad to implement that pact without congressional approval, at least until war comes and Article 5 takes effect. It
has been said that this resolution is not a law, and, of course,
that is true, but the declaration can be implemented by the
Appropriations Committee and by other legislation when legislation becomes appropriate. There can be no doubt that it
is a legislative act and that it clearly asserts the power of Congress and the Senate.
No one can prevent the President continuing to assert his
power as President, and it may be that he does have the ability
to involve the United States in war, even when he has no right
to do so; but I think a great forward step in defense of constitutional law has been taken by the definite position now asserted by the Senate.
The President acts at his own peril, if he chooses to usurp
authority which the representatives of the people have asserted
Jhat he does not possess.
3. International Organization as a Means

of Securing Peace with Liberty
ENTIRELY apart from any immediate threat of military
aggression against the United States, I have always favored an
international organization to promote the peace of the world
and therefore of the United States. My father campaigned
vigorously during World War I in behalf of a proposed League
to Enforce Peace. President Wilson wrote a similar program
into the Versailles Treaty in the form of the League of Nations,
and I always favored strongly our joining that League. On
August 26, 1943, before the American Bar Association, I
urged the formation of a world-wide organization of sovereign
nations, outlining the general character of that organization,
and I quote from my speech:
The plan for an enforced peace which accords most closely
with the ideals of the American Republic and of the Atlantic
Charter, is that for an Association of Nations to include the
United Nations and the Neutrals and, after a period of probation,
the Axis nations. It would be supported by covenants between
sovereign nations agreeing to determine their disputes by the law
of nations and judicial decision, or by arbitration. It would
further be supported by covenants to join in the use of force
against any nation determined to be an aggressor by the decision
of some international tribunal. Frankly, this is an obligation
38
which the American people may be loath to undertake, but I believe they will undertake it, because they know that if war is not
prevented at the start, under modern conditions it is more than
likely to spread throughout the world.
But there are certain conditions to be insisted on.
First, force should not be called for against any nation because
of any internal domestic policy, except rearmament in excess of a
quota imposed or agreed to. Interference in domestic policies,
even such vital matters as tariffs or the treatment of minorities,
would be more likely to make war than prevent it. The test is:
is the subject one on which the people of the United States would
be willing to have other nations interfere with our internal
actions? If not, we should not attempt to impose such interference
on others.
Second, the covenant must be preceded by an economic arrangement fair to all nations, and by political arrangements providing for proper self-determination. The covenant, of course,
must provide for the revision of boundaries and obligations, but
essentially we will be asked to guarantee the status quo. We cannot make that guarantee unless the status quo is fair to all peoples
and gives them a chance to live, and therefore affords a reasonable hope that peace can be maintained.
Third, I believe that any obligation to use force in Europe
should only be secondary, not to be effective until the peace-loving
nations of Europe have exhausted their own resources. This is in
accord with Mr. Churchill's suggestion of a Council of Europe
under the Association of Nations. We cannot help solve the problems of Europe unless the great majority of the European nations
first agree on what that solution should be.
I supported the resolution by the Republican Conference at
Mackinac Island, "favoring responsible participation by the
United States in a postwar co-operative organization among
sovereign nations to prevent military aggression, and to attain
permanent peace with organized justice in a free world." This
was the language of Senator Vandenberg, and it contains the
International Organization
39
soundest, most concise statement of the proper basis of international organization.

I supported the Gonnally resolution adopted by the Senate
of the United States on November 5, 1943. I voted for and
supported the United Nations Charter in the Senate on July
28, 1945.
I was never satisfied with the United Nations Charter and
stated my criticism definitely at the time. The fundamental
difficulty is that it is not based primarily on an underlying law
and an administration of justice under that law. I believe that
in the long run the only way to establish peace is to write a
law, agreed to by each of the nations, to govern the relations
of such nations with each other and to obtain the covenant of
all such nations that they will abide by that law and by decisions made thereunder. I criticized the Connally resolution,
because it omitted any reference whatever to the establishment
of a rule of law. It is extraordinary that the original Dumbarton Oaks proposals for a United Nations Charter omitted all
reference to justice. The final charter, largely through the work
of Senator Vandenberg, does recognize the importance and
desirability of justice, but it does so only in the most general
way, and the Chapters dealing with the Security Council,
which form the heart of all enforcement, require the Security
Council to make such decisions as will "maintain peace and
security," without any reference to justice.
It is true that Article 24 contains a general provision that in
discharging its duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles set forth in Chapter I;
and it is also true that this chapter includes justice as one consideration. But the reference to justice and international law in
paragraph 1 of Article 1 and the reference to justice in paragraph 3 of Article 2 seem to be related only to the settlement
of disputes by peaceful means. If the Security Council has to
make a definite decision looking to the employment of force,
it is done primarily on the basis of maintaining peace and security.
40
Peace and security are not synonymous with justice. It might

well be that the Security Council, acting in full compliance
with the charter, could take property from one nation to which
it justly belonged and give it to another, because it felt that
would promote peace. So Mr. Chamberlain agreed to the
transfer of Sudetenland to Germany. By substituting the maintenance of peace and security for law and justice we authorize
the basing of decisions on expediency, and for expediency
there are no rules which cannot be changed by the majority to
fit its desires in a particular case.
It should also be pointed out that the veto power given to
prevent the Security Council from making recommendations
under Article 39 or from using sanctions and force under Articles 41 and 42 completely dispels the idea that any system of
universal law is being established, for surely nothing can be law
if five of the largest nations can automatically exempt themselves from its application.
It is suggested that the charter can be made satisfactory by
eliminating the veto power. I do not see how we ourselves can
agree to eliminate our veto power, if decisions of the Security
Council to use force are based on expediency rather than law.
It seems to me that peace in this world is impossible Unless
nations agree on a definite law to govern their relations with
each other and also agree that, without any veto power, they
will submit their disputes to adjudication and abide by the
decision of an impartial tribunal. The agreement to abide even
by unfavorable decisions was the essence of the arbitration
treaties which my father, when President, negotiated with England and with France. It was unfortunate that they were defeated by the Senate. Until nations are willing to enter into
such an agreement, international progress toward peace is
bound to fail.
Such progress is probably dependent even more on building
up in the world public opinion in behalf of law and justice between nations. No matter what the covenants made, an aggressor who violates his covenants can only be suppressed if a
41
real world public opinion unites against him, in enthusiastic

military support of those who fight for peace and justice. There
is no such world public opinion today, and so we find the attempt to punish aggression in Korea at best a stalemate and
the attempt to punish aggression by Chinese Communists a
complete failure.
I have thought that our State Department has lost complete
touch with the principles of liberty and justice on which this
nation was founded. Certainly those who drafted the Dumbarton Oaks proposals could not have been enthusiastic supporters
of American principles. My opposition to the Nuremberg
trials was based on the fact that those trials violated every
instinct of justice which I have grown up to regard as fundamental.1 Even more, by trying to clothe a matter of policy in
the robes of justice, they discredited for many years the ideals
of justice between nations.
We see also in the matter of our trade relations with other
nations a demand by the State Department for unlimited
power under the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act and a complete unwillingness to be bound by law or standards of any
kind. The brazen disregard of law in the Korean enterprise and
in the setting up of an international army in Europe is further
evidence that our State Department has long since repudiated
any serious respect for law and justice. It is now dominated
far more by the philosophy of the economic planner who feels
that the Government must decree the life of its citizens and of
the world on a strictly opportunistic and expedient policy. My
own feeling is that this policy in the field of foreign affairs, unless restrained, can only lead to arbitrary and totalitarian government at home, as foreign affairs comes more and more to
dominate our domestic activities, and to war in the world.
The net result of the terms of the charter has been to destroy
the usefulness of the United Nations as far as the prevention of
Address of Robert A. Taft at Kenyon College, October 5, 1946,
on "Equal Justice under Law."
42
aggression is concerned. I pointed this out in my speech on the

charter in 1945, when I said:
All the discussion about force is of minor importance because
it can never be used to solve any major crisis. If the charter had
been in effect, Japan would have vetoed any action against itself
on the invasion of Manchuria and of China. Italy would have
vetoed any action against itself on the invasion of Ethiopia. In
some ways the organization would have been less effective even
than the League of Nations. The charter could not use force if
Russia were to invade Poland or seize the Dardanelles from
Turkey. Even attacks by satellite nations of one of the great powers might be engaged in safely if a great power had agreed in
advance to exercise the veto power. If one of thefivegreat powers
violates the charter, and vetoes action against its own violation,
the charter is for all practical purposes dissolved in failure.
When the North Koreans attacked on June 25, 1950, it
happened that Russia was boycotting the Security Council,
and the resolution calling for action against the North Korean
aggression was therefore passed without dissent.
On June 28, 1950, I questioned the legality of the United
Nations' action, because Article 27 of the charter clearly provides that decisions of the Security Council on all matters shall
be made by an affirmative vote of seven members, including
the concurring votes of the permanent members. There was no
concurring vote by Russia, but we overrode this objection
without considering how it might be raised against us in the
future. Furthermore, we took this action without considering
the fact that if the Chinese Communists attacked and the
Russian representative returned to the Security Council the
United Nations could not follow up its action against the
Korean Communists by similar action against Chinese Communists.
If the Russians had planned it that way, they could not have
done better. Did they perhaps arrange the North Korean attack when they were boycotting the United Nations, so that
the United Nations might take an abortive action? Did they
43
deliberately ignore the point I have just made, relating to

affirmative votes, knowing that they could later block action
against China? In any event, the President committed the
United States to the Korean War as an undertaking of the
United Nations, deluded as to a power which never has existed
under the charter. His moral position was unassailable, but he
did not realize the implications of what he started.
We have tried to bypass the limitations on the power of the
Security Council by asking for action by the General Assembly
when a veto has been exercised in the Council. Under the charter this body has never been intended to have any power to call
on governments for action or do more than recommend. It
would be most unwise for us to build up such power in the
General Assembly. No nation has contracted to abide by any
decision of the General Assembly. There is no obligation to
comply with its recommendations. Furthermore, we would
only have one vote among sixty, which sometime in the future,
even in the very near future, may subject us to very arbitrary
treatment.
Certainly this did not excuse the long delay of the Assembly
in denouncing the Chinese Communists as aggressors. Its whole
dilatory action repudiates the very basic theory of the charter
that the United Nations is formed to prevent aggression and
maintain peace. But action taken by the Assembly today can
only have moral effect.
Those who are blaming the United Nations should much
more blame the limitations of the charter and our own Government for forcing United Nations' action beyond its permanent power to perform.
I believe we ought to formulate the amendments which
would create an ideal organization. But for the present we can
only make use of the United Nations, as best we may, as a
diplomatic weapon, and through it we may hope for more
general support of our position against Communist aggression.
Perhaps it may assist in establishing more friendly relations
with Russia. But as far as military policy is concerned I see no
44
choice except to develop our own military policy and our own
policy of alliances, without substantial regard to the non-existent power of the United Nations to prevent aggression. The
very adoption of the Atlantic Pact seems to me to constitute
recognition of the impotence of the United Nations.
At this point I might discuss the other alternative form of
international organization which is being urged strenuously
upon the people of the United States, namely, a world state
with an international legislature to make the laws and an international executive to direct the army of the organization.
The theory of an international state, bearing the same relation to nations and their citizens as our federal Government
bears to the states and their citizens, appears to me, at least in
this century, to be fantastic, dangerous, and impractical. It is
proposed that it have a supreme legislature, executive, and
court. It would maintain an all-powerful military force able to
dominate all nations. It would control all trade, all seaports,
and all airports within the various nations. Such a state, in my
opinion, would fall to pieces in ten years.
The whole idea is based on the union of the thirteen colonies
in 1787. But those colonies were made up of men of similar
origin, similar methods of thought, similar ideals, with similar
forms of government. They lived approximately the same kind
of life, with similar standards of living. Even in that case one
single difference resulted in a violent civil war about seventyfive years later which almost destroyed the Union. Here we
would be attempting to unite peoples who do not understand
even how their new fellow citizens begin to think; we would
join democracies with dictatorships, Moslem states with Christian states, the Brahmin with the Rotarian, men who talk only
Japanese with men who talk only English. We would attempt
to unite the most highly civilized with the aborigines, the workman who earns twenty dollars a day with the coolie who earns
twenty cents a day. The difficulties of holding together such a
Tower of Babel under one direct government would be insuperable.
45
Furthermore, if it could remain in existence at all, it would

not remain democraticif a state including dictatorships like
those of Russia, Communist China, Argentina, and Yugoslavia
could ever have been democratic. True freedom depends on
local self-government, effective access of the people to their
individual rights. Sometimes I question whether the United
States has not reached the limit of size under which the people
of a nation can have a real voice in its government. Certainly
a world government at Geneva or Panama would listen more
closely to the voice of well-organized pressure groups than to
the voice of an ordinary American citizen from city, small
town, or farm.
It is significant that the British Empire, because of its size,
has moved toward decentralization of government and has today no over-all legislative body, no over-all executive, and no
over-all police force. If Canada and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and Eire are regarded as too diverse to
be consolidated into one government, what about China,
Japan, India, Russia, Switzerland, and Ethiopia?
But above all, anyone who suggests such a plan is proposing
an end to that liberty which has produced in this country the
greatest happiness, the greatest production, the highest standard
of living the world has ever seen. He is proposing to tear up
the American Constitution which has made this nation the
greatest power for good in the world, setting an example of
successful popular rule to the entire world. We are asked to
scrap a tried plan, which up to this time has successfully maintained our liberty at home and abroad and afforded to this
country the protection against invasion which is the alleged
purpose of all international plans. It would subject the American people to the government of a majority who do not understand what American principles are and have little sympathy
with them.
Most people who think carelessly of a world state seem to
think that it would be run by the United States. But we, of
course, would have a very minor voice in the character of legis-
46
lation. We would be the natural target of all other nations for

taxation and all kinds of economic discrimination. The controversies which would arise in trying to pass legislation would
almost certainly produce hundreds of disputes which could
easily lead to war between constituent states, for civil war is as
possible as any other war. Most such disputes would never
arise at all under a covenant between nations admitted to be
sovereign in their own territory. The plan would promote war
instead of preventing it.
I cannot conceive of a responsible American statesman willing to subject the great principles we have developed in this
country to destruction by an alien majority. A world state
might bring peace for the moment, but it would be the peace
of dictatorship and in a few years would plunge us again into
world-wide war. Any international organization which is worth
the paper it is written on must be based on retaining the sovereignty of all states. Peace must be sought not be destroying
and consolidating nations but by developing a rule of law in
the relations between nations.
There are two steps which might be taken to improve the
United Nations. We might press for a convention to write
amendments to the charter. That would probably be blocked
by Russia. We might set up an organization of nations within
the United Nations under a more ideal charter. There was an
opportunity to do this in the case of the Atlantic Pact, but the
State Department chose to negotiate a military alliance. If all
the Atlantic Pact nations agreed to a new form of international
organization based on law and justice without veto, it could
operate between themselves and settle all disputes among them.
An example of success might lead to the new organization's
becoming the real power within the facade of the United Nations.
4. The Russian Menace. How It Was

Created
I POINTED out in 1945 that the defects of the United
Nations Charter make it completely useless against the aggression of one of the five permanent members. This result has
been made apparent sooner than might have been expected by
two factsfirst, the revelation that Russian Communism has a
spirit of aggression which recognizes no laws or obligations (as
we were told by all those who knew anything about it), and,
second, an Administration policy which deliberately built
Russia up to a position of dangerous power. These developments have created a menace from Soviet Russia, which has
brought the weakness of the United Nations Charter into sharp
focus and made it apparent that the charter cannot possibly
deal with the aggression of one of the five permanent members.
It has forced upon the United States the necessity of adopting
what we hope are temporary policies to insure our own safety,
rather than a complete reliance on the international organization.
Even during the war the policies which were adopted by
the United States completely ignored the possibilities which
might occur after the war had been won. The exclusive interest
of the Administration was to bring the fighting to an immediate close, no matter what might be the ultimate outcome of
48
Americans
the peace. Hanson Baldwin, in his book Great Mistakes of the

War,1 points out clearly that the whole policy of unconditional
surrender was an invitation to unconditional resistance, that it
discouraged opposition to Hitler, lengthened the war, and left
a vacuum in Germany into which only Russia could move. He
points out the stupidity of our fear that Russia might make a
separate peace with Germany and the equally stupid assumption that we had to invite Russia into the Japanese War, when
in fact we had already won that war. These curious misconceptions led us throughout the war to an almost suppliant attitude toward Russia. We acted as if it were a favor to us for
Russia to accept our lend-lease assistance. We accepted Russia's
military demands and overruled every British objection to policies which were bound to make Russia stronger after the war.
The concessions made at Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam and
our later policies in the Far East were such as to build up
Soviet Russia to a position of power which today does indeed
present a threat to the security of the United States. The reasons for our giving Russia everything that it requestedand
even moreare complex, but perhaps some of them are now
apparent. After the Teheran conference (November 28-December 1, 1943), in an address which I made on June 8, 1944,
I pointed out the danger to ultimate peace from the negotiations at that time. I said:
The danger to the accomplishment of an association of nations
to preserve the peace does not come today from so-called isolationists or any unwillingness on the part of our people to go
ahead. It comes from the current policy of Mr. Stalin and the
failure of this country to have any definite foreign policy at all.
The most revealing picture of the minds of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin was contained in the two articles by Forrest Davis
in the Saturday Evening Post. The material was evidently obtained directly from the President. According to those articles,
the President's foreign policy up to this time, his "great design,"
is "to secure the goodwill of Russia as a sincere and willing col*New York, Harper & Brothers, 1950.
Russian Menace. How Created
49
laborator in postwar settlements." To accomplish this purpose

he concentrated on personal charm and avoided all issues which
might bring about a difference of opinion. He seems prepared to
sacrifice all principles of foreign policy to appease Russia. He
"avoided the slightest cause of offense to the Kremlin" and
avoided any statement of fundamental principles, such as Wilson
insisted on in World War I. He feared to renew our offer of good
offices in the Russo-Polish controversy. He promptly came to the
support of the Communist Tito in Yugoslavia. He made an immediate and generous response to Stalin's demand for a share in
the surrendered Italian fleet, or its equivalent. Its equivalent is
now said to include one of our own cruisers. He urges the Finns
to quit the war at once without reference to Soviet terms. He
"quipped and yarned, relieving tension," suggesting compromises
between Churchill and Stalin. No agreement was reached at
Teheran on the disposition of a defeated Germany "or in truth on
any other major postwar issue." Yet on most of these issues Mr.
Stalin stated his own policy "pushing his claims, directly and indirectly, in the vast areas of Europe which he has staked out as his
sphere of influence." Stalin had a hearing on his point of view regarding Poland and expressed his view that since the British had
not done so well in managing the Balkans, Russia should have a
whirl at it. When the three leaders got around to the Baltic States,
Stalin upheld his contention as to the legality of the Soviet-controlled plebiscites in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, so the President thought there was little point in pressing his own principles
that a plebiscite be held under impartial auspices, because the subject was "touchy with reference to Russia."
The week before these articles appeared I stated in Cleveland
that I had every hope the Russians would agree to conditions on
which permanent peace might be founded but that Mr. Roosevelt did nothing whatever at Teheran even to suggest restraint
to Mr. Stalin. I did not imagine, however, that Stalin had reaffirmed so many Russian policies without serious dissent. A man
like Stalin certainly assumes that silence gives consent.
From these Davis articles it is clear that our policy is based on
the delightful theory that Mr. Stalin in the end will turn out to
have an angelic nature and do of his own accord those things
50
which we should have insisted upon at the beginning before

supplying $4,000,000,000 worth of lend-lease supplies.
Forrest Davis's articles do not contain any clear statement of
Mr. Churchill's attitude, but from his public statements it is reasonably certain that he intends to urge at every point the interests
of the British Empire. In his speech of May 24 [1944] he discussed
the promised organization of nations and spoke of a "world-controlling council . . . comprising the greatest states which emerge
victorious from this war." As an afterthought he says that there
must also be a world assembly of powers, whose relations to the
world executive or controlling power he is in no position to define.
No doubt Mr. Roosevelt also listened to this conception of a
league of nations bossed by England, Russia, and America, without expressing any dissent that might produce a conflict of opinion. . . .
I do not wish to judge finally any of the problems I have discussed, but I do want to suggest that they are far more important
and far more difficult than the theoretical discussion of the terms
of a covenant of an association of nations; and their solution
along present lines would make the association a mere shell.
At Yalta (February 4-11, 1945) Mr. Roosevelt was a sick
man, but the general policies which he followed at Teheran
were also followed at Yalta.
They were supplemented by something perhaps rather more
sinister in the indirect influence of communism and Communists on American statesmen. It is interesting to note that
in the book published by Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., he makes
it clear that, while he went to Yalta as Secretary of State, he
had nothing to say about the negotiations on the important and
unfortunate Agreement Regarding Japan,which has had such
disastrous results. He was told that W. Averell Harriman, who
was then ambassador to Russia, had all the necessary data and
that he would look after most of these negotiations. According
to Stettinius, Harry Hopkins, as well as Averell Harriman,
assisted the President in his discussions on the Far East and the
Agreement Regarding Japan. It is significant that Alger Hiss
51
was also at the conference and evidently made his influence

felt as one of three State Department experts who traveled
with Stettinius to Yalta.2
Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Harriman apparently accepted completely the idea that Russia was a peace-loving nation, for it is
so designated in the joint Declaration on Liberated Europe
agreed to at Yalta. At Teheran Roosevelt signed a declaration
welcoming all nations into a "world family of Democratic
Nations," of which Russia was apparently already one in the
eyes of Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Harriman.
Our first ambassador to the Soviet Union, William C.
Bullitt, in an article in Life (August 30, 1948), made the following statement:
The Department of State employed its influence with Washington correspondents and columnists to add rosy colors to the Soviet
picture. . . .
The President and Hopkins gradually began to be swept away
by the waves of propaganda they had started. In spite of the
President's statement of February 10, 1940: "The Soviet Union is
run by a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the
world," they developed the theory that the Soviet Union was a
"peace-loving democracy" and bestowed favors on persons who
subscribed to this perversion of the truth. Able and patriotic
officers of the Department of State and the Foreign Service who
knew the truth about the Soviet Union and refused to lie in favor
of the Communist dictatorship were moved to unimportant posts.
Clever young men who knew the truth but cared more about
their careers than their country and were ready to testify that
"Stalin had changed" were promoted rapidlyand became contemptible profiteers of American disaster.
Henry Wallace, former Vice-President and at the time of
Yalta Secretary of Commerce, had made speeches about the
"new democracy," to be built by the people of the United
States and of Russia. He said that anyone suggesting that the
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Roosevelt and the Russians (Garden City,
N.Y., Doubleday & Company, 1949).
52
aims and purposes of the two peoples were irreconcilable was

criminal, that in some ways Russia was more democratic than
America.3 Joseph E. Davies, American ambassador to Russia
before Harriman, expressed the view that the Soviet leaders
were "sincerely devoted to peace" and that what they most
desired was to live as good neighbors in a world at peace.4 Hopkins said it was ridiculous to think of Stalin as a Communist.
He was a Russian nationalist.5 In any event, all these men
were led into a complete misconception of the real purposes
of the Russian Government and its communist character.
My own view is that the Communists in our Government, in
the labor unions, and among the writing fraternity in both
New York and Hollywood were concerned with influencing
people who were in a position to affect public opinion or public policy or others who could influence such people. They
planted exactly the philosophy which was adoptedthat communism was probably not the form of government for the
United States but that it was, in fact, a form of government
more or less consistent with American ideals.
I could never understand how any man who went through
even an American high school could reach such a conclusion.
Communism, from my point of view, denies every principle of
Americanism. It denies liberty. Certainly in Soviet Russia there
is no one who can be safe from spying and seizure by the Soviet
police. Certainly there is none of its boasted equality, for the
members of the Party have most of the privileges and they are
only a small proportion of the total population. Certainly there
is no justice. The Soviet simply uses the courts as instruments
of public policy. They do not even admit the possibility of an
impartial tribunal in any matter in which communism is in any
way concerned. Every man is either for them or against them.
Communism denies religion. It denies God Himself. It is hard
'Speeches, May 24, November 8, 1942.
^Prologue to film, Mission to Moscow, 1943.
e
John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth (New York, Devin-Adair Co.,
1948), pp. 340-341'
53
to find any philosophy which is more the antithesis of American principles, and yet many of our policy makers at Teheran
and Yalta seem to have accepted the professions of the Communist leaders as to their interest in liberty, peace, and
equality.
The result was that at Yalta our policy makers accepted all
Stalin's promises that he would set up a free Poland, for instance, and free states in the Balkans, although he had never
kept a promise which he had made. They accepted these promises without any means of enforcing them. Stalin and Hitler
together had really started World War II, and Stalin had
joined in the partition of Poland by moving into Poland from
the east, just as Hitler moved in from the west.
The influence of the military mission under General Marshall has not been made so clear, but apparently it was responsible, at least indirectly, for the many concessions made to
Russia in the Far East, by insisting on the necessity of Russia
entering the war against Japan. Admiral Leahy alone felt it
was unnecessary.6 General Marshall must at that time have
over-estimated the strength of Japan and deliberately ignored
the Japanese peace overtures.7
In any event, the net result of the negotiations was to permit Russia to enter Berlin first and to set her up in a Russian
zone, which occupies a dominating position in Germany today.
The lines of that zone were so drawn as to give the Russians
the most dominating military positions in Germany and bring
them within eighty miles of the Rhine at Mainz and within a
hundred miles of the Ruhr. We did not even reserve a right-ofway to get into our own zone in Berlin, a mistake which cost us
many hundreds of millions of dollars and many lives in maintaining the air lift. We seem to have conceded the influence
of Russia in Czechoslovakia and, of course, in eastern Austria.
William D. Leahy, / Was There (New York, Whittlesey House, 1950),
P. 293'See particularly Ellis M. Zacharias, Behind Closed Doors (New York,
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1950), p. 55 et seq.
54
A. Foreign Policy for Americans
In short, we established Russia in the dominating positions of

Central Europe, at Berlin, at Prague, and at Vienna, from
which they dominate Central Europe, cut off Eastern Europe,
and threaten the security of Western Europe and, therefore,
that of the United States itself.
It does not appear that these concessions were necessary.
Our troops could have reached Berlin before the Russians if
they had not been called back. We withdrew from Dresden
and Leipzig, which we had already occupied. General Patton
would have been in Prague the next day, but he was called
back so that Czechoslovakia could surrender to Russian generals, and his own book shows that he was not pleased with
that recall.8
In matters of reparation the Russians got all the best of it,
and for many years after that time industrial plants were being
shipped from Germany into Russia to be used to build up the
military strength of Soviet Russia. At the same time we
adopted, in effect, the Morgenthau Plan, which consistently
reduced the productive strength of Germany and carried out
even more effectively the general theory of the war of unconditional surrender, a policy which removed the possibility of
Germany's being restored as a state strong enough to resist Russian aggression.
In the Far East our action seems to be even less understandable. We agreed to Russia's taking over the same position
in Manchuria which Japan had occupied, in effect a military
control of Manchuria.9 This was contrary to every principle
of American foreign policy since the day of John Hay and the
open door in China. We actually had gone to war with Japan
because of its aggression in Manchuria and in other parts of
China, and yet, having defeated Japan, we agreed to Russia's
moving in toward the dismemberment of China. We turned
8
George S. Patton, Jr., War as I Knew It (Boston, Houghton Mifflin,
1947), P- 327.
HThe provisions of the Agreement Regarding Japan were as follows:
The leaders of the three Great Powersthe Soviet Union, the United
States of America and Great Britainhave agreed that in two or three
55
over southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands without strings

of any kind, although the many islands which we had captured
in the Pacific are to be held under a trusteeship from the
United Nations. Russia today has occupied islands down to
within a very short distance of northern Japan, so that it
presents a real threat to Japan in case a war occurs, and it
might be almost impossible to defend the northern part of the
Japanese archipelago.
This whole agreement was made without even letting
Chiang Kai-shek know for four months that we had bargained
away his most important industrial province.10 Chiang was an
ally who had fought by our side for five years and stood out
against Japanese attack and Japanese cajolery during all that
months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe has terminated the Soviet Union shall enter into the war against Japan on the
side of the Allies on condition that:
1. The status quo in Outer Mongolia (The Mongolian People's Republic) shall be preserved;
2. The former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of
Japan in 1904 shall be restored, viz:
(a) the southern part of Sakhalin as well as all the islands adjacent
to it shall be returned to the Soviet Union,
(b) the commercial port of Dairen shall be internationalized, the preeminent interests of the Soviet Union in this port being safeguarded and
the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base of the USSR restored,
(c) the Chinese-Eastern Railroad and the South-Manchurian Railroad
which provides an outlet to Dairen shall be jointly operated by the establishment of a joint Soviet-Chinese Company, it being understood that the
pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union shall be safeguarded and that
China shall retain full sovereignty in Manchuria;
3. The Kuril Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.
It is understood, that the agreement concerning Outer Mongolia and
the ports and railroads referred to above will require concurrence of
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, The President will take measures in order
to obtain this concurrence on advice from Marshal Stalin.
The Heads of the three Great Powers have agreed that these claims
of the Soviet Union shall be unquestionably fulfilled after Japan has
been defeated.
For its part the Soviet Union expresses its readiness to conclude with
the National Government of China a pact of friendship and alliance between the USSR and China in order to render assistance to China with its
armed forces for the purpose of liberating China from the Japanese yoke.
Joseph V. Stalin/Franklin D. Roosevelt/Winston S. Churchill
February 11, 1945
"He was not informed until June 15, 1945. Department of State
Publication 3573, United States Relations with China (1949), p. 116.
56
period, and yet, in effect, we abandoned him to the demands

of Soviet Russia. This action put the Russians in a position in
Manchuria where they could furnish arms and assistance to
the Chinese Communists, which, of course, they promptly did.
For some time General Wedemeyer attempted to assist the
Nationalist Government in taking over control of Manchuria,
but it was blocked by the Russian occupation of Port Arthur,
Dairen, and Russia's control of the railroads.11 Then the State
Department went further. It certainly expressed every sympathy with the Chinese Communists and did everything it
could to discredit the Nationalist Government of Chiang Kaishek. That government probably was corrupt in many ways,
as charged, but certainly corruption has been a feature of every
Chinese Government for centuries, and we do not seem to be
entirely free of it in the United States itself.
The Far Eastern Division of the State Department was inspired, to say the least, by strong prejudice in favor of Chinese
Communists,12 and that seems to have been shared also by
Secretary Acheson himself. General Marshall was sent to
China to insist that Chiang Kai-shek take Communists into his
cabinet,13 and he did his best to force that result. Chiang refused to do so. His refusal certainly seems to have been justified by what happened in Czechoslovakia when Communists
infiltrated the cabinet there. Yet, when Chiang did refuse,
Marshall cut off further military aid to Nationalist China,
from August 1946 until May 1947. We held up definite
promises which had been made to Nationalist China, while
the Russians threw everything into the assistance of the
Chinese Communists. General Wedemeyer's appointment as
u
This is clearly described by Hu Shih, former Chinese ambassador to
the United States, writing in Foreign Affairs, October 1950.
13
Among others, Patrick J. Hurley, ambassador to China, set this forth
in his letter of resignation to President Truman dated November 26,
1945. Department of State, op. cit. supra, p. 582.
"In his press conference of December 18, 1946, President Truman
was asked, "Are we urging the Nationalist government in China to accept
Communists in the Cabinet?" "It has been our policy all along," Truman
replied. Washington Post, December 19, 1946.
57
ambassador to China was canceled by Mr. Acheson because

the Chinese Communists objected.
At the Potsdam Conference (July 17-August 2, 1945) for
the first time, apparently, some suspicions about Soviet good
faith began to arise in the minds of those who were running
American foreign policy, particularly Secretary Byrnes, but,
nevertheless, at Potsdam, President Truman reaffirmed all the
agreements made at Yalta and approved the Morgenthau
policy in Germany and even went beyond the Yalta agreement
in some of the workings out of that agreement.14 His agreements finally sealed the fate of the Baltic peoples, of Poland, of
Czechoslovakia, and of the Balkan states.
From that time on our policy of conceding everything
in Europe to Russia was gradually changed, I believe very
largely under the influence of Senator Vandenberg, who, at
San Francisco, saw how completely impossible it was to deal
with the Russians. Working with Vandenberg, Secretary
Byrnes finally refused to go along with any plan which would
give Russia a predominating position throughout Germany*
He threatened to resign unless Henry Wallace was dismissed
from the Cabinet, and President Truman complied with his
advice. Gradually, in Europe our whole position changed, and
we took a definite position against the expansion of Russian
influence in any degree. We adopted the Marshall Plan, which
proposed to give assistance to countries threatened by Russian
infiltration and by communism from within. We adopted a
policy of giving military aid to Turkey and Greece, which, were
under direct threat of attack by the Communists. We finally
ratified the Atlantic Pact and agreed to go to war with Russia
if it attacked any member of that pact. In short, we completely
reversed our policy in Europe and adopted the general policy
of checking the advance of communism in every way in which
it could possibly be checked.
"See Sumner Welles, Seven Decisions That Shaped History (New
York, Harper & Brothers, 1951), pp. 205, 206.
58
On the other hand, in the Far East we continued to encourage the growth of the power of communism.
In spite of the recommendations of the Wedemeyer report on
China, we finally abandoned Chiang Kai-shek. The Administration fought efforts to provide money for arms to Chiang and
refused to carry out the policy along that line decreed by Congress. Even when Chiang Kai-shek had retired to Formosa the
Administration refused to give him any assistance whatever.
On January 5, 1950, the President said: "The United States
Government will not provide military aid or advice even to
Chinese forces on Formosa."
I said in an interview in December 1949 that I supposed
our policy of checking the growth of communism would, of
course, apply to the defense of Formosa. Here was an island
which could be easily defended with sea and air power, containing eight million people who certainly were not friendly to
communism and occupying a very strategic position in the Far
East. I was sneered at both by the President and Secretary
Acheson. I found that the State Department had already issued
an instruction to our representatives in the Far East, saying
that "Formosa has no special military significance" and that it
was strictly a Chinese affair. I quote from the State Department instruction:
Loss of the island is widely anticipated and the manner in
which civil and military conditions there have deteriorated under
the Nationalists adds weight to the expectation. . . .
In areas of insistent demand for United States action, particularly in the United States itself, we [the members of the State
Department] should occasionally make clear that seeking United
States bases on Formosa, sending in troops, supplying arms, dispatching naval units or taking any similar action would (a)
accomplish no material good for China or its Nationalist regime;
(b) involve the United States in a long-term venture, producing
at best a new area of bristling stalemate and at worst possible involvement in open warfare.
59
Mr. Acheson in his testimony at the MacArthur hearings

claimed that our policy had always been to keep the Communists out of Formosa by every means except the use of American armed forces. Why we should have hesitated to use the
American Navy, in view of our infinitely more dangerous and
expensive venture into Korea six months later, it is difficult to
see. Mr. Acheson claims that the memorandum deliberately misrepresented our real policy, for the purpose of saving our face
if Formosa fell, as he believed it would. In other words, either
we were lying then or the State Department is lying now.
In view of the President's refusal to give even advice to
Chiang and in view of the terms of the memorandum of December 23, 1949, it is impossible to believe Mr. Acheson or
escape the conclusion that the State Department wanted to see
Formosa taken over by the Communists.
Mr. Acheson indicated further that America might recognize Communist China. There is no doubt that the attitude of
the Administration toward Formosa and its general weak position toward the spread of communism encouraged the war in
Korea.
In January 1950 Secretary Acheson stated clearly that we
would fight if Japan, Okinawa, or the Philippines were attacked, but we could give no guarantee beyond that point. We
had withdrawn our troops from Korea, and we thus made it
clear that we would not defend South Korea if attacked.
Furthermore, we even failed to arm South Korea. We had
declared when we withdrew our troops that we would give
armed assistance to Korea. The Mutual Defense Assistance
Act of 1949 authorized the President "to furnish military assistance to the Republic of Korea," and $10,500,000 was set
aside to carry out the provisions of the authorization, but none
of it was ever used. An4, although Assistant Secretary Webb
testified specifically, before both the House and the Senate,
that the appropriation was sought for the purpose of helping
Koreans to deter external aggression, the Administration policy
was changed to provide only small arms for internal security.
60
The President himself in June 1950 finally admitted that the

Government forces in Korea were armed only "to prevent
border raids and to preserve internal security." In other words,
the South Koreans had no tanks, no heavy artillery, and no
planes to resist the Russian-equipped forces of North Korea.
This action was taken in complete disregard of General
Wedemeyer's report of September 9, 1947, so long suppressed
by the Administration. He had pointed out that the "North
Korean People's Communist Army of approximately 125,000
is vastly superior to the United States-organized Constabulary
of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. . . .
The creation of an American controlled and officered Korean
Scout Force, sufficient in strength to cope with the threat from
the North, is required to prevent the forcible establishment of a
Communist government after the United States and Soviet
Union withdraw their occupation forces."
There is no doubt that the Administration's weak policy invited the Communist attack. The Communists took the Secretary of State at his word. They knew that we had permitted
the taking over of China by the Communists and saw no reason
why we should seriously object to the taking over of Korea.
The Korean war and the problems which arise from it are the
final result of the continuous sympathy toward communism
which inspired American policy. The result today is that Chinese Communists have taken over practically all of continental
China, and from that point they have sent armies into Korea
and Tibet, and are threatening Indo-China, Burma, Thailand,
and all of Southeast Asia.
The result of the Administration policy, therefore, has been
to build up the strength of Soviet Russia, so that it is, in fact,
a threat to the security of the United States. Our liberty is
threatened by the Russian military strength, backed up by the
fifth-column strength which the Russians are always able to
develop among Communists in every nation in the world.
I feel that Russia is far more a threat to the security of the
United States than Hitler in Germany ever was. There are
61
several reasons for that belief. Principally, it is based on the

great development of air power, which permits airplanes to be
built that can fly from Russian territory or Russian bases all
the way to the United States. It is certainly possible that Russian planes can be built, in time, able to fly to the United
States and return. The Russians also apparently possess the
atomic bomb, or at least we have to allow for that in our
plans. That means that while they attack other portions of the
world they can also attack the United States, possibly destroy
our cities, possibly destroy many of our key industrial plants,
which are necessary for the conduct of war.
In any all-out world war we need a year or more to develop
the production and the training which is necessary for all-out
war and which can never be developed before war actually
occurs. Therefore, the Russian air power does present a threat
to our ability to do what we did in World Wars I and II. Furthermore, we cannot estimate the strength of Russian sabotage
and fifth-column destruction. Soviet Russia is far stronger in
that regard than Germany was at any time.
Of course, the Russians have much greater manpower than
ourselves, and if they can also swing the manpower of China,
as they seem to be doing at the present moment, they have an
overwhelming superiority in manpower, if it can ever be
brought to bear against the United States itself. I don't see
how that can be done unless our air force is inferior and finally
destroyed by the Russian air strength. Nevertheless, it is a
feature of the situation which did not exist in the case of Germany.
Therefore, today we find ourselves with the greatest military
threat from foreign sources we have faced since the days of the
American Revolution. We find that the United Nations is a
weak reed to lean upon, and we are forced, therefore, to the
development of some other policy to combat Russian aggression.
Before the Korean War began the Administration had proceeded on the theory that the Russians and their satellite coun-
62
tries would not engage in military attack. This threat of Russian aggression existed before Korea, just as much as after
Korea, but we had developed no consistent plan to meet it. The
country was assured that the Army, Navy, and Air Force of the
United States, which then cost approximately twelve to thirteen billion dollars a year, was adequate for the defense of the
United States against any possible Russian aggression. That
seemed a large sum to me, and I took the word of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
It was in March 1950 that General Bradley, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Committee on
Appropriations that he was satisfied that a budget of $13,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1951, with about a million and a half
men in uniform, was sufficient for the interests of the country.
He evidently would have preferred some additional sum but
stated that he did not recommend any such addition at that
time, saying: "We do not have any way of knowing whether
this figure should be $13,000,000,000, $14,000,000,000, or
$15,000,000,000. We think we must not spend this country
into economic collapse and spoil our industrial potential." He
testified: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff never went along with this
great big figure of $20,000,000,000." He said that if he came
and recommended a $30,000,000,000 budget for defense he
would be doing a disservice and that "maybe you should get a
new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Of course the Korean War has occurred since that time, but
the present program of forty to sixty billion dollars a year is
not to meet the Korean War but to meet the powerful threat
of Soviet Russia. The Korean War itself only takes one tenth
of the total of men now requested and perhaps costs five or
six billion dollars a year to conduct. The threat from Russia
was exactly the same and from the same Russia in early 1950
as it is today. It is our policy which has changed.
Finally, on June 25, 1950, the North Korean Communists,
inspired by Soviet Russia and armed by Soviet Russia, attacked South Korea. The President reversed the entire policy
63
promulgated by the State Department up to that time and

ordered American troops into Korea, first without and then
with the approval of the United Nations. The Communist
attack made it clear to the American people that the Russians
would not stop at military aggression by the troops of their
satellites and raised a presumption that they might not even
stop at military aggression in the case of Russian troops themselves. The use of satellite troops for aggression is no proof that
Russia will start a world war, but, in any event, we had to
reconsider our entire position and determine what policies
should be adopted to meet the Russian threat.
5. The Russian Menace. How Do We

Meet It Throughout the World?
HOWEVER the Russian menace was created, we face
now the problem of the best methods of meeting it and protecting the safety of the American people. If possible, we wish
to find the policies which will deter Russia from military aggression and at the same time will not be so provocative themselves as to give Russia a sound reason for such aggression. We
must adopt also policies which, if war unfortunately comes,
will best defend America and enable us to achieve ultimate
victory. But we must be always alert to explore every possibility of permanent peace and all changes in public opinion
in Russia or the satellite countries which look in that direction.
There is much more agreement on the general character of
the strategy to be adopted than is generally supposed. The
violent differences that have arisen relate to the relative emphasis on the various tactical policies involved in that strategy
and to the manner in which they have been and should be
worked out. Generally speaking, we must strengthen the forces
opposed to communism and combat to the extent of our ability
the spread of communism, both in political power and in the
minds of men. For the present our policy may be said to be one
of containment, but it certainly carries the hope that we can
Russian Menace. Throughout
the World?
65
develop an affirmative policy which will constantly extend the

doctrine and the power of liberty.
The Administration seems to have accepted this strategy in
theory, since the days of Secretary Byrnes. I believe that Arthur
Vandenberg had most to do with reversing the policies of
Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam, which I have described in
Chapter Four. He stiffened the attitude of Secretary Stettinius
at San Francisco. He counseled against concessions to Russia
in Europe which might have led to a Communist Germany.
He and Byrnes forced President Truman to eliminate the proCommunist Henry Wallace from his Cabinet. Senator Vandenberg was never consulted about the Far East, and the
change-over in policy there was not made. Senator Vandenberg said in the Senate on March 18, 1947:
This bipartisan foreign policy has been confined within relatively narrow limits. It has applied to the United Nations. It has
applied to peace treaties in Europe. It has applied to nothing else.
I have had nothing to do, for example, with China policies or
Pan-American policies except within the United Nations, and at
times I have been satisfied with neither. The first I ever heard
of the Greco-Turkish policy was when the President disclosed his
thoughts ten days ago at the White House.
On April 16, 1947, Senator Vandenberg said in the Senate:
"I have been highly critical of the State Department's policy
heretofore in China, because it has looked toward the creation
of a coalition with Communists, and in my opinion no Communist ever entered a coalition for any purpose except to destroy it."
But today the Administration seems to admit the general
application of the anti-Communist strategy, whether prepared
to apply it everywhere or not. My basic criticism of Administration policy today is that no one seems to have worked out
a comprehensive plan for the application of this strategy or
any co-ordinated use of the many policies necessary to carry it
out. Have we any program, positive or negative, ready for use
in Yugoslavia or Iran or Burma or Indo-China? Furthermore,
66
no one seems to have recognized that there are serious limits

to our economic and manpower capacity and that we must be
selective and restrained in determining the extent to which we
carry out our basic strategy. No one has given the people a
long-term planfor production, for spending and taxation,
and for controlsor explained to the people in clear language
the reasons and justification for the sacrifices which must be
asked for.
The methods suggested to carry out the basic strategy may
be summarized as follows:
1. The creation of powerful American armed forces.
2. Economic aid to countries where such aid will enable
anti-Communist countries to resist the growth of communism
from within.
3. Arms aid to countries where such aid will enable antiCommunist governments to resist aggression from without or
armed Communist forces within.
4. Warnings to Soviet Russia or its satellites that armed
aggression beyond certain lines or against certain countries will
be regarded by the United States as a cause for our going to
war.
5. The sending of American troops to a country threatened
by attack from Russia or its satellites (European army) or
where the attack has already occurred (Korea).
6. An ideological war against communism in the minds of
men.
7. An underground war of infiltration in Iron Curtain
countries.
ECONOMIC AND MANPOWER LIMITATIONS
FORCE THE UNITED STATES TO SELECT
AMONG THE MANY PROJECTS PROPOSED
TO CHECK COMMUNISM,
We must realize that there are definite economic and manpower limitations on American strategy.
Russian Menace. Throughout the World?
67
The people of the United States constitute only 6 per cent of

the population of the globe. Our raw materials are certainly
not more than a third of the world's resources. Our huge production is still less than one third of the world's production.
Our people cannot, and do not desire to, boss the internal
affairs of other countries. They cannot send armies to block a
Communist advance in every far corner of the world. Consequently, we must consider the cost of the policies we adopt,
both in men and money, and we are forced to be selective in
determining the relative value and cost of each project.
Of the seven policies I have listed above by far the most
costly under present conditions is the first, the creation of
American armed forces sufficient to meet any threat of attack
on land, sea, and air. President Truman's 1952 budget called
for the expenditure of forty billion dollars for our armed forces,
compared to eight and one-half billion for all kinds of aid to
foreign countries. While the building up of our own forces is
the first and best method of providing security for our people,
it is also, therefore, in its extreme form the most disruptive to
our national life, our freedom, our progress, and even our production.
The exact size of the program is a question on which men
may well differ, but it is not solely a military problem. For
some years the Administration assured us that armed forces of
approximately one and a half million men, costing about
thirteen billion dollars, were sufficient to meet any threat. The
Joint Chiefs of Staff joined substantially in this view, as I
pointed out in Chapter Three. On July 1, 1951, although there
seemed to be no agreed plan, it was suggested that we need
three million five hundred thousand men in uniform, at a cost
which may run from forty to sixty billion dollars a year, or more
than four times the annual amount suggested before the Korean War. Yet that war only accounts for about one tenth of
what is requested, and the Russian menace is about the same
as it was on January 1, 1950.
On July 23, 1951, however, the President suggested in his
68
economic report that 3,500,000 men was only an interim goal,

and that plans were being made for a substantially larger expenditure. Secretary Acheson sent word to the Foreign Relations Committee that twenty-five billion dollars for three years
of foreign aid was a serious underestimate. This indicated a
Federal budget of at least a hundred billion dollars a year for
fiscal 1953 and fiscal 1954.
If we were engaged in all-out war, we would probably have
to spend something like one hundred and fifty billion dollars a
year to conduct that war. That would be half our present
national output, and in World War II we spent about half of
the output at that time. Undoubtedly, if we ask the military
men today to propose projects which would give us supposedly
absolute and one hundred per cent security against every possible contingency they would have us spend one hundred and
fifty billion dollars today in time of peace, and they could
present projects costing that sum. But we are not at war, and
the condition we face may go on for five, ten, and even twenty
years, according to some of the generals.
The truth is that no nation can be constantly prepared to
undertake a full-scale war at any moment and still hope to
maintain any of the other purposes in which people are interested and for which nations are founded.
In the first place, it requires a complete surrender of liberty
and the turning over to the central government of power to
control in detail the lives of the people and all of their activities.
While in time of war people are willing to surrender those
liberties in order to protect the ultimate liberty of the entire
country, they do so on the theory that it is a limited surrender
and one which they hope will soon be over, perhaps within a
few months, certainly within a few years. But an indefinite surrender of liberty such as would be required by an all-out war
program in time of peace might mean the final and complete
destruction of those liberties which it is the very purpose of the
preparation to protect.
Furthermore, the destruction of that liberty in the long run
69
will put an end to the constant progress which has characterized this country during its 160 years of life, a progress due
more than anything else to the freedom of men to think their
own thoughts, live their own lives, and run their own affairs.
It would require a complete surrender of all of our material
and humanitarian aims to increase the standard of living of
our people and of the people of our allies. All of those standards
of living would have to be reduced, because even the most
optimistic do not feel that we can have all the guns we want
and all the butter we want at the same time.
It would be impossible to conduct any such all-out program
without inflation. In World War II, in spite of complete controls, we saw an increase in prices, apparently permanent, of
about 70 per cent, a depreciation of the dollar to sixty
cents. I doubt if any government spending program calling for
half the national income could be undertaken which would not
involve an increase in prices of at least 10 per cent every year
and a corresponding depreciation in the value of the dollar.
This would mean the destruction of savings and life insurance
policies. It would mean a constant race between prices and
wages. It would mean hardship for millions, and doubt and
uncertainty for many millions more. It would mean constant
domestic turmoil and disagreement.
Finally, it would interfere with the very production which
is the great basis of the strength of the United States and to
which not only our own people but all of our allies look for
ultimate victory if there should be a war with Russia.
The truth is, also, that the most foresighted person could not
set up a preparation that would protect us against every conceivable contingency. One or two Pearl Harbors might lay us
open to a dangerous attack. We have to choose those measures
which will give us the most complete protection within our
reasonable economic capacity. In short, there is a definite limit
to what a government can spend in time of peace and still
maintain a free economy, without inflation and with at least
some elements of progress in standards of living and in educa-
70
tion, welfare, housing, health, and other activities in which the

people are vitally interested.
The question which we have to determine, and which apparently nobody in the Administration has really thought
through, is the point at which we reach the economic limitation in time of peace on government expenditures and a military program. After that we must choose between the various
measures contributing to our defense, to determine which are
of first importance and which can be ignored without serious
danger.
The number of men in uniform is the most convenient guide
to the total cost of the program, although, of course, there are
many other elements. Just after the Korean War the Chiefs of
Staff wanted 2,100,000 men. In December 1950 they raised
their sights to 2,700,000 men. Within thirty days after that they
finally came in with the suggestion of approximately 3,500,000
men in uniform. Now a larger number is suggested.
At the time of writing the President's expenditure budget
for fiscal 1952 is still approximately seventy billion dollars,
including about forty-one billion dollars for the armed forces,
plus six and one quarter billion dollars for arms to foreign
countries. But, from various indications, this is not going to be
the actual ultimate cost of the program now submitted. It is
said that 3,500,000 men under arms will cost about ten thousand dollars per man for current maintenance and replacement
of equipment, clothing and the like. This would be about
thirty-five billion dollars a year, but apparently for a period of
several years, while we are providing the heavier equipment
such as heavy artillery, airplanes, and tanks, there would be an
additional bill of from fifteen to thirty billion dollars so that
the total cost of the armed forces may well be sixty-five billion
dollars. If no cut is made in other domestic and foreign aid
expenditures the total expenditure will be close to eighty-five
billion dollars a year. It is anticipated now that the expenditure budget for fiscal 1953 will be eighty-nine billion and this
does not include the further expansion suggested by the Presi-
71
dent in his Economic Report. Taxes, including those enacted

in 1950, are now estimated to yield sixty billion dollars, so that
it would take from twenty-five to forty billion dollars of additional taxes in order to balance the budget.
If to eighty-nine billion dollars we add about eighteen billion dollars for state and local taxes our total tax bill will be
one hundred and seven billion dollars, or approximately one
third of the gross national production. My own view is that
this is more than we can possibly stand without inflation. It
would be about 40 per cent of the national income; and 40
per cent of expenditure and taxes in Great Britain has destroyed private initiative and is socializing the country.
I fully agree with President Truman that we should balance
the budget, because one thing is certain: if we do not do so
we are bound to have substantial inflation, with all its disrupting results. But we have to balance it by holding down
expenses as well as by increasing taxes.
For there is also a limit to the taxes that can be levied on any
uniform basis, without creating injustice and hardship and
inflation. If taxes are raised too high they are themselves
inflationary, even though the budget is balanced. When the
hardship of taxes is too great people succeed in one way or
another in passing them on into the price of the goods, which
is ultimately paid for by the consumer. The rise of prices in
this manner will be met in part, at least, by increased wages,
and those again increase costs and prices.
Theoretically, you can fix prices and wages and prevent any
such increase, but in practice, even in wartime, we have seen
that this cannot prevent some inflation, and in time of peace
it will be infinitely more difficult to enforce controls of this
kind. People are willing to make sacrifices for a temporary
period while their boys are fighting at the front, but we saw
after World War II that the moment that threat is over people
are no longer willing to submit to any general control. Black
markets sprang up immediately after the war. Corn was sold
for any price that could be obtained for it. All the legitimate
72
lumber yards were empty, and lumber was carted directly

from the mills to the job and sold for any price that could be
obtained. At one time 80 per cent of the beef was in the black
market, and most of it was entirely beyond the control of the
Price Administration at that time. The weakness of peacetime controls is likely to permit a much more rapid inflation
than in time of war.
There is another limit to be consideredthe number of men
who can be drafted into the Army and taken out of productive
life. Probably we can maintain our production, even though
three and one half million men are employed in the armed
forces, although I already hear complaints from many farmers
who have relied on sons from eighteen to twenty-one to run
their farms, to the effect that they will no longer be able to
undertake the program of increased agricultural production
on their farms. Any program of putting six million men into
the Army certainly would develop a shortage of men in industry itself, at the very time that we are trying to increase industrial production for our allies as well as for ourselves. Reliable
estimates have been made by experts on manpower available
for the armed forces, which show that we cannot keep more
than three and a half million men in the armed forces without
increasing the regular term of service to more than the current
two-year term. Such service is already a serious interference
with the education of our boys, and the greatest limitation on
individual freedom in peacetime the people have ever had imposed on them. Three years' universal service would be still
more disruptive and obnoxious to the American people.
One of our main functions in the present situation is to increase the already great production necessary to give the raw
materials and the support to the countries of the Atlantic Pact
and to other countries throughout the world. We must not
weaken ourselves by rampant inflation or shortage of manpower
or destroy the morale necessary to keep our people productive
even beyond the present figures.
In short, even though the United States has the greatest
73
production in the world, there is a definite limit to what we

can do. We cannot and should not proceed on the theory that
war will begin tomorrow. All-out mobilization can only be
undertaken when war is certain.
WE SHOULD STRIVE TO LIMIT FEDERAL EXPENDITURES DURING THE EMERGENCY
TO ABOUT 75 BILLION DOLLARS
It is hard to set any exact figure beyond which the federal
budget should not go. Marriner Eccles, in an article in Fortune
magazine, November 1950, estimated that seventy-five billion
dollars is a possible federal tax. Roswell Magill, writing in the
Saturday Evening Post of August 1951, also indicates his belief
that we cannot tax more than 75 billion a year without inflation. Any general increase in prices might justify a higher tax
burden in dollars. My own view is that in President Truman's
estimate of Federal expenses in fiscal year 1952 of seventy-one
billion dollars we have almost reached the limit which the Federal government in peacetime should undertake to expend in a
singe year, unless the emergency is so great as to justify a deliberate policy of inflation and loss of liberty.
Of course, expenditures can be reduced in several different
ways. In the first place, they may be reduced by drastic cuts
in non-defense expenditures. I should estimate that five billion
dollars could have been taken out of the budget in this respect
if you include the cut in various foreign aid programs. In a
speech on January 5, 1951, I suggested that 3,000,000 men in
uniform should be about the limit and that perhaps a study of
military practices would show that we could get the same results with 3,000,000 men in uniform as are now sought with
3,500,000 men. To a layman there always seems to be a great
waste of manpower in the armed services. Is it necessary, for
instance, to employ 50,000 men in uniform and 20,000 civilians
in order to put a division of 18,000 men in the front line? Could
we not get the twenty-four divisions which seem to be the goal
74
of the general staff for a land army, without putting 1,500,000

men into uniform for that purpose?
If I am even approximately right, the more enthusiastic
proposals for 100 divisions of land forces in time of peace
would wreck the country's economy and, in time, its morale.
They would require 5,000,000 men in the land Army which
would add 3,500,000 men to the proposals of the chiefs of
staff, costing about thirty-five billion dollars more than the
present program. I think it would be impossible to raise taxes
to provide this amount of money, and that means more debt
and certain inflation. We must be reasonable and selective in
determining the military projects which we are going to undertake to meet the Russian threat.
THE EMPHASIS IN SELECTING MILITARY
PROJECTS SHOULD BE ON AIR POWER
In selecting the projects upon which we expend the resources
of the United States to the limit of our economic and manpower capacity we have to consider the whole military policy,
in preparation for a possible attack by Russia on ourselves or
on our allies. I have yet to see anyone who has been able to
describe clearly just what a third world war would be like.
One thing seems to be certain: it would not be like World
War I or II. Air forces and the atomic bomb would play a
greater part than ever before, but no one can measure exactly
what their strength would be. Certain principles, however,
appear to be fairly clear.
Our first consideration must be the defense of America.
Whatever one may feel about the action of the United States
in other parts of the world, no matter how much of an internationalist a man may be, one must recognize that this country
is the citadel of the free world. The defense of the United
States itself is, of course, the first goal of our own people, essential to protect our liberty; but it is just as important to the
rest; of the world that this country be not destroyed, for its
75
destruction would mean an end to liberty everywhere and to

the hope of restoring liberty where it has been lost. It seems
obvious that the immediate problem of defending this country
depends upon control of the sea and control of the air.
There is no question that we have the largest Navy in the
world and, certainly, as long as the British are our allies complete control of the sea throughout the world, except as it may
be hampered by Russian submarines or airplanes. We have
a powerful Air Force, but it seems vitally necessary that that
Air Force be increased until we have control of the air over
this country and over the oceans which surround our continent. It should be capable of expansion in time of war, to
secure as great air control as possible over the rest of the world
and over the enemy country. With our resources and with
Great Britain as an ally, that is not impossible. By the end of
the last war we had practically complete control of the air over
Germany and Japan, and it was the decisive factor in the
completion of victory. Not only is the Air Force necessary for
defense of America, but it is the one weapon that can damage
the enemy bases, from which air attacks upon us can be made.
Whether war can be ended by air power alone may be open
to question, but certainly sea and air power can achieve a complete protection while other forces are being developed to meet
whatever goals may seem to be desirable in a third world war.
Of course, an army of reasonable size is absolutely essential.
We must have it for the defense of the American continent
and our island possessions. A land army is necessary for the
defense of air bases, further defense of islands near the continental shores, and for such occasional extensions of action
into Europe, Asia, or Africa as promise success in selected
areas. But it need not be anything like as large an army as
would be necessary to begin tomorrow a land war on the continent of Europe or the continent of Asia.
The fact that the Air Force has deteriorated is due solely
to the shortsightedness of this Administration and the Pentagon policy, which, in substance, refused any increase in Air
76
Force unless corresponding increases occurred in the Army and

Navy. The Eightieth Congress in 1947 set up a congressional
Aviation Policy Board. This Board reported to the Congress
on March 4, 1948, recommending a seventy-group Air Force
as a prerequisite for national security. A Citizens Advisory
Commission set up by the President under Thomas K. Finletter also recommended a seventy-group Air Force. The
Eightieth Congress in the supplemental defense appropriation
bill of 1948 provided for such a force, and the Air Force increased from fifty-five groups in June 1948 to fifty-nine groups
in December 1948. On December 31, 1948, however, a presidential directive required the Air Force to be cut to forty-eight
groups. In 1949 the Eighty-first Congress provided for a buildup of the Air Force to fifty-eight groups again, ten more than
recommended by the President, but the President, when he
signed the fiscal 1950 Military Appropriation Act, directed
the Secretary of Defense to place in reserve the amounts provided by the Congress for increasing the structure of the Air
Force. The amount impounded by direction of the President
totaled $775,450,000.
On October 5, 1949,1 wrote:
The possession of the bomb by Russia emphasizes above everything else the necessity of building up an all-powerful air force.
The only possible defense is a complete control of the air. If there
is ever a third world war, it will be won by the nation who can
most completely dominate the air. We should build up our own
Air Force again to seventy groups. We must constantly improve
our Air Force and our air defense.
But until the Korean War the President still insisted on
holding the Air Force to forty-eight groups. The power of the
land generals was sufficient to hold down the Air Force unless
the budget could provide a corresponding increase in land
forces. Now the increase is to be balanced by an even larger
increase in the land forces. The 1952 budget proposes to spend
twelve and one half billion dollars for the Air Force, eleven
77
billion for the Navy, and fifteen and one half billion for the
land Army.
Not only is an all-powerful air force the best possible defense for the United States, but it is also the best deterrent to
war. Winston Churchill has said that the American possession
of the atomic bomb and the possibility of its being used in an
attack on Russia have been the principal deterrents to Russian
aggression. It seems to me this must be true. The Russians are
not going to be deterred by land armies until such armies are
built up to a strong defensive force completely able to throw
back armies of Russia and its satellites, and they can always
attack before that point is reached. Certainly they have not
been deterred by land armies in Europe from 1946 to 1951,
because there have been no land armies there to deter them..
They know that the destruction of their principal communications, bases, and industrial developments by atomic bombs may
make it infinitely more difficult for them to succeed in any war.
Every consideration, therefore, of American defense and also
of the insurance of peace depends upon the development of an
air force more efficient and more effective than the world has
ever seen.
A superiority in air and sea forces throughout the world can
achieve other purposes than mere defense. It can protect all
island countries, Africa and South America. It can furnish
effective assistance to all those nations which desire to maintain their freedom on the continent. It can achieve a balance of
power under which more peaceful relations throughout the
world can constantly be developed.
While defense of this country is our first consideration, I do
not agree with those who think we can completely abandon
the rest of the world and rely solely upon the defense of this
continent. In fact, the very thesis of an effective control of sea
and air by the free nations requires that we do interest ourselves in Europe and the Near East and North Africa and the
Far East, so that Communist influence may not extend to areas
78
from which it is still possible to exclude it by many methods

other than land armies.
It seems to me that our battle against communism is in fact
a world-wide battle and must be fought on the world stage.
What I object to is undertaking to fight that battle, in the first
instance, primarily on the vast land areas of the continent of
Europe or the continent of Asia, where we are at the greatest
possible disadvantage in a war with Russia. The first principle
of military strategy is not to fight on the enemy's chosen battleground, where he has his greatest strength. We could not have
a better lesson than has been taught us in Korea. A small war
against a minor Russian satellite like North Korea has cost us
tens of thousands of casualties and taxed the resources of our
armed forces to the limit. Yet there we have had the advantage
of a comparatively narrow peninsula, with both flanks protected by the sea, and of complete domination of the air. We
cannot be sure that we can ever transport enough men and
equipment to overcome the vast manpower supplied by the
teeming millions of Russia and of China on the main part of
the continent. Where there is complete disregard for human
life, even the best weapons and equipment may fail to overcome a tremendous disadvantage in manpower.
Our position is not greatly unlike that of Great Britain,
which dominated much of the world for a period of about two
hundred years and brought about the balanced peace of the
last half of the nineteenth century. The British had control of
the seas and met every challenge to that control. There was no
question of air power. They seldom committed any considerable number of British land troops to continental warfare, and
when they did do so they were by no means successful. Marlborough fought very largely with mercenary troops and the
troops of his allies. Napoleon was finally defeated by a combination of many nations, which did not contain more than
twenty per cent of British troops. Yet control of the seas enabled
the British in many places to develop power on the land, as in
India. They supported one group of such countries against
79
others and gave strong support to their friends in every country.

They established garrisons at strategic points where sea power
could protect them. It was the sea power of Britain which gave
Britain a powerful influence on the continent of Europe itself.
It seems to me that by reasonable alliance with Britain,
Australia, and Canada the control of sea and air can establish
a power which never can be challenged by Russia and which
can to a great extent protect Europe, as it has been protected
now for five years through fear of what sea and air power can
accomplish against Russia. There is no need for a specific line
of defense in every section of the world, but we can exercise a
power for peace over a vast area. If the Russians realize that
our power in the final outcome of war cannot be challenged
except on the continent of Eurasia, and perhaps not there in
the final issue, and that it can do real damage to their own
nation with the atomic bomb and otherwise, their purpose of
military aggression in Eurasia itself may well wither. If they
are convinced that they cannot achieve world conquest by military means they are likely to turn to their old love of propaganda and infiltration. Gradually, peaceful relations in Europe
may grow again, for the desire of human beings for peace and
comfort and normal human relations is a powerful force which
will constantly assert itself.
I do not believe that our sea and air power should be used
for aggressive purposes, but I do believe it should be available
to assist those nations which ask for assistance to defend themselves against Communist aggression, to the extent that such
power can be successfully and effectively used. In the first
place, we should be willing to assist with our own sea and air
forces any island nations which desire our help. Among those
islands are Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand; on the Atlantic side, Great Britain,
of course.
There is some question as to the ability of sea and air power
to defend islands in reasonably close proximity to the coast, as
are Formosa and Japan. Sea power there is seriously limited
80
by submarines and mines, but we should make every possible

effort to establish the ability of our Navy and Air Force to
prevent any landing across salt water. The submarine problem
must be solved at all costs.
The power of great sea and air forces is not necessarily
limited to island nations. The policy I suggest certainly does
not abandon to Communist conquest the continental nations.
In the first place, we give economic assistance to many such
nations, providing they want that assistance and use it effectively against communism. We give arms, as we are bound to
do under the Atlantic Pact and as we are now doing in IndoChina, in Greece, in Turkey, in Formosa. An adequate modern
air force should be able to bomb the communications of any
aggressor, its army and air bases, and its manufacturing plants
and thus not only deter aggression but seriously interfere with
its success. Probably strategic air power cannot prevent a land
advance, but it can certainly play a powerful part in the defense against such an advance and in the ultimate outcome of
the war.
The commitment of a substantial American land army to
continental soil is a much more serious problem. Broadly speaking, it is far less practical. Its expense is capable of indefinite
expansion, once we are involved, as we have seen even in the
Korean War. It is fighting the enemy on his chosen ground. As
a general policy, I do not believe that in time of peace we
should commit American troops to continental soil, or in time
of war unless we are reasonably certain of success through the
efforts of our own Army and our allies. I shall discuss later the
special exceptions that apply because of developments in
Europe and Korea.
But there are other examples in the world where it may even
be wise or expedient to commit some land troops with a reasonable chance of success. The entire continent of Africa is connected with Asia, and certainly we might have to assist in
defending the Suez Canal, as a means of maintaining our connections by sea and of defending Africa, where there are many
81
strategic materials, valuable air bases, and a threat to South

America. It may be possible to assist Spain. I should suppose
that Singapore and the Malay peninsula could be defended by
land troops if sea and air power is available on both sides of
the peninsula. The extension of such aid by land troops, however, is a dangerous experiment, as we found in Korea. I doubt
that, on principle, we should enter into any definite commitments in advance in time of peace, or undertake the job at all,
unless we are sure it is well within our capacity and almost certain of success.

Meet It in Europe?
I BELIEVE that the general principles I have stated
apply to Europe as well as to the rest of the world, but undoubtedly the special problems of Europe and its importance
to the cause of freedom throughout the world force us to act
there more vigorously and make some exceptions to the general
rules of policy. Our cultural background springs from Europe,
and many of our basic principles of liberty and justice were
derived from European nations. American language and ideas,
American institutions, and American methods of thought are
largely derived from Europe. Our principles of government
and our institutions are certainly more like those of Europe
than like those of any other parts of the world. We recognize a
common interest in promoting the prosperity of the entire
world, through increasing our interchange of products, by encouraging trade and commerce. The overwhelming majority
of the American people have the kindliest feelings for the people
of Western Europe and certainly desire our relations to remain
on the most friendly basis.
It is also true that outside of the United States the greatest
productive ability of the world is centered in Europe, and the
industrial capacity of Western Europe if added unimpaired to
Russian capacity would make Russia a more dangerous threat
Russian Menace. In Europe?
83
to the United States than it i$ today. To some extent this

argument may be overdone. Let us look at the actual situation
which would exist in case of war. These European nations
have asked us to go to war against Russia if Russia attacks
them. We have agreed to do so. That means that if Russia
does attack there will be a full-scale war, and it is likely that
that war will be fought to the end. During that war the industrial potential of Western Europe can hardly be organized in
time to be of great military value to the Russians. Industrial
plants would be destroyed by bombing. The whole economy
of these countries would be completely upset, as it was in
World War II. The ability of Russia to restore European
industry when it has once been disorganized cannot compare
with our ability, and yet it took four years after the war and
billions of our dollars to restore Europe to its industrial potential.
There is one other point that I would like to bring out. We
speak of Western Europe as if it were a single country. It is
nothing of the kind, and the efforts to make it such have completely failed up to this time. I believe that an alliance with
England and a defense of the British Isles are far more important than an alliance with any continental nation and offer
a much greater hope of success. With a British alliance there
can be little doubt of our complete control of sea and air
throughout the world. The British may be hard to get on with
and we may have many differences with them, but I believe that both of us are determined to reconcile those differences.
The problem of Italy is almost entirely separable from that
of the rest of Europe. Italy can only be defended as a separate
project, and some modification of the Italian Treaty is required
if there is to be any defense of Italy at all.
Germany, of course, is in a special situation. The Russian
zone already extends far across Germany, at one point to within
eighty miles of the Rhine. The best military opinion considers
the defense of Germany impossible short of the Rhine, which
84
would put most of Germany again under Russian control.

Naturally enough, the Germans are not much interested in
establishing an army, if war could only lead to their being another battleground between the powerful nations.
France is the only other large country, and its problems
again are almost completely individual. Certainly France cannot be defended by us unless it shows a great interest in a strong
army of its own.
It has been American policy to try to unify Western Europe,
economically and politically, but that policy certainly has not
been successful up to this time, and I am afraid it is contrary to
human nature and geography. There is nothing even resembling a customs union, and only a slight relaxation of trade
restrictions. The Benelux Union, which was supposed to set an
example, has never become effective, because of the inability of
reconciling the economic condition of Holland with that of
Belgium. The Schuman Plan is encouraging, but Great Britain,
the most important industrial nation in Western Europe, has
refused to join.
I do not mean to suggest that we should give up our efforts
to urge more unity among the countries of Western Europe to
the extent it is possible. If Russia should attack we certainly
want as unified a defense as possible. It is encouraging that in
this field General Eisenhower by the force of his personality has
made so much headway in persuading the European nations of
the tremendous importance of arming themselves in a joint
defense.
The point I wish to make is that our relations with each of
these countries require a different approach and different treatment. We cannot blithely say, "Western Europe should do
that," "Western Europe thinks this."
The questions we have to meet with respect to Europe may
be classified as follows:
1. Shall we give large financial economic aid to European
countries out of taxes levied on the American taxpayer?
2. Shall we give arms, equipment, and supplies from the
85
same source to arm these countries and to encourage them to

arm themselves?
3. Shall we agree to go to their defense if they are attacked
by Russia or anyone else?
4. Shall we commit American troops in time of peace to an
international army to be stationed in Europe?
Those who desire to commit American troops to Europe in
time of peace have talked a good deal about our running out
on Europe, if we refuse to follow their policy. I think it ought
to be pointed out that we have given billions for the purposes
of financial economic aid, we have given billions for arms,
equipment, and supplies, and we have definitely agreed to go
to the defense of these countries if they are attacked. The sum
of all this is probably the greatest support that one nation has
ever given to other nations in the history of the world, and if a
war actually occurred we probably would be supplying at least
half of the total support for that war, even if we sent no troops
whatsoever.
In the field of economic aid we have been committing billions of our taxpayers' money since the war. Following lendlease, we supported various minor projects, including
UNRAA; then we committed some six billion dollars to the
two Bretton Woods projects. We extended a loan of four billion to Great Britain. We are carrying through the Marshall
Plan at a total cost of something in the neighborhood of fifteen
billion. All of this aid has been extended to Western Europe
out of all proportion to our aid to the rest of the world. A great
deal of this aid was extended long before we had any realization of the threat from Soviet Russia, although most of the
Marshall aid was justified on that ground. Before the Russian
threat I was very dubious about the policy of advancing money
to Europe in such large amounts, certainly when General Marshall proposed to include Soviet Russia. The European countries are fully developed countries. The idea of extending large
gifts from one country to another was certainly a novel one,
86
and if the world had faced a peaceful solution it might well

have been that these countries could have achieved a sounder
recovery, although a slower one, by working out their own
problems. Certainly it is unwise for any nation to become dependent upon the charity of another nation, and it is just as
bad for the country receiving the charity as it is costly to the
country which gives it.
The question today, however, is hardly an issue on which
there is a serious split. Once the Russian threat was apparent
I was in favor of the Marshall Plan, in order that these countries might be able to meet communism more swiftly and effectively. Our assistance undoubtedly enabled them to recover in
three or four years to a point which they might not have
reached without our aid for perhaps ten years. Time was important in the fight against communism, and the assistance we
gave enabled some of these countries to bring about a recovery,
wherein communism found a much less fertile soil. But in 1951
the Western European countries have recovered, and their
production in most cases far exceeds their prewar production.
Aid of this kind today is far more justified to meet a famine in
India or an influx of immigration in Israel than it is to support
a European country able to support itself. The Administration
and Paul Hoffman himself have always emphasized that the
Marshall Plan aid was to end in 1952, and even such extension
as the Administration proposes today seems to be simply an
incident to the arms aid in which we are now involved.
With regard to the giving of arms aid at the expense of the
American taxpayer, I believe that this general policy is correct,
subject to certain conditions. In the first place, it ought to be
fairly clear that the nations to which aid is extended are really
threatened by Communist attack. I have never favored the giving of arms aid indiscriminately to South American countries.
In the second place, the amount must be within the capacity
of the United States to include in its budget and in its program
of production. In the third place, I do not think arms aid
should be given in such a way as to lead Russia to believe that
87
an attack is contemplated against Russia itself and so incite it

to a war which it might not otherwise undertake.
I supported the bills for the arming of Greece and Turkey.
I am quite willing to support arms aid to Great Britain and
France to the extent that they are not able to arm themselves,
although the providing of such arms should be a first call on
their own budgets, and arms aid should not be provided by the
United States simply to prevent some slight reduction in their
civilian standard of living. We ourselves are contemplating
such a reduction because of our own arms program, and I see
no reason why the other nations should not be prepared to
make the same sacrifice. In fact, unless they are going to give
that much importance to their own defense it is unlikely that
when the time comes there will be any wholehearted participation in that defense.
We should long ago have supplied much greater support in
the matter of arms and equipment to the Nationalist Government of China. We should never have left Korea until the
Korean Army was fully armed against a possible attack by
the North Koreans. We have finally adopted the policy of
arming the Chinese Nationalists on Formosa. But whether we
are doing it is another question. In this field, as in all other
fields of aid, Europe has had the lion's share of our assistance,
and the importance of Europe has been fully recognized in that
program and in the military aid which we are now contemplating.
When we come to the third and fourth proposals to assist
Europe, however, we enter a much more controversial field,
because under both of these proposals we frankly commit the
United States to war in case Russia attacks. This we have not
done anywhere else in the world, except as to the island nations
of Japan, the Philippine Republic, Australia and New Zealand.
The Atlantic Pact definitely commits us to go to the defense of
any one of the eleven nations if Russia or anyone else attacks
those nations.
There are various reasons why this should be done. We be-
88
came involved in Europe by fighting World War II, so that we

could not remove ourselves from the situation even if we
wanted to. We are one of the occupying powers in Germany,
and no one has yet been able to devise a method by which we
can withdraw from that obligation without practically inviting
the communization of Germany. We have several divisions of
troops in Germany, and if a war arose we would inevitably be
involved in that war.
We have an obligation to see that Germany itself does not
rearm in such a manner as to become again a threat to the
security of Europe and of the world. Senator Vandenberg proposed to Russia that we join in a more or less indefinite occupation of Germany to the extent necessary to prevent the development of another aggressive Germany, hoping by that means to
allay the fears of Russia of another German invasion. I thoroughly approved the policy of saying to Germany that certain
limitations must be imposed upon its economy, to prevent the
development of dangerous arms, and backing up that assertion
by undertaking to move soldiers into Germany the moment that
the limitations were exceeded. It was the failure of Great
Britain and France to take similar action to enforce the Treaty
of Versailles that brought about the success of Hitler in the invasion of the Rhineland and his gradual emancipation from all
limitation.
Therefore it seemed to me wise to notify Russia definitely
that if they undertook such a war they would find themselves
at war with the United States. This feature of the Atlantic Pact
was, in fact, the extension of the Monroe Doctrine to Europe.
The Monroe Doctrine brought peace to the American continent for a hundred years. A notification of this kind to Russia
seems to me a very clear deterrent to its beginning a war, because it must necessarily fear the bombing by the United States
which would result if they began aggression against members
of the pact. I do not like the obligation written into the pact
which binds us for twenty years to come to the defense of any
country, no matter by whom it is attacked and even though the
89
aggressor may be another member of the pact; and I do not

like the obligation of the pact which requires us to go to the
assistance of a nation attacked, without any consultation with
other persons, without a decision by a majority of those involved, and without any examination of the reasons for the
aggression which may have occurred. Nevertheless, I think the
advantage of the notice given to Russia outweighs, at least for
the present, these excessive obligations of the pact into which
we have entered.
In spite of the fact that I approved the warning given to
Russia by the ratification of the Atlantic Pact, I voted against
it because I felt it was contrary to the whole theory of the
United Nations Charter, which had not then been shown to be
ineffective, because I felt that it might develop aggressive features more likely to incite Russia to war than to deter it from
war, and because I thought that, at least by implication, it committed the United States to the policy of a land war in Europe,
when me might find that a third world war could better be
fought by other means.
I wish to make it clear that once the United States has entered into an obligation I am in favor of meeting every such
obligation. I do feel that the making of this pact was a clear
recognition of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations against
Russian aggression, and a violation of its spirit if not its language. The pact apparently is not made under Articles 52
to 54, inclusive, because we do not propose to consult the Security Council as there contemplated, we do plan to take enforcement action without the authorization of the Security
Council, and we do not plan to keep it fully informed. The
pact must, therefore, be supported under Article 51 alone,
which says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right
of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international
peace and security.
go
It seems clear to me, however, that the right is to be exercised only "if an armed attack occurs." I do not think Article
51 contemplates that one nation can agree to send troops to
other nations prior to the occurrence of such an attack. An
undertaking by the most powerful nation in the world to arm
half the world against the other half goes far beyond any "right
of collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs." It violates
the whole spirit of the United Nations Charter. That charter
looks to the reduction of armaments by agreement between individual nations. The Atlantic Pact moves in exactly the opposite direction from the purposes of the charter and makes a
farce of further efforts to secure international peace through
law and justice. It necessarily divides the world into two armed
camps. It may be said that the world is already so divided, but
it cannot be said that by emphasizing that division we are
carrying out the spirit of the United Nations.
With the obligation to provide arms in the pact it is even
more clear that the pact is a military alliance, a treaty by which
one nation undertakes to arm half the European world against
the other half. It cannot be described otherwise than as a military alliance. Of course, it is not like some of the alliances in
the past, although many of them, such as the Franco-British
Alliance prior to World War I, were entirely defensive in character, or purported to be. Others were offensive and defensive
alliances. I quite agree that the purpose of this alliance is not
offensive, and that we have no offensive purpose in mind. But
it is exactly like many military alliances of the past.
I was not impressed by General Bradley's effort to distinguish this military alliance from others. He said:
As I see it, the purpose and meaning of this is entirely different
from the normal military alliances as we have known them in
years past. Here we are binding ourselves together with some
other nations who have free institutions and ideals like our own.
Some of the military alliances in the past were a combination of
people who did not have such common ideals. Some of them were
for purposes of offense, some for defense, that is true.
91
In other words, the general's argument is that this is not a

military alliance because all of its members are virtuousfor
the moment.
While this is not an offensive alliance, the line between defense and offense today is indeed a shadowy one. The Maginot
Line was the essence of pure defense. Today it is the target of
ridicule. Every good defense includes elements of offense. We
cannot have an adequate armament for defense which cannot
be converted overnight into a weapon of offense, at least for
limited objectives. We talked of defense for some years before
entering World War II, while our preparation was also for offense. The result is that, no matter how defensive an alliance
may be, if it carries the obligation to arm it means the building
up of competitive offensive armament. This treaty, therefore,
means inevitably an armament race, and armament races in
the past have led to war.
Nevertheless after the Korean and Chinese episodes we have
to give up the idea of the enforcement of peace by the United
Nations, and I see no choice now except to rely on our armed
forces and alliances with those nations willing to fight the
advance of communism. But don't let's fool ourselves into regarding a military alliance as a world state based on the ideals
of collective security.
At the time the Pact was being considered I also felt that it
was likely to incite Russia to start a war because of the threat
involved to its satellite countries and therefore to its own safety.
There was bound to be a period during which that threat
would be apparent, and Western Europe would still be wholly
unarmed. Mr. John Foster Dulles shared this view in warning
against the inclusion of Norway in the Pact. He said on March
8, 1950:
"While the Soviet Government has no present intention of
resorting to war as an instrument of national policy, nevertheless it can be assumed the Soviet state would use the Red Army
if its leaders felt that their homeland was imminently and seriously threatened."
92
Americans
I have no means of guessing whether the Russians intend to

start a third world war or not, but if they do intend to do so
I believe they will begin that war, regardless of anything we
do, when they feel that the time is most propitious from their
own standpoint. If they do not have the intention of starting a
third world war, then I believe there is only one incitement on
our part which might lead them to change their minds and
begin such a war. That would be the creation of a condition
in which Russia feared the actual invasion of Russia or invasion of some satellite country sufficiently close as to threaten
the future invasion of Russia. However, my fears do not seem
to have been borne out up to this time. Either the Russians are
very much afraid of starting a third world war, or they see
serious weaknesses in their position which can only be remedied in time, or they don't regard the European Army in its
present condition as likely to be a threat to anyone for some
years to come. Their failure to move in Europe, or with Russian armies anywhere, raises the hope that perhaps we have
completely overestimated the Russian strength. Unfortunately
we cannot take a chance.
We have no choice now except to complete as rapidly as possible the arming of Western Europe if it desires to be armed.
That is the policy decided on in the Atlantic Pact, and I am in
favor of carrying out this commitment, as worked out by the
Council and General Eisenhower under the Pact.
In the beginning of 1951, however, we were suddenly committed to a new project, without any consultation with Congress and without any justification from the terms of the Atlantic Pact. That is the program to build up a great international
army on the continent of Europe with a substantial commitment of American land troops.
I think it should be made clear, first, that this was in no
way contemplated by the Atlantic Pact and that the United
States is in no way obligated to engage in any such project because of the ratification of the Atlantic Pact. The proposal
violates the general principles of foreign policy which I have
Russian Menace, In Europe?
93
advocated, but I do feel that the special situation of Europe

justifies the stationing of a limited number of American troops
on the continent of Europe. I believe it should be limited and
that no further commitment should be made beyond the six
divisions already promised, without a thorough reconsideration
of the whole policy and definite further action by Congress
itself.
The first question is to determine exactly what the project
is and whether it is authorized by the Atlantic Pact. Article 9
of the North Atlantic Treaty reads as follows:
The parties hereby establish a council, on which each of them
shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this treaty. . . . The council . . . shall establish
immediately a defense committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
The report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says
that the powers of the council "are purely advisory with respect
to governmental action. Its purpose is to make recommendations to the governments and to assist them in reaching coordinated decisions. It should be emphasized, however, that
the responsibility for making decisions lies in the respective
governments rather than in the councils. . . . The defense
committee will concern itself primarily with making plans and
recommendations for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5,
i.e., preparation for the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. Being subordinate to the council, it too shall have only advisory powers."
In December 1950 the council established under Article 9
met in Brussels and issued the following communique on December 19:
The North Atlantic Council, acting on the recommendations
of its defense committee, today completed arrangements initiated
in September last for the establishment in Europe of an integrated
force under a centralized control and command. This force is to
94
be composed of contingents contributed by the participating

governments.
The North Atlantic Council speaks as if it had authority to
do this, although its recommendations under the treaty are
only advisory.
On December 22 Secretary Acheson made the following
statement about the Brussels agreement:
At Brussels we did several things. We took recommendations
which had come from the meetings immediately preceding in
London and acted on those recommendations. They had to do
with the creation of the united, unified, integrated army which is
to provide for the defense of Europe. The papers which came to
us laid out the structure of that army, how it should be composed,
of what troops, where the troops should come from, how it should
be organized, its command structure, the higher command structure which would give that army its direction, and how the
supreme commander should be selected and appointed. We dealt
with and acted upon all those matters.
The structure was agreed upon, and the force was created.
I cannot understand what authority Secretary Acheson had
in that connection, because the Council's power was only advisory; but that is the statement which he issued.
After this subject began to be debated in Congress, however,
it assumed a much more indefinite aspect. It was denied that
there was any commitment whatever on our part or, apparently, on the part of any other nation. In all the extended
hearings Congress was unable to obtain any reliable information as to the size of the "united, unified, integrated army
which is to provide for the defense of Europe." It was unable
to find out how many American divisions were to be contributed under the program referred to by Secretary Acheson.
The request of the Administration finally boiled down to a desire to send four more divisions to Europe to support the two
divisions already in occupied Germany. It was never made
Russian Menace, In Europe?
95
clear whether these divisions were permanently assigned to

an international army or whether we were at liberty to withdraw them at any time. It was never made clear whether they
would take orders only from General Eisenhower, acting under
the orders of a twelve-nation council, or whether they would
take orders from the Defense Department in the United States.
It is uncertain whether General Eisenhower can overrule the
Joint Chiefs of Staff on questions of military strategy or
whether they are to be superior to him.
I could only come to the conclusion that there was in existence a perfectly definite project, probably calling for a good
many more than six American divisions and probably providing for an army of fifty or sixty divisions over-all. No nation
perhaps committed itself unequivocally to this project. Congress could never obtain from General Marshall any definite
statement that six divisions were the limit of an American contribution in time of peace, and in view of the past history of the
Administration it is reasonable to feel that in another year we
will be asked for more divisions to carry out this original plan.
The Senate finally dealt with the situation by approving the
general contribution of six divisions to Europe but indicating
that the President should return to Congress for authority to
commit any larger army to the continent of Europe in time of
peace.
There is nothing in the Atlantic Treaty which authorizes
this international army in Europe in time of peace to which
American troops are to be committed.
Article 5 of the treaty reads:
The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of
them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack
against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an
armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of
individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of
the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties
so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with
the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the
96
use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the

North Atlantic area.
By its terms this Article clearly leaves us free to determine
what action we deem necessary. In other words, we are obligated to go to the assistance of any member attacked by Russia, but we certainly are free to determine how we shall fight
that war. A council is set up by Article 9, which is to recommend measures for the implementation of Article 5, but we
are certainly not bound to accept any such recommendations.
In July 1949 on the floor of the Senate it was even argued
that the pact did not obligate us to provide arms and equipment for the parties in the pact. The amount of this equipment,
however, was not to be extensive, and certainly it was based
on a very large contribution by the other parties to their defense. Senator Vandenberg severely limited even our contributions for arms. He explained in the debate on the bill implementing the pact that the over-all assistance was only $1,130,000,000, to be paid out at the rate of about $500,000,000 a
year. The senator from Texas (Mr. Connally) made it clear
that the pact did not obligate us to send a land army to Europe.
He said:
This bill does not provide, as has been said by some persons,
that we are rearming Western Europe. Western Europe will
spend $5 or $6 for each dollar contributed by the United States.
Let me point out that we are not increasing by this aid the
number of armed men in the armies of the North Atlantic Pact
nations. We are simply undertaking to modernize their existing
armies which they themselves raise by aiding them in obtaining
equipment, munitions, and supplies. But we are not sending a
single soldier to any of those countries for combat purposes, nor
are we insisting that they increase the size of their armed forces.
So it can be seen that what was proposed at Brussels is something entirely different from what was being considered when
we adopted the Atlantic Pact.
In his appearances before the Foreign Relations Committee,
97
Secretary Acheson denied that we were obligated to send troops

or even extensive aid in equipment. He said:
It is not proposed to increase the establishments beyond what
is already provided in their budgets.
In 1951 we are urging that they triple and quadruple their
budgets. I quote further from Secretary Acheson:
So far as the pact countries are concerned, United States assistance will be somewhere between one sixth and one seventh of
the total effort which will go into military efforts in Europe. We
will provide, as is stated in the statement, approximately $1,130,000,000 for the pact countries.
In 1951 we are talking about providing six and one quarter
billion dollars' worth of arms aid this year and twenty-five billions in three years and, in addition, from 10 per cent to 25
per cent of all the foot soldiers involved in a European defense
army.
In committee, Secretary Acheson was asked the direct question by the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Hickenlooper) :
I believe you said earlier in your testimony today that it was
contemplated that a great portion of the armament, or the developed armament, of Western Europe, in the nations of this pact,
would be carried under their own weight. I presume that that refers also to the manpower in their armies. I am interested in getting the answers as to whether or not we are expected to supply
substantial numbersby that, I do not mean a thousand or two,
or five hundred, or anything of that kind, but very substantial
numbersof troops and troop organizations, of American troops,
to implement the land power of Western Europe prior to aggression.
Is that contemplated under Article 3, where we agree to maintain and develop the collective capacity to resist? In other words,
are we going to be expected to send substantial numbers of troops
over there as a more or less permanent contribution to the development of these countries' capacity to resist?
98
Secretary Acheson: The answer to that question, Senator, is

a clear and absolute "No."
Since the sponsors of the treaty, backed by the State Department, took this position, they can hardly contend now that we
have any obligation under the Atlantic Pact to send American
soldiers to Europe.
We did have warning at the time of the Atlantic Pact that
the military authorities in the Pentagon regarded the pact as
leading toward a land war with Russia in Europe. I pointed
out, in opposing the pact, that we were headed in this direction.
I said:
It is one thing to agree to go to war with Russia if it attacks
Western Europe. It is another to send American ground troops
to defend Norway or Denmark or Holland or Italy, or even
France and England. I cannot assert positively that we are committing ourselves to a particular type of war, but I am inclined to
think that we are. Thus General Bradley testified before the committee :
"Finally, after studied appraisal of the future security provisions
for our country, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are in unanimous agreement that our strategy, in case we are attacked, must rely on sufficient integrated forces of land, sea, and air power to carry the
war back to the aggressor, ultimately subjugating the sources of
his military and industrial power. Plans for the common defense
of the existing free world must provide for the security of Western
Europe without abandoning these countries to the terrors of
another enemy occupation. Only upon that premise can nations
closest to the frontiers be expected to stake their fortunes with
ours in the common defense."
This appeared to contemplate the use of American armies
in a land war with Russia on the continent of Europe the day
after war starts. It appeared to contemplate later an invasion
along the lines which Napoleon and Hitler found to be impossible. It implied that the nations which signed this pact expect
us to send American troops to defend their frontiers.
99
But it was only our military planners who discussed sending

American land troops to Europe. Responsible officials of the
Government absolutely repudiated any idea that the Atlantic
Pact contemplated any such aid.
I did not think we should force our assistance on any nation
which does not really wish to arm itself. I did not think we
should insist that the European nations form a great international army, unless they take the initiative and request us to
help them in that project. If these nations really do desire to
build up their own arms and if it appears that that defense has
a reasonable chance of success I believe we should commit some
limited number of American divisions to work with them to
show that we are not evading the toughest part of the defense
program provided by the Atlantic Pact. Such a program, however, never ought to be a key point in our strictly American
military strategy. And the initiative should be theirs and not
ours.
I have also viewed the proposed European-army project
with concern, because I believe it is likely to grow beyond the
capacity of the United States and therefore to threaten its entire economic structure. I have favored sending four more divisions to Europe, although it should be noted that our six
divisions there will be one fourth of the total number of American divisions contemplated by the very extensive and expensive
plan recommended by the President and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. But the setting up of this army under the command of
an American general, the initiative which we have taken, and
the tremendous emphasis placed by the Chiefs of Staff on the
conducting of a land war in Europeall, I am afraid, may
commit us, before we get through, to far more than six divisions. In World War II we had sixty divisions in Europe.
I have shown that the program recommended by the President is at the very limit of or beyond our economic capacity.
Yet this program only contemplates an American land Army of
twenty-four divisions, obviously insufficient to control the land
in Europe and Asia. With the men proposed for the Air Force
ioo
and Navy we can apparently achieve a reasonably complete

control of sea and air. On the other hand, the control of the
Eurasian Continent would require at least a quadrupling of
the expense for the Army. If we commit ourselves without limitation to the European project we will be faced with the constant effort to increase the Army and the tremendous expense
involved in that effort. There is practically no limit to the size
or expense of the type of army which ultimately would undertake to win a war against Russia on the continent of Asia and
in Russia itself. We are, of course, interested in the defense of
Western Europe, but it is beyond our capacity unless the Europeans provide not only the bulk of the troops but also the bulk
of the interest and initiative, and finally take over the responsibility.
General Eisenhower has made progress in persuading the
European Pact members that their own safety depends on arming themselves adequately in a united defense against possible
Russian attack. Certainly a Western Europe adequately armed
and prepared to meet any Russian military threat is a tremendous addition to the security of the United States. I have
said that I think it justifies our temporary contribution of some
American divisions to stimulate that effort. Our aim should
be to make Europe sufficiently strong so that American troops
can be withdrawn from the continent of Europe.
I am concerned about the serious danger of committing our
greatest efforts to a land war on the continent of Europe against
Russia. The program which the Administration is pursuing
apparently contemplates that we send, or promise to send, to
Europe within a few weeks of the beginning of the war enough
American troops to defend the pact countries including Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Italy. I do not believe
we can prepare in time of peace for any such project without
straining our economic ability beyond the limit. We also risk
the loss of a war, a loss which in the end might threaten the
very security of the United States itself. Neither Napoleon nor
Hitler was ever able finally to defeat Russia on land, although
101
each had more men than we are now planning to provide, certainly in comparison to the number of Russians then available.
Our men will certainly be outnumbered as they were in Korea,
where we almost suffered a disastrous defeat. Our defense
against Russian hordes apparently depends on the development
of new weapons, which are still untested. Even then a modern
war cannot be won by remaining on the defensive, even behind
a Maginot Line of bazookas.
I somewhat doubt whether the Russians really can deliver
an atomic bomb. Nevertheless, we are proposing to spend some
three billion dollars building air shelters in this country to protect our people and cities against Russian atom bombs delivered all the way from Russia itself. If that is a possibility, then
surely there is danger that the Russians can destroy all of the
ports our Army may be using on the continent. They may be
able to prevent the landing of troops and the furnishing of adequate supplies. They might even make a Dunkerque escape
impossible. One atom bomb at Hungnam might have destroyed
the entire American force which escaped so successfully from
there.
In my opinion we are completely able to defend the United
States itself. The one great danger we face is that we may overcommit ourselves in this battle against Russia. Germany lies in
ruins today because Hitler thought he could conquer the world
when he had no such ability. Italy is a poverty-stricken nation
because Mussolini thought that he could create an Italian empire. An unwise and overambitious foreign policy, and particularly the effort to do more than we are able to do, is the
one thing which might in the end destroy our armies and prove
a real threat to the liberty of the people of the United States.
In conclusion, let me say that no one is more determined to
resist Communist aggression in the world than I am. I think
the Russians present a menace to the liberty of the entire world
and to our way of life, a menace greater than we have faced
before in our history. That menace is not entirely military. It
is a battle of liberty against communism in the minds cf men.
102
We cannot afford to destroy at home the very liberty which

we must sell to the rest of the world as the basis for progress
and happiness.
There is no reason whatever for panic or defeatism. I feel
less concern about the ultimate success of Russian military
power than do many others. But if Russia chooses to start a war
it will be a long and bitter conflict, and this country must remain strong in every aspect of production and morale. Our
limited resources must be directed to the field where they can
be most effective. I do not believe that Western Europe can
be defended unless the Western Europeans are determined to
defend themselves and will take the initiative in the rearming
which is essential for that purpose. To encourage that action
we are furnishing them with economic assistance and military
equipment in practically any amount they can use. We will
support them by sea and by air, and I would agree to send
some troops to prove to them that we do intend to fight at their
side if Russia attacks. But even the program which I outline
will require tremendous sacrifices from the American people,
from every taxpayer, from every family, from every boy. We
should not further endanger the position of America as the
arsenal of democracy and the bastion of liberty.

Meet It in the Far East?
AS EUROPE requires special consideration, so also the
peculiar position of Korea justifies us in considering whether
an exception should have been made to the general principle
of not committing troops to the continent of Asia. Korea does
occupy a very strategic position, and a complete domination of
Korea by the Russian Communists would certainly be a threat
to the security of Japan. The Administration decided, however,
that it would withdraw all troops from Korea and would not
undertake to defend Korea by the use of American soldiers. As
a long-term policy this was generally in accord with the principles I have outlined. Because of the importance of Korea, however, there should have been no question that the situation
demanded all-out arms aid to provide the South Koreans with
a complete defense against attack from the north. Perhaps it
even justified a definite notification, at least to the North Koreans, that if they chose to attack they would find themselves
at war with the United States and that we would return with
sea and air forces to fight that war. But the Administration
not only failed to adopt either of these two policies, but it went
very much further in a definite statement of policy by Secretary
Acheson in January 1950, saying that except for Japan, Okinawa and the Philippines we could not assure the rest of the
104
Far East against attack. I believe that our Government invited

the invasion of Korea by the weakness of its policy in these
respects.
At the time we withdrew from Korea we declared that we
would give armed assistance to Korea. The Mutual Defense
Assistance Act of 1949 authorized the President to furnish
military assistance to South Korea. Assistant Secretary Webb, of
the State Department, testified specifically before both House
and Senate committees that the appropriation sought was for
the purpose of helping the Koreans to fight external aggression.
The bill was passed in October 1949. By June 1950 not a single
bit of aid had been given, except merely some small arms that
had been left behind when we withdrew from Korea. So far as
I can discover, the South Koreans were never given any airplanes, tanks, or heavy artillery.
Apparently someone in the State Department had changed
the policy of giving the South Koreans sufficient arms with
which to deter external aggression. The President admitted
later, in his statement about Korea, that the Government forces
of Korea were armed only to "prevent border raids and preserve internal security." Perhaps the policy was changed because someone was afraid that if the South Koreans had tanks
and airplanes they would attack the North Korean Communists. Therefore, we gave them only small arms, which
would be useless for offense and also for defense if the North
Koreans attacked them. It was certainly a weak policy. To
what extent it was again the result of a deliberate policy of not
antagonizing the Communists in Asia, it is difficult to say at
the moment.
The Russians certainly read what Senator Connally said on
May 5, 1950, only a month before the Korean War. He was
asked the following question on the questionnaire appearing in
United States News and World Report:
"Do you think the suggestion that we abandon South Korea
is going to be seriously considered?"
Russian Menace. In the Far East?
105
The Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the

Senate replied:
"I am afraid it is going to be seriously considered because I'm
afraid it's going to happen, whether we want it to or not. I'm for
Korea. We're trying to help herwe're appropriating money now
to help her. But South Korea is cut right across this linenorth
of it are the Communists, with access to the mainlandand
Russia is over there on the mainland. So that whenever she takes
a notion she can just overrun Korea, just like she will probably
overrun Formosa when she gets ready to do it. I hope not, of
The next question was:
"But isn't Korea an essential part of the defense strategy?"
The answer of the Senator from Texas was:
"No. Of course, any position like that is of some strategic importance. But I don't think it is very greatly important. It has
been testified before us that Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines
make the chain of defense which is absolutely necessary. And, of
course, any additional territory along in that area would be that
much more, but it's not absolutely essential."
So both the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee
and the Secretary of State said, in effect, to the North Koreans:
"We are not going to interfere in South Korea. We have
moved out of South Korea. It is indefensible anyway. We are
not coming back. We do not propose to give South Korea any
arms of a character useful in modern war."
That was a direct invitation to the North Koreans to attack.
It was an invitation to Soviet Russia to believe, as it did,
that here was a soft spot where communism could move in
without difficulty. I think the policy, or lack of policy, of the
administration brought on the Korean War. If we had taken
a definite position as to South Korea I believe there would not
have been an aggression. If we had simply warned the North
Koreans that an attack by them meant a war with America I
106
believe there would not have been the attack which took place.
For two hundred years Russia has been moving forward by
going into soft spots. That has been its policy. Wherever it
thought it could grab something and get away with it, it has
done so. Here was a place which the Secretary of State and the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee gave the Russians every reason to consider a soft spot.
Then the President, on June 25, 1950, in one of those spasmodic actions which are more or less characteristic of this administration, entirely reversed the American policy which he
had previously announced. When he moved into Korea after
the North Koreans attacked I had much sympathy with his
reversal of position. I stated on June 28, 1950, after American
armed forces had been moved into Korea:
The time had to come, sooner or later, when we would give
definite notice to the Communists that a move beyond a declared
line would result in war. That has been the policy which we have
adopted in Europe. Whether the President has chosen the right
time or the right place to declare this policy may be open to
question. He has information which I do not have.
It seems to me that the new policy is adopted at an unfortunate
time and involves a very difficult military operation indeedthe
defense of Korea. I sincerely hope that our armed forces may be
successful in Korea. I sincerely hope that the policy thus adopted
will not lead to war with Russia. In any event, I believe the
general principle of the policy is right, and I see no choice except
to back up wholeheartedly and with every available resource the
men in our armed forces who have been moved into Korea.
If we are going to defend Korea, it seems to me that we should
have retained our armed forces there and should have given, a
year ago, the notice which the President has given today. With
such a policy there never would have been such an attack by the
North Koreans.
We went into Korea on the theory that the United Nations
was going to punish aggression in order to prevent aggression
107
in the future. I think it is a sound principle, if you have an

international organization with the ability to do the job. The
difficulty is that we were relying upon a weak reed in the
United Nations. The United Nations Charter is so weak, with
the provision for the veto, that as a matter of fact there is no
legal means of preventing aggression. The only reason we
happened to secure action in one case for one moment was
that the Russians were not present. We went in knowing full
well that all future action taken by the United Nations would
be subject to the Russian veto when the Russians returned to
the Security Council.
We went in with the possibility facing us that there might
be further aggression and knowing that then we could not
rely on the United Nations. So we went in. We got little aid
from other members of the United Nations. Our own forces
were so weak and limited that the country we were saving
from aggression was practically destroyed. We were successful
in defeating the North Koreans but when we were almost at
the point of occupying the entire country we were attacked by
the Chinese, in November 1950.
That was the second aggression. The theory of our Korean
action would require, as a matter of moral principle, that we
then throw all the forces of the United Nations against the
Chinese aggressors, defeat them, and march to Peiping. Unfortunately, that was an impossible policy for two reasons. The
United Nations would not do it, because the Russians in the
Security Council vetoed the action. Even the General Assembly, which has no power to call any member to act or provide
armed forces, took a long time merely to declare that the
Chinese Communists were aggressors, which was obvious from
the very moment they moved into Korea. In the second place,
it was a wholly impossible military operation, to carry out
against a big aggressor the kind of action which we carried out
against a little aggressor. So we had been sucked into something which was more than we could undertake, and we found
ourselves in an extremely unfortunate situation.
io8
Underlying the whole situation is our policy toward Formosa. The only logical application of the broad general principles, which I have advocated and which we have followed in
Europe, for meeting the Communist threat is to undertake to
defend Formosa if the Chinese Nationalist Government desires
assistance. Here is an island, more than a hundred miles off
the coast of China, which is entirely easy to defend against
any Communist attack, with practically no cost to the United
States. Yet in January 1950 Secretary Acheson warned the
American people that they must be prepared for the taking
over of Formosa by the Chinese Communists, and he stated
unequivocally that we would not undertake any defense of
Formosa. I believe this attitude grew out of the pro-Communist
policy of the Far Eastern Division of the State Department
and the Secretary's strong prejudices against doing anything
to help Chiang Kai-shek. Both Secretaries Acheson and Marshall seem to have a vested interest in the mistakes which they
made in China in earlier days, and they are very loath to adopt
any policy which will cast doubt on the correctness of their
action at that time.
Apparently, it was General MacArthur's remarks on the
subject of the strategic position of Formosa and the need of
defending it which from time to time aroused the Secretary of
State and the President to a violent indignation against the
general. If we really mean our anti-Communist policy it seems
obvious to me that we should have backed the Chinese Nationalists in past years and should back them today on Formosa.
If there is any chance of their regaining their influence in
South China it seems obvious that we should not fail to support
them in that action also, so long as it does not involve the use
of American troops on the mainland.
Once it became apparent that the policy of punishing aggression could not be carried through there was some logical
argument for entirely evacuating Korea. But having gone into
Korea, having suffered more than a hundred thousand casualties, it seems obvious to me that we could not withdraw. Such
109
a withdrawal would be interpreted throughout Asia not only
as a political defeat but also as a military defeat. It would have

been an admission that we have completely wasted all the effort
and the lives which have been devoted to the Korean adventure. There seemed to be no choice except to see it through.
Since it was impossible to invade China, the best solution
would have been to drive the Chinese out of Korea, to ask the
United Nations to set up a Korean Republic, to maintain our
troops there for some time and then arm the Koreans with
weapons which would enable them to stand against Chinese
attack, and to give them such economic and arms aid in peace
and military aid from the sea and air in war as we might be
able to afford. The Administration, however, refused to use
the various measures suggested by General MacArthur as a
means of conquering all of Korea and setting up an independent Republic under the protection of the United Nations.
Their only proposal was a more or less endless war in which
we would advance to the Thirty-eighth Parallel but would not
attempt to go beyond that point to any material extent. Such
a stalemate accomplished no purpose, except to eliminate the
idea that we had suffered a military defeat.
The only other policy under consideration, prior to the
Malik proposal for an armistice, was the negotiating of an
armistice with the North Koreans and the Chinese Communists, the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea, and the
discussion of the questions of Formosa and the admission of
Chinese Communists to the United Nations and to the negotiations on the Japanese Peace Treaty. Such a settlement, I believe, would be very much worse even than an unconditional
withdrawal from Korea, but the State Department at one time
approved it. In January 1951 the Secretary of State agreed to
the cease-fire plan approved by the United Nations political
committee. That cease-fire plan provided, first, for a truce.
Then it provided:
To permit the carrying out of the General Assembly resolution
that Korea should be a unified, independent, democratic, sover-
no
cign State with a constitution and a government based on free

popular elections, all non-Korean armed forces will be withdrawn, by appropriate stages, from Korea, and appropriate
arrangements, in accordance with United Nations principles, will
be made for the Korean people to express their own free will in
respect to their future government.
The withdrawal of all non-Korean forces from Korea
under the conditions existing there would, in my opinion,
mean the communization of Korea. The Russians do not care
what they do underground. They do not regard their promises.
Our effort in a Korean election of that kind would be completely swamped by Communist machinations. In effect, to
agree to that is to agree to a Communist-controlled government of Korea.
Then, even more important, there was contained in the
agreement the following:
As soon as the agreement has been reached on a cease-fire, the
General Assembly shall set up an appropriate body which shall
include representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, and the People's Republic of China with a view to the
achievement of a settlement, in conformity with existing international obligations and provisions of the United Nations Charter, of far-eastern problems, including among others, those of
Formosa and of representation of China in the United Nations.
Thus, as late as January 1951 the Secretary of State agreed
that we would sit down with England, with Communist China
itself, with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, all three of
them urging upon us appeasement peace, and that there would
be completely excluded from the conference Nationalist China,
the recognized Government of China, which has a seat in the
Security Council today. That was equivalent to saying, "We
are willing to give up Formosa. We are willing to have Communist China admitted to the United Nations.5' It was fortu-
in
nate indeed that Communist China declined to accept that

cease-fire proposal. The Department of State came out with
the naive statement that it had agreed to the proposal because
it felt all the time that Communist China probably would not
accept it and so it would give us a certain practical advantage
with the United Nations.
At the time of writing, the military commanders are negotiating an armistice. Certainly it is better to maintain an uneasy peace on the Thirty-eighth Parallel than a policy of perpetual war on the Thirty-eighth Parallel. But an armistice is
likely to leave us in approximately the same position we were
in two years ago, before we moved American troops out of
South Korea, except that we would have to put up billions of
dollars to repair the destruction in South Korea. Is any such
expenditure justified, until a real peace is finally negotiated
with Soviet Russia? Is this armistice to lead to negotiations
that would have all the faults of the cease-fire agreement of
January 1951?
Regardless of the matter of an armistice, if we really believe
in a policy of containing communism there is no logical reason
why we should not give a hundred per cent support to the
Chinese Nationalist Government on Formosa and reject any
idea whatever of a compromise on this issue. There is no
reason why we should agree to the admission of the Chinese
Communists to the United Nations or to the negotiations with
Japan for a permanent peace. It would be far better to withdraw without condition from Korea itself, without compromising ourselves on these other issues, than to follow the general
proposals along the line of those made by the United Nations
in January 1951.
It has been suggested that there is a fundamental issue between those who think that Europe is more important and
those who think that Asia is more important. Certainly my
position is not an extreme one on the subject of Asia. I only
insist that we apply to Asia the same basic policy which we
H2
apply to Europe. As I have said, that policy is to check communism at every possible point where it is within our capacity
to do so.
Broadly speaking, my quarrel is with those who wish to go
all-out in Europe, even beyond our capacity, and who at the
same time refuse to apply our general program and strategy to
the Far East. In Greece we moved in with overwhelming support for the Greek Government, even though it at first had
strong reactionary tendencies. We gave it hundreds of millions
of dollars to suppress Communists within the country. But in
China we hampered the Nationalist Government. We tried to
force it to take Communists into the Cabinet. The State
Department spoke of Communists as agrarian reformers and
cut off arms from the Nationalist Government at the most
crucial time. Contrary to the whole theory of the containment
of communism, where it could be done without serious cost or
danger, the Administration proposed to surrender Formosa to
the Communists and has constantly flirted with that idea.
Even though we were engaged in a bitter and dangerous
war, the Administration refused to fight that war with all the
means at its command, on the theory that we might incite
Russia to start a third world war. But in Europe we have not
hesitated to risk a third world war over and over again. When
we moved into Greece to support the Government the Russians
might have moved in to support the Communists. The building up of a Turkish Army and Air Force within easy reach of
Moscow is far more of a threat to Russia than the bombing
of Chinese supply lines in Manchuria. In Europe we have not
hesitated to say to Russia, "If you cross certain lines and attack any one of eleven nations you will find yourself at war
with the United States." We have laid down no such principle
in Asia, except as to island nations.
It is interesting to note that the British did not hesitate to use
the threat of moving troops into Iran to protect their oil fields,
although it would almost certainly result in bringing Russian
troops into Iran, also with all the danger of a third world war.
113
The Russians have the same kind of a mutual-assistance treaty

with Iran they have with China.
I think we have to recognize that the policy we have adopted
of the containment of communism involves a constant danger
that Russia may begin a third world war. But it is beyond our
capacity to invade China with American soldiers, and such a
program is not included in MacArthur's suggestions or anyone
else's. There is no possible threat to Siberia, therefore, from
anything we may do in China. On the other hand, in Europe
the building up of a great army surrounding Russia from Norway to Turkey and Iran might produce a fear of the invasion of
Russia or some of the satellite countries regarded by Russia as
essential to the defense of Moscow. Certainly our program in
Europe seems to me far more likely to produce war with Russia than anything we have done in the East. I am only asking
for the same policy in the Far East as in Europe.
8. The Battle Against Communist

Ideology Throughout the World
THE THREAT of communism against liberty is not by
any means a purely military threatin fact, if we had only to
face the military strength of Soviet Russia I think there would
not be any such concern as we see today. Communism is strong
because it has developed a fanatical support and missionary
ardor, which have spread throughout the world and appealed
everywhere to some of those who are dissatisfied with their
present condition. It is a threat because it has developed
methods of infiltration and propaganda well-fitted to this missionary ardor and has succeeded in building up, even in the
most free countries, at least a strong minority of people who
form, in effect, a fifth column behind our lines. In France the
1951 elections showed 26 per cent of the voters to be Communists, in Italy more.
Whether we have to meet the forces of communism on the
battlefield is open to question. The Russian leaders may be
wholly unwilling to trust the entire future of communism to a
war, in which Russia, and the Communist leaders, and perhaps communism itself, may be destroyed. They have always
felt that communism has in it such elements of strength that it
is bound to prevail over the system of capitalism which they
denounce. They feel that capitalism has within it the seeds of
Battle Against Communist Ideology
115
its own destruction, that depression will follow depression, until the people turn to the Communist leaders for improvement
in their economic conditions. They feel that the steady progress
of socialism brings many countries closer and closer to the general ideals of communism. They know that socialism in the long
run cannot be imposed upon a people, except by dictatorial
power, and that socialism imposed by a dictatorship of a small
group of enthusiasts is almost exactly the same as communism.
And so we have to consider the methods by which we can
battle against the spread of communism and so weaken its
spirit that its missionary ardor is destroyed. I believe that can
only be done by a positive campaign in behalf of liberty.
Liberty has always appealed to the minds of men and today is
a far more appealing ideal than communism or material welfare can ever be. Even today I believe that a great majority of
the people in the iron-curtain countries yearn for liberty
against the Communistic dictatorship imposed upon them by a
small minority of their own people backed by Soviet troops. In
America we have clear evidence of the fact that liberty can
produce the highest standard of living and the greatest happiness of any system that has ever been devised.
And when I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as "free enterprise." I mean liberty of the individual
to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to
think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they
wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner,
and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to
develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if
he can convince them that they have some value to the world;
liberty of every local community to decide how its children
shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who
its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own
occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as
he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere
with the right of other people to do the same thing.
We cannot overestimate the value of this liberty of ideas and
n6
liberty of action. It is not that you or I or some industrial genius

is free; it is that millions of people are free to work out their own
ideas and the country is free to choose between them and adopt
those which offer the most progress. I have been through hundreds of industrial plants in the last two or three years, and in
every plant I find that the people running that plant feel that
they have something in the way of methods or ideas or machinery that no other plant has. I have, met men said to be the
best machinists in the industry who have built special machines
for a particular purpose in which that company is interested.
Thousands of wholly free and independent thinkers are working out these ideas and have the right and ability to try them
out without getting the approval of some government bureau.
You can imagine the difference between the progress under
such a system and one in which the government ran every
plant in the country as it runs the post offices today. There
would be one idea for a hundred that are now developed. If
any plant employee had an idea for progress and wrote to
Washington, he probably would get back a letter referring him
to Regulation No. 5201 (c), which tells him exactly how this
particular thing should be done, and has been done for the past
fifty years. It is clear to me that the great progress made in this
country, the tremendous production of our people, the productivity per man of our workmen have grown out of this liberty
and the freedom to develop ideas. We have the highest standard of living, because we produce more per person than any
other country in the world.
After the American Revolution and the French Revolution
the whole world became convinced that liberty was the key to
progress and happiness for the peoples of the world, and this
theory was accepted, even in those countries where there was,
in fact, no liberty. People left Europe and came to this country,
not so much because of the economic conditions as because
they sought a liberty which they could not find at home. But
gradually this philosophy has been replaced by the idea that
happiness can only be conferred upon the people by the grace
117
of an efficient government. Only the government, it is said, has

the expert knowledge necessary for the people's welfare; only
the government has the power to carry out the grandiose plans
so necessary in a complicated world.
Those who accept the principle of socialism, of government
direction, and of government bureaucracy have a hard time
battling against the ideology of communism. Our labor union
leaders cannot effectively fight communism, as such, because
they favor a socialist control that comes very close to communism in the actual measures which are to be undertaken. Even
our statesmen seem to be handicapped in the same way. Thus,
Secretary Acheson only a year ago stated: "To say that the
main motive of American foreign policy was to halt the spread
of communism was putting the cart before the horse. The
United States was interested in stopping communism chiefly
because it had become a subtle instrument of Soviet imperialism." With this point of view I emphatically disagree. I
believe that we should battle the principles of communism and
socialism and convince the world that true happiness lies in the
establishment of a system of liberty, that communism and
socialism are the very antithesis of liberalism, and that only a
nation conceived in liberty can hope to bring real happiness to
its people or to the world.
The first step in this campaign must be to convince ourselves
and our people that we do believe in liberty and that we believe it is the solution of the world's problems. Certainly the
election of 1948 was an inconclusive verdict. But in 1950 the
people of this country decided that they were against socialistic
plans, like the Brannan plan or socialized medicine, and that
they are gradually moving toward a reaffirmation of their belief in a free system. If we can once convince ourselves that we
believe in freedom, then there are many things which we can
do throughout the world to meet the threat of communism.
1. We can conduct a world-wide propaganda in behalf of
liberty. In the Voice of America we have already adopted the
general principle of propaganda. In some places I think the
n8
direct radio broadcast is effective, perhaps the only method of

reaching the people, particularly in the iron-curtain countries.
But in other countries it seems to me we should use far more
local publicity organizationlocal radio and local newspapers.
We should find those people among the citizens of each nation
who agree with our principles and finance them to put on an
effective propaganda. It is difficult enough for Americans to
judge the manner in which propaganda should be spread in
this country to obtain the support of the American people.
Anybody who has run a political campaign knows the uncertainties and the weakness of any such campaign. How much
more difficult is it for people sitting in America to try to judge
the public opinion of Great Britain or France or Yugoslavia or
Poland! The only thing that seems certain is that, however
these people think, they do not think in the same terms as the
American public. American publicity ideas probably will not
be effective with them.
The whole propaganda question should be much more extensively studied, and it should be definitely moved away from
the Department of State. The State Department inevitably is
concerned with relations between nations. It does not want to
do anything which might antagonize the governments with
whom it deals. It wants to do things which, perhaps, will please
those governments or to work out some other diplomatic purpose which it has in mind. The new agency, furthermore,
should be an agency made up of men who fully believe in freedom, who concede nothing to the principle of communism,
socialism, and government controls, and who believe in the
cause which they are trying to promote.
2. Another method pursued by Soviet Russia is probably
justified for us today under all the circumstances, although
certainly it is not in accordance with American tradition and is
no part of a permanent foreign policy. The Russians have
developed a method of infiltration, by which they send secret
agents into foreign countries, and these secret agents infiltrate
every kind of organization which has some influence on the
119
people of the country. In this country, in particular, they

undertook to get Communists into the leadership of the labor
unions, into the publishing and writing fraternity, into Hollywood and the associations of actors, into the teaching profession, and into the Government itself. In these positions
they undertook to make Communists if they could, but even
more to influence those who were in authority to take a soft
attitude toward communism. They undertook to convince
them that they could use communism as a means for carrying
out their ends, even though communism itself was probably
not suitable to the genius of the American people. In this effort
the Communists were notably successful.
This suggests, of course, that we could do the same thing,
particularly in the iron-curtain satellite countries. There are
many exiles from these countries who would be glad to go back.
In many of the countries there is already an active underground, agitating every minute against Soviet domination.
While it may be a dangerous undertaking, I believe that an able
and courageous leader could successfully work out a system
which would give the Soviet Government something to worry
about behind the iron curtain itself. Surely, if communism can
make headway in a country overwhelmingly devoted to American principles liberty should make even greater headway in a
country where probably three fourths of the people prefer
liberty to communism already. The OSS did work of this general character during the war. Today we hear nothing of anything being done in this field and very little being done even
in the allied field of Intelligence. Our information as to what
actually goes on in Russia or in the Soviet countries is of the
most shadowy character.
I believe a comparatively small amount of money, if well
spent, could succeed in substantially building up a love for freedom in Soviet-dominated territory, which would have a most
chilling effect on any Soviet idea of military invasion of Europe
and might lead to the ejection of Communist control in some
of these governments. Somewhere in our Government there
120
ought to be an agency completely advised as to the character

and identity of all those forces and individuals fighting for freedom throughout the Communist world. Such an agency should
be able to organize these forces to play a vital role, in war and
in peace, in the ultimate undermining of the Communist conspiracy.
3. In the same general field, it seems obvious that everywhere throughout the world we should encourage and build up
those forces in friendly countries or neutral countries which believe in liberty and are prepared to battle against communism. I
thoroughly disapproved of the policy which abandoned Chiang
Kai-shek to the tender mercies of the Chinese Communists. I
have always felt that a sincere interest in the welfare of his government and a sympathetic treatment of its military needs
would have enabled it to hold onto most of South China and
ultimately regain control of the entire country. In Japan, in the
Philippines, and in Indonesia we should be assisting and promoting those who believe in real liberty and who oppose communism. This course may lead us, in some parts of the world,
toward an advocacy of the liberty of various countries which are
now colonies of European nations. There is hardly a case, however, in which such liberty could not be worked out, as we
worked it out in the Philippine Islands.
4. Finally, if we are going to conduct a real battle against the
communist ideology throughout the world we should definitely
eliminate from the Government all those who are directly or
indirectly connected with the Communist organization. The
American people are certainly entitled to know who it is who
have been Communists and how the Communist organization
is operated throughout the United States. If we are going to
spend billions in battling communism in the world it seems
ridiculous that we should permit secret Communist propaganda to proceed here, when we have the means of bringing it
before the people. Certainly in this country it is not consistent
with freedom to put a man in jail merely because he is a Communist. On the other hand, I have never seen any violation of
121
constitutional rights in bringing to the people's attention the

fact of a man's connection with an organization and a propaganda which is clearly treasonable against the people of the
United States.
In short, a war against communism in the world must finally
be won in the minds of men. The hope for ultimate peace lies
far more in the full exploitation of the methods I have suggested than in a third world war, which may destroy civilization itself. Far from establishing liberty throughout the world,
war has actually encouraged and built up the development of
dictatorships and has only restored liberty in limited areas at
the cost of untold hardship, of human suffering, of death and
destruction beyond the conception of our fathers. We may be
able to achieve real peace in the world without passing through
the fire of a third world war if we have wise leadership. Communism can be defeated by an affirmative philosophy of individual liberty, and by an even more sincere belief in liberty
than the Communists have in communism. In the United States
we see the product of liberty to be the greatest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen, with the happiest people.
If we rise to the power of our strength, there has never been a
stronger case to present to the world, or a better opportunity
to dissolve its darkness into light.
Appendix
September 8, 1944
Mr. George F. Stanley, President,
The Stanley Manufacturing Company,
Dayton 1, Ohio
Dear Mr. Stanley:
I have your letter of August 31st. I am glad to give you a full
statement of the course which I have pursued before the war and
the actual facts relating to it.
You refer to certain information which you have gathered. All
of this information is similar to that contained in a statement
issued by my opponent, and like all his other statements, is inaccurate to put it mildly. The facts are as follows:
My position during the years 1939, 1940, and 1941 was based
on three principles: first, that we should stay out of the war unless
attacked; second, that we should build up our defense to meet any
possible threat of attack; third, that we should aid Britain as much
as possible, consistent with the policy of staying out of the war.
This policy was exactly that professed by President Roosevelt and
Wendell Willkie in the campaign of 1940, after the Germans had
broken through in France. I did not change my mind after the
election and I thoroughly disapproved of the President's persistent
efforts after the election to involve us in war while professing a
policy of peace. I recognize that there was a sound argument for
Appendix
123
us to enter the war, but that argument was just as sound in 1940,
before the election, as it was afterwards. In fact, when Russia became involved the possible danger to this country was certainly
reduced.
I may add that I have always been in favor of joining a league
of nations on the theory that by joint action taken early to prevent
aggression, a world war may be prevented in which we might become involved. I supported such a league in 1920 and fully agreed
with the position taken by my father at that time. But it is two
different things to join a cooperative organization of nations to
prevent a world war, and to join in a world war after it has been
brought about without our fault or participation. The only justification for entering the war was the claim that if successful Hitler
would attack the United States. My own belief was that such an
attack could not have been made successfully provided we built
up our defense forces, and particularly our Navy. President Roosevelt himself said on January 6, 1941, "even if there were no British
Navy it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to
attack us by landing troops in the United States from across
thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases
from which to operate." How could those bases have been acquired if we built a navy sufficiently large? They could only have
been acquired by an overwhelming superiority on the sea and in
the air, such as we have acquired in the Pacific today. It would
not have been acquired by Hitler.
You state that I consistently opposed all steps necessary to
prepare this country for war. This is wholly incorrect. From the
time I entered the Senate I voted for all appropriations for the
Army, Navy, and Lend-Lease proposed by the Administration and
for many not proposed by the Administration. For instance, on
March 6, 1939, I voted to increase the number of airplanes authorized to 6000, of which by the way few were ordered and none
delivered a year later when the Germans broke through in France.
I voted for the National Defense Bill in 1939, in which Congress
increased various recommendations of the President. On March
31) J 939J I voted for the bill to establish a reserve of strategic and
critical materials of which little use was made by the Administration. On July 19, 1940,1 voted for the bill to establish a two ocean
navy. On July 19, 1940,1 voted for the Army Appropriation Bill
124
Appendix
increasing the Army to 375,000, when the President had never

recommended more than 225,000. On August 8, 1940, I voted to
call out the National Guard, which increased the size of the Army
to approximately 750,000. I voted for all the bills increasing the
size of the Army and Navy, before the war and since the war
started.
I did oppose the Selective Service Act of 1940, and am still
opposed to the compulsory draft of men in time of peace until
every voluntary method has been tried to obtain the men necessary
for the force required for defense. I offered a substitute increasing
the size of the Army and providing for the training of 1,500,000
men on a voluntary basis. The Navy was recruited on a voluntary
basis until 1943, and it would have been easily possible to recruit
by voluntary methods the number of men actually enrolled in the
Army on the day of Pearl Harbor, if proper pay and allowances
had been provided and a public appeal made by the President. I
have always been in favor of a conscription bill in time of war or
in case war is threatened and voluntary methods fail; but no real
effort was ever made to recruit an army on a voluntary basis. The
Army had plans to do this but never used them. The real purpose
of the draft bill was to make the country war-conscious and more
inclined to enter the European war.
In August, 1941,1 opposed the indefinite extension of the term
of draftees and National Guard when we were still at peace. The
War Department's Plan and promise when the draft act was
passed was that men would be taken and trained for one year and
replaced by others. It proposed to build up a great reserve of men
for use if war should come. As has so frequently happened since,
the War Department went back on its implied promises to the
men in the Army. It abandoned the whole theory of training reserves and insisted on holding on forever, even if peace continued,
to those unfortunate enough to have been drafted at that time. In
view of the failure of the Army to have any equipment ready for
training when the men were first drafted, I proposed a substitute
extending the draftees' service by six months (thus limiting peacetime service to eighteen months) and the National Guard by one
year, or a total of 2^2 years, providing for the training of more
men. This would have carried the draft army well into the summer of 1942 and the National Guard to the end of the year, by
Appendix
125
which time a million more men could have been trained. It would
have provided more trained men and more men in training at any
one time than the Army's proposal. When my substitute was defeated I voted for Senator Burton's proposal to limit peacetime
service to two years. I never at any time questioned or voted
against the number of men stated by General Marshall to be
necessary for defense.
With reference to your charge that I stated that we would never
require an army of 8,200,000 men, which was General Marshall's
opinion in 1943, I certainly made no such statement. In suggesting that if fathers were deferred until all others were drafted they
might never have to be called, I expressed doubt as to the necessity of an army of 8,200,000. As a matter of fact, General Marshall
subsequently changed his view and the Army has never exceeded
7,700,000; so that I seem to have been correct. But I never opposed giving to General Marshall all the men he asked for.
With reference to the policy of aid to Britain, I think my record
is clear. As early as April, 1939, I advocated the repeal of the
Arms Embargo Act on the condition that arms be exported only
on a cash and carry basis, and American ships be kept out of the
war zone. When proposed by the President in September, 1939, I
voted for the bill to repeal the Arms Embargo and establish the
cash and carry system. After the 1940 election I opposed the
Lend-Lease Bill on the ground that it gave unlimited power to the
President in time of peace to commit acts of war against any nation in the world. In spite of Administration protests that the
Lend-Lease Bill was a peace measure, it is now finally admitted
that it assured acts of war against Germany and Japan and our
ultimate entrance into the war. I quote from Arthur Hays Sulzberger, editor of the New York Times:
"I happen to be among those who believe that we did not go to war
because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. I hold rather that we were
attacked at Pearl Harbor because we had gone to war when we made
the lend-lease declaration. And we took the fateful step because we
knew that all we hold dear in the world was under attack and that we
could not let it perish. That declaration was an affirmative act on our
part and a warlike act."
At the time the President and all the advocates of the bill asserted that it was an insurance of peace, it was my opinion that
126
Appendix
we should have aided Britain by loans, and built up our production of airplanes and other armament so that they could be delivered to them in quantity. I proposed as a substitute for the LendLease Bill, the power to loan two billion dollars to Great Britain,
Canada and Greece. (See Congressional Record of March 8,
1941.) It was more than a year later before England obtained
two billion dollars under lend-lease, so the sum I proposed was
entirely adequate for the year in question. As far as aid to Britain
was concerned, my substitute would have been just as effective
as the Lend-Lease Act, without involving us in war. After the passage of the Lend-Lease Act and the determination of national
policy thereby, I voted for all lend-lease appropriations. Once we
were in the war, I thoroughly approved the policy as a means of
waging war, and have twice voted to extend the Lend-Lease Act.
From March, 1941, until Pearl Harbor, I opposed all the acts
of administrative foreign policy designed to involve us in the war,
the seizing of Axis ships while we were supposed to be neutral, the
real of the Neutrality Act sending American ships into the combat
zone, and the occupation of Iceland. None of these acts had the
slightest relation to the preparation of this country for war or the
national defense. All of them were acts of war, and as I believe
that we should not become involved in the war and that our aid
to Britain should be short of war, I considered these steps unwise.
They were in no sense national defense, except on the theory that
national defense required our entrance into the war.
I never at any time stated that "it was fantastic to think that
Japan would ever attack the United States."
You state that I said that "a Russian victory would be more
dangerous to the United States than the victory of Fascism."
This must be based on the following statement which I made in a
radio address on June 25, 1941:
"But the victory of communism in the world outside of America
would be far more dangerous to the United States from an ideological
standpoint than the victory of fascism. There has never been the slightest danger that the people of this country would ever embrace bundism
or nazi-ism. It is completely foreign to every idea we have learned since
the nursery. But communism masquerades, often successfully under the
guise of democracy, though just as alien to our real principles as naziism itself. It is a greater danger to the United States because it is a false
Appendix
127
philosophy which appeals to many. Fascism is a false philosophy which

appeals to very few indeed.'*
You will note that my reference is not to a military danger but
to an ideological danger. I am quite prepared to stand by the
statement that I made.
In order that you may understand my exact position on a
league of nations, I herewith enclose a copy of a speech which I
made over a year ago to the American Bar Association. In my
willingness to abide by the decision of an international body determining a nation to be an aggressor, you may note that I go
further than Secretary Hull or President Roosevelt under the
plans that are now being discussed at Dumbarton Oaks.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. Taft
RT/pr
1 enc.

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A FOREIGN POLICY FOR AMERICANS

Made available in electronic form on Mises.org with the permission

COPYRIGHT, 1 9 5 1 , BY ROBERT A. TAFT

Foreword by the Author

Foreword by the Author

Out of this society of free men great leaders have sprung at

Foreword by the Author

the 'cold war' wojulddevelop into a shooting war and even

Foreword by the Author

2. The Place of the President and Congress in Foreign

3. International Organization as a Means of Securing

5. The Russian Menace. How Do We Meet It Throughout the World?

7. The Russian Menace. How Do We Meet It in the

8. The Battle Against Communist Ideology Throughout

1. What Are the Purposes of a Foreign

A Foreign Policy for Americans

results of war may be almost as bad as the destruction of liberty

What Are Purposes of Foreign Policy?

A Foreign Policy for Americans

material improvement which is their genius and in which they

What Are Purposes of Foreign Policy?

out the world, because that is utterly beyond our capacity. I

A Foreign Policy for Americans

What Are Purposes of Foreign Policy?

Stalin is continued in power, do you suppose he will spread the

A Foreign Policy for

money and even, perhaps, American arms the policies which

What Are Purposes of Foreign Policy?

plants and the other production resources which are so essential

A Foreign Policy for Americans

and air throughout the world, the British alliance is peculiarly

2. The Place of the President and

A Foreign Policy for

whether the President shall decide when the United States

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

the President in the Korean War without even telling Congress

A Foreign Policy for Americans

that he did not need the permission of Congress to take such

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

nize the difference between a self-executing treaty and one

A Foreign Policy for

As soon as I made my speech of January 5, 1951, the New

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

nent military force. Further powers of Congress as stated in

A Foreign Policy for Americans

ties to be fought on a certain plan, and could not direct parts of

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

A Foreign Policy for Americans

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

from the various press reports, it is likely that 80,000 American

A Foreign Policy for

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

charter was adopted largely on that assurance, but now the

A Foreign Policy for

President, Congress in Foreign Policy

The proponents of executive power have referred to many

A Foreign Policy for Americans

Apparently the Administration is afraid that there was such

3. International Organization as a Means

A Foreign Policy for Americans