A POWERFUL ANTIDOTE TO SPREADING EUPHORIA: A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE CAPTIVE NATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 5, 2014
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: October 10, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

"41P"
- Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
unknown seas of physics, Marconi and
Fermi. No men charted a more pro-
found map of- the universe of esthetics
than Toscanini, Verdi, and so many other
Italian musicians, including Puccini, who
found in our Golden West the inspira-'
tion that turned the dreams and hopes
of so many of his countrymen westward,
to America.
All of these men made great dis-
coveries. But in a democratic society it
is not enough to mark the works of the
great. We must never forget that the
most important discoveries were made
individually: by each of the many mil-
lions who discovered in America full
scope for the development of their
splendid potential.
Countless Americans of Italian birth
or extraction have made lasting con-
tributions to the American way of life.
Some of them may not be as known as
Christopher Columbus, John and Sebas-
tian Cabot, and Amerigo Vespucci. One
of these discovered America. The other
two were sailors who discovered Green-
land, Newfoundland, Labrador, and the
east coast of North America, while the
third succeeded in having the entire
continent named after him.
I would like to add a few words on
behalf of a few others who were not as
well known even though their contribu-
tions were most significant.
Let me mention Giovanni Verrazano,
a Florentine navigator who discovered
the harbor of New York and the mouth
of the Hudson River about 100 years be-
fore Henry Hudson. Then Philip Maz-
zie, who settled in Virginia in the period
of the Thirteen Colonies, and although
many people knew that he introduced
the culture of grapes in America, few
know that he was an intimate friend of
Thomas Jefferson. How many know
that the third Governor of Maryland
was a man by the name of William Paca?
This American of Italian heritage was a
Member of the First and Second Conti-
nental Congresses and was one of the
signers of the Declaration of Independ-
ence.
A Venetian musician and composed by
the name of Philip Tragetta was a
friend of Presidents James Madison and
James Monroe. It was Tragetta who
established the American Conservatory
in Philadelphia.
The very first collegiate institution on
the Pacific coast, the College of Santa
Clara, was founded by Father Gregoria
Mengarini, a Roman missionary and'
educator.
A man by the name of Peter Caesar
Alberti was officially known as Peter
Caesar, the Italian. Alberti established
the first tobacco plantation in Brooklyn,
and to the greater glory of our Nation
raised a large family.
The roots of Americans of Italian ex-
traction go back not to the turn of the
century but to the very founding of our
country. They sustained her in time of
need and offered their labors and inge-
nuity and their talents to help make it
the land of the free and a glorious
nation in the family of nations.'
The greatness of our country stems
from the parts played in the contribu-
tions of so many peoples?peoples of all
?
races, creeds, and national origins?who
helped make this the greatest Nation in
the world. No one has a monopoly on
Americanism. Americanism does not
imply race, color, creed, or national
origin. Americanism means an equality
of opportunity, respect for your fellow-
man, adherence to the Golden Rule.
Perhaps the greatest single exhibition
of the enrichment of this land by the
-sons of Italy is seen in the history of our
wars. Americans of Italian descent were
among the first to go over the top in
Flanders and among the last to yield to
overwhelming force in Corregidor.
The graves of Italo-Americans grace
the soil of a thousand battlefields, where
they fell fighting for America and for the
same love of freedom that motivated
Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Cavour.
In conclusion, we should all be thank-
ful for the many millions of Americans
of Italian birth and descent who con-
tinue to prove that they are first in the
arts of peace as -they are foremost
?
among those who defended America
during time of war.
A PO ANTIDOTE TO
- SPREA ING EUPHORIA: A SPE-
CIAL, COMMITTEE ON THE CAP-
TIVE NATIONS
The SPEAKER pro teinfore. Under
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Illinois [Mr. DERWINSKI1 is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, in
the wake of our signing the nuclear test
ban treaty countless Americans are be-
ing steadily engulfed by a spreading
euphoria in the cold war. Many have
already jumped to the groundless con-
clusion that this event has signaled the
beginning of the end of the cold war.
Responsible officials in the administra-
tion and numerous private analysts are
becoming increasingly concerned about
this untoward development. They
rightly fear its psychopolitical conse-
quences upon our general cold war
posture.
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONGRESS
We in Congress have an excellent op-
portunity?indeed a duty?to provide a
powerful antidote to this spreading, con-
tagious euphoria. We can and should
establish in this session a Special Com-
mittee on the Captive Nations. With
this euphoria giving rise to much un-
thinking talk about a nonaggression
pact the Warsaw Pact regimes, the time
has arrived for positive action on our
part to check what may develop into a
major diplomatic disaster for us and
,the free world. We can furnish such a
check by concentrating our efforts on the
captive nations and people in Eastern
Europe and Asia.
MAJORITY IN ?FILES SUPPORT A SPECIAL
COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker, one of the most mystify-
ing aspects of this legislative action for
a Special House Committee on the Cap-
tive Nations is that despite the expressed
support by a majority of our members
in the Rules Committee, not one step
has been taken in this session to con-
sider the measure. There are 40 resolu-
tions before the Rules Committee, call-
18333
ing for the creation of this special com-
mittee.
REPEATABLE QUESTIONS DESERVING ANSWERS
On this whole issue there are certain
repeatable questions deserving specific
and honest answers. Why in the light
of these facts and more has action been
blocked in the Rules Committee? When
in view of the preponderant interest by
our members in such a committee will
fair consideration be given to the 40
resolutions? Who, indeed, is opposed to
this measure so strongly that even the
opportunity is denied our members in
Rules to vote on it? How do we explain
all this to our respective constituents
who for 2 years have persistently urged
the passage of this measure?
Yes, Mr. Speaker, these are questions
worthy of repetition and deserving of
specific and honest answers. 'The sup-
porters of this measure shall keep re-
peating these basic questions until we
receive specific and honest answers to
them. Naturally all of them can be
'quickly resolved by a fair and immediate
decision on this measure in the Rules
Committee.
THE DOBRIANSKY ARTICLE IN NATO's' FIFTEEN
NATIONS
- How important and vital the captive
nations are to our security and to world
freedom is shown in a recent article pub-
lished in the August-September issue of
NATO's Fifteen Nations, written by Dr.
Lev. E. Dobriansky, professor at George-
town University and president of the
Ukrainian Congress Committee of Amer-
ica, the article is entitled "Soviet Russian
Imperio-Colonialism and the Free
World." A careful reading of this article
by our Members will convince them of
the necessity of a Special House Com-
mittee on the Captive Nations.
I insert it in the RECORD as part of my
remarks:
SOVIET RUSSIAN IMPERIO-COLONIALISM AND
THE FREE WORLD
(By Lev E. Dobriansky)
No matter how one views it, Moscow knows
best the true character of communism.
After all, it has successfully manipulated the
ideologic deception for over 40 years. Like
the czars, who with their more limited ideo-
logic smoke screens of religious orthodoxy
and racist Pan-Slavism were also quite adept
in the art of conquest, the present Russian
empire builders have managed to keep their
intended victims in a state of doubt and con-
fusion as to the real threat facing them.
The Russian totalitarians bank heavily on
the permanence of this state of doubt and
confusion. In fact, it is a necessary condi-
tion for the success of their cold war ef-
forts. As they doubtlessly see it, those who
are divided in thought and conception are
prime candidates for divided action; and
such action in the context of the total
struggle is tantamount to inaction, inde-
cision, and slow defeat in the cold war.
Centuries of continuous Russian cold-war
activity substantiate this fundamental
truth. It is not the product of any Com-
munist innovation.
So long as millions in the free world in-
terpret the struggle as a conflict between
social systems?between communism '6,nd
capitalism?Moscow's expansionist interests
are well served. This misconception, fanned
by Moscow's own propaganda machine, has
lent philosophical dignity to Soviet Russian
totalitarianism, has bred countless recruits
for its subversive work in all quarters of the
globe, and, above all, has blinded the tar-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3
-1Ir"
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3 -
18334
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE October 10
geted victim as to both the nature of the
enemy and the opportunities to defeat him
in the cold war. In earlier stages of Russian
imperial history, the supposed conflict was
between religious systems, then later be-
tween races; in this century of phenomenal
economic growth and a materialist interest
affecting all parts of the world, it is painted'
In terms of social systems.
The center of so-called world communism
has been exceptionally adroit and skillful
in this prime task. Seizing upon opportuni-
ties with courage and fixed determination, it
has built an empire that far surpasses the
wildest dreams of the past czars. what
Alexander I had failed to accomplish in the
Western Hemisphere, Khrushchev achieved
In captive Cuba; and the end of Russian
entrenchment in Latin America is certainly
not in sight. In Asia and Africa the same
task is being methodically performed with
Indubitable long-term consequences. Mas-
sive weapons, counterinsurgency operations,
and economic aid designed to contain Soviet
Russian aggression will not stop Moscow's
primary form of aggression?its planned as-
sault of half-truths, false conceptions, and
a projected image upon minds the world
over.
We in the free world have yet a long way
to go before a complete understanding of
this traditional Russion cold-war strategy is
realized. Most of us, including those in
the highest official quarters, have never
bothered to investigate the long history of
the Russian Empire; and if some have, the
chances are that their exclusive dependence
on Russian sources has precluded patient
inquiries into the histories of Russia's
victims. How the empire in its present
form came to be what it is serves as the
basic clue to this indispensable understand-
ing, but general conceptions about the Soviet
Russian empire first being formed in the
1940's show how little we have developed
this clue. This repeated failure has always
benefited imperio-colonial Moscow. It
thrives on protracted intellectual neglect.
In a recent address at American Univer-
sity in Washington, D.C., President Kennedy
called upon Americans to reexamine their
attitude toward the Soviet Union. Actually,
this summons applies to all peoples in the
free world. By all means, let's reexamine our
attitudes, but with facts, not fiction. In
the short run, the likelihood of an intelligent
reappraisal leading to a redoubtable free-
world strategy for victory in the cold war
is dim, indeed. And there is no better proof
for this prediction than the untold develop-
ment of our encounter with Moscow over
the captive nations since July 1959. The
highlights of this unique development
readily underscore all of the above observa-
tions.
Of course, the argument on interference
in "internal affairs" has consistently been
applied by Moscow to other parts of its em-
pire. For example, in the U.N. General As-
sembly meeting in Paris in 1951, Vishinsky
used it tirelessly with reference to Hungary
during the extensive debate on the Kersten
provision in the U.S. Mutual Security Act.
That provision aimed to attract defectors
from behind the Iron Curtain. Last year
Khrushchev used it with regard to Cuba.
In short, what becomes part of Moscow's
empire, including the vast non-Russian ter-
ritories in the U.S.S.R., becomes an "internal
affair."
In the course of Nixon's tour in the So-
viet Union; Khrushchev let it be known that
the resolution pierced the false image of
- the Soviet Union as the leader of world
communism. As Nixon himself puts it in his
book "Six Crises," the resolution was "the
major Soviet irritant throughout my tour."
Khrushchev staged a whole series of antics,
shaking his finger at Nixon, shouting,
pounding, dubbing the resolution and then,
in Nixon's words "he spelled out what he
meant in some earthy four-letter words."
On the Moskva river the Russian leader con-
ducted "fine river rallies," to use Mikoyan's
phrase: in, order to convince Nixon that there
are no captives in the Soviet Union.
All this evidence and more points to the
essential meaning of the resolution. Moscow
quickly grasped its meaning, if much of the
free world didn't. For the first time an of-
ficial act by a free world government iden-
tified the nature of the cold war enemy as
Soviet Russian imperio-colonialism. The
act penetrated the veneer of communism and
laid bare the last remaining, major, im-
perialist power in the world. It placed the
Soviet Union in ts true light, an empire
within an empire, made up of more captive
non-Russian nations than exist in Central
Europe. Briefly, the resolution seriously
threatened the image projected by Moscow
in every quarter of the globe and opened up
possibilities for cold war operations that in
time would destroy the impact of Soviet
Russian propaganda.
How little this was understood in the
United States can be gleaned from these ex-
amples. One report stated, "U.S. officials are
somewhat puzzled and slightly annoyed, but
also amused, by Soviet irritation over Presi-
dent Eisenhower's. proclamation of Captive
Nations Week." 3 The resolution predicates
the presidential proclamation. Another re-
port was captioned, "That 'Captive Nations
Week' Has Many Diplomats Puzzled."4 What
truly puzzled this writer were the numerous
queries received from various parts of the
country on the whereabouts of Idel-Ural,
Turkestan and Co?sackia in the U.S.S.R.
Only a relative few seemed to know about
these captive non-Russian areas. mentioned
in the resolution. Yet, these important states
are located in the front yard of the cold war
enemy.
THE RESOLUTION HAUNTS K'S VISIT
If Khrushchev was merely irritated by the
resolution or, as it is now called, Public
Law 86-90, then one is extremely had put
to explain subsequent events. Considering
the unprecedented character of Moscow's
first reaction and the 4nnovative features of
the law itself, the effect was unquestionably
much deeper than this. The Russian leader,
who has gained a reputation4or his ebullient
confidence, his boasts and threats, is found
ranting "This resolution stinks." He was
so preoccupied with it that it continued to
haunt him. And, in cold war terms, for
good reasons.
THE 1959 RUSSIAN ERUPTION
Few of us will forget the explosion that
occurred in Moscow immediately after the
U.S. Congress had legislated the Captive
Nations Week Resolution in July 1959. Never
before did a Russian chief of state react
so violently and for so long against an official
document as has Khrushchev against this
resolution. The question that continues to
puzzle many diplomats and analysts is "Why
this vehement reaction to a congressional
resolution?" "For," they would add, "It
wasn't the first resolution of its kind against
communism and for the captive nations."
Before answering this, lets view some as-
pects of this initial phase. Significantly, in
his first tirade against the resolution,
Khrushchev kicked back with a centuries-old
but spurious Russian retort. Speaking to a
Soviet-Polish friendship rally in Moscow just
moments before the airport arrival of Vice
President Nixon, he denounced the resolution
as "a direct interference in the Soviet Un-
ion's internal affairs." 1 This must be borne
In mind to appreciate the resolution's novel
features.
1 UPI, Moscow, July 23, 1959.
2 Nixon, Richard, "Six Crises," New York
1962, pp. 252.
3 AP release, July 23, 1959.
The Sunday Star, Washington, D.C., July
26, 1959.
?
A month before his visit to the United
States, Khrushchev had an article published
in an advance issue of Foreign Affairs, a
periodical of a group in New York. Once
again he attacks the resolution. He also
?
uses the familiar Russian rhetoric paralleling
the United States of America and the
U.S.S.R. In an attempt to mislead the
reader he writes, "It would be interesting to
see, incidentally, how would Americans have
reacted if the Parliament of Mexico, for In-
stance, had passed a resolution demanding
that Texas, Arizona, and California be liber-
ated from American slavery." 5
This point did not go unchallenged. When
the Russian Premier arrived in Washington
in September 1959, and was received in sev-
eral governmental circles, I prepared a set of
questions for Senator DIRKSEN, of Illinois, to
elicit Khrushchev's answers at a tea given by
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
On this point the Senator asked him; "In
your article in Foreign Affairs you mistak-
enly compare Texas, Arizona, and California
with certain non-Russian nations in the
U.S.S.R. Would you be willing to stage,
under U.N. auspices and control, free voting
conditions to determine whether the nations
of Lithuania, Ukraine, and the Caucasus
want to remain in the U.S.S.R. or be in-
dependent and whether the residents of ?
comparable Arizona, Texas, and California
want to remain in the United States of
America or be completely independent
States? Let's compete in ideas and action."
Following the closed meeting, Senator
DIRKSEN informed the press that on this and
other concrete questions "Khrushchev took
a fifth amendment stand." 0
During his entire stay in the United States,
the Russian boss posed as a dauntless com-
petitor in ideas and coexisting action. How-
ever, when he was pressed on these vital is-
sues, he cringed. Early in the visit the
White House passed the word that the guest
was not to be confronted by "embarrassing
questions"?in effect, the great advocate of
competitive coexistence was to have a clear
field for his propaganda effort. And on mat-
ters of peaceful coexistence, disarmament,
the tremendous strength of the U.S.S.R.,
and the horrors of nuclear war, he did his
work well.
Nevertheless, from start to finish, from
Washington to Camp David, the big com-
petitor was haunted by the resolution. Just
last year the present Governor of the State
of Pennsylvania, the Honorable William W.
Scranton, testified on this as follows: "I
think anybody who was connected with this
visit in any way will tell you that this par-
ticular resolution made more of an impres-
sion on Chairman Khrushchev and he in-
vected against it at a greater rate almost
daily while he was here than any other single
thing that America was doing in the cold
war." 7 The Governor, attached to the De-
partment of State then, accompanied
Khrushchev on the tour and was at Camp
David.
In the following months, both in 1959 and
1960, Moscow continued its barrage against
Public Law 86-90. For example, Khrushchev
himself railed into it again on October 31
in the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet, slurring it
as an "appeal for interference in other peo-
ples' affairs." Moscow even found it neces-
sary to order the publication out of London
of a new series of pamphlets titled "The
Fifteen Soviet Republics, Today and Tomor-
row." These have been distributed in mas-
sive volume throughout the free world to
exhibit the paradise of coexisting nations in
5 Khrushchev, Nikita S., "On Peaceful Co-
existence," Foreign Affairs, October 1959.
a "The Ukrainian Bulletin," New York, Oct.
1-5, 1959.
7 "Hearings on the Captive Nations," Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, House of Repre-
sentatives, 1962, p. 195.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3
,.-11-Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the U.S.S.R. But Rbrushchev wasn't through
yet; he chose a new course of tactical diver-
sion in the United Nations?which almost
seriously backfired.
K'S 1960 TACTIC IN THE U.N.
One of the chief motives behind Khru-
shchev's dramatic appearance?and antics?
in the U.N. General Assembly in September
1960, was to divert free world attention from
the reality of Soviet Russian imperio-colo-
nialism, particularly in the U.S.S.R. itself.
With finger, shoe, and tongue he hammered
away at the theme of Western imperialism
and colonialism, while his puppets decried
the resolution. As to be expected in this
unfolding pattern of events, he seized the
offensive while, on the whole, Western dele-
gates played the typical defensive.
However, the Prime Minister of Canada,
John G. Diefenbaker, deviated, and in his
address raised the simple questions, "What
of Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia? What of
freedom-loving Ukrainians and other east-
ern European peoples?" 8 By merely raising
these pointed questions the Canadian Prime
Minister threw the Soviet and puppet rep-
resentatives into a state of pandemonium
and confusion. They believed this was the
opening shot of a counteroffensive designed
to lay bare before the world the brutal facts
of Soviet Russian imperio-colonialism within
the U.S.S.R. itself. Khrushchev was so
shaken by this that on October 4 he even
permitted his ;Ukrainian puppet, Nicholas V.
Podgorny, to address the U.N. for the first
time in the Ukrainian language.
Apparently the only organ that captured
the full meaning of these events and what
suddenly transpired in Ukraine itself was
the Swiss daily, the Neue Zuricher Zeitung.
In its November 20, 1960 issue a detailed re-
port, titled "Colonialism in the Soviet Em-
pire," covers the unusual campaign staged
for several days in Ukraine against the Dief-
enbaker statement. Protest rallies in all
cities, continuous Radio Kiev broadcasts,
declamations by officials, writers, academi-
cians and others proclaiming their "freedom
and independence"?even Communist Party
opposition in Canada?marked the frenzied
campaign. "The whole event," states the
report, "merits also full attention because
for a short time the Soviets (Russians)
themselves certified in a, striking manner
on what weak feet stands their federal sys-
tem and how highly vulnerable, from the
viewpoint of foreign relations, they are on
this point."
ONLY A LOST OPPORTUNITY
Upon his return to Kiev, Podgorny gloated
that the Wetsern maneuver was "choked
in the germ stage." Actually, no plan existed
to have warranted the expectation of subse-
quent stages. Few understood Khrushchev's
maneuver against the background of the
resolution and the successive events it pre-
cipitated. The complete pattern of these
significant events was scarcely noticed. Too
late, too little, and too piecemeal was Presi-
dent Kennedy's United Nations' challenge in
September, 1961: "Let us debate colonialism
in full?and apply the principle of free
choice and the practice of free plebiscites in
every part of the globe." In effect, another
opportunity was lost to advance the interests
of the free world in the cold war.
But the battle over the resolution has not
ceased, and additional opportunities will be
in store as further understanding of its
contents is realized. At the Communist
Party Congress in October 1961, Khrushchev
again assailed the resolution. Yet, even at
this late date, fact and fiction were mixed
In Western commentaries. For example,
Stewart Alsop wrote: "When I was in Moscow
during the October Party Congress, Khru-
shchev once again violently denounced the
innocouous Captive Nations Week Resolu-
tion which Congress passes every year to at-
tract minority votes." 9
This comment is a gem of fact, illogic, and
fiction. The obvious fact is Khrushchev's
violent denunciation; the illogic is the sup-
posed innocuousness of the resolution; and
the fiction concerns Congress passing it
every year to attract votes. The resolution
is explicitely self-renewing. Also, passed in
an off-election year, it has had nothing to
do with minority votes.
What will in time produce this full un-
derstanding is the annual observance of
Captive Nations Week by the American peo-
ple. Each year since 1959 the week has been
viciously attacked by Moscow and its pup-
pets, and the unknowing naturally ask
"Why?" In July 1962, for instance, Izvestia
ran a lengthy editorial condemning the week
as "unbridled anti-Soviet and anti-Commu-
nist slander." 10 In the same year we wit-
nessed the scandalous publication by
UNESCO of the book "Equality of Rights
Between Races and Nationalities in the
U.S.S.R.," a mass of half-truths and bald
fabrications. To answer the "whys" of such
events Congress and Americans across the
country discuss the captive nations within
the framework developed here, as a strategic
free world instrument in the cold war. In-
evitably, the real enemy will be better un-
derstood, the resolution will be intelligently
implemented, and genuine progress toward
victory in the cold war will be achieved.
Mr. Speaker, I must reemphasize the
fact that the establishment of a special
House Committee on the Captive Nations
is of such importance that regardless of
the known State Department roadblock
to our consideration, a resolution should
be approved so that the House could work
its will.
May I remind the Members of the de-
dicated efforts of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. FLoon] , on behalf of
this cause. Certainly, responsible Mem-
bers of the House serving on this com-
mittee would accomplish much that
would be of practical benefit not only to
the enslaved people behind the Iron Cur-
tain but also to all people of the free
world earnestly striving for a world of
true peace and freedom.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, there ks a
moral question that we must reemphasize
in Maintaining an interest in the captive
nations. Soviet colonial exploitation of
these lands, unfortunately, is hardly rec-
ognized. I am especially pleased, how-
ever, that the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
in an editorial of Monday, September 30,
saw fit to direct editorial attention to
the Soviet exploitation of Eastern Eu-
rope, and I insert this editorial into the
RECORD at this point as part of my re-
marks.
LAX CONSCIENCE OP MANKIND
Once more the U.N. has been subjected to
Soviet pontification and a Russian demand
for an end to all colonialism by 1965. -
Mr. Webster has defined colonialism as
"the system in which a country maintains
foreign colonies for their economic exploita-
tion." How does our erstwhile champion of
9 Alsop, Stewart, "The Berlin Crisis: Khru-
shchev's Weakness," Saturday Evening Post,
U.N. General Assembly, New York, Sept. Dec. 16, 1961.
26,1960. izvestia, July 17, 1962.
No. 162-22
18335
anticolonialism score on this point? Last
spring it Vas - embarrassingly plain and
equally poor.
The Rumanians had openly balked. They
no longer wanted to play the role assigned to
them by the tanners of COMECON, the
Soviet-organized, Soviet-run, involuntary
economic corporation set up by Moscow as
the opposite of the Common Market.
According to the big plan, East Germany,
Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union were
to provide heavy industry, while the other
states were to. concentrate on agriculture
with Rumania something of a bloc bread
basket.
But being the "banana republic" of the
Balkans held little appeal for the proud and
pragmatic nationalist Gheorghe Gheorgiu-
Dej, who is Rumania's party boss.
1111 intransigence at the time of the China
split won him minor concessions, but he took
pains not to push the mother country too
far.
Even Fidel, who has made a career excoriat-
ing monopolists and exploiters, has been
forced to trek to Moscow for his'5-year plans.
This summer he returned to Cuba, slowed
the island's industrialization and, under
Khrushchev's orders, put his nation back
along the road to the sugar economy.
But the exploitation can come in simpler
forms. In the 6 years after 1955, the Soviets
swindled their colonies in Europe of some
$6 billion by merely forcing them to pay
premium prices for-Russian goods and paying
the satellites less than value fdr what they
produced. Attila would have marveled at
the bloodless methods of modern plunder.
The U.N. states have never censured the
Russians for this heinous exploitation. Yet
these same hypocritical U.N. states can be
counted on?once again this session?to wax
hot and indignant at Portugal and taunt
that tiny nation: with raucous insults for
clinging to Angola.
This is one reason why we can never seem
to share the enthusiasm and optimism of
those hermits from reality who insist that
the glass building off 42d Street houses the
"conscience of mankind."
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is
sufficient evidence that our foreign policy
defects which have marked conferences
with the Russians since the Teheran-
Yalta-Potsdam period, and in other so-
called summit meetings, are based on a
lack of sufficient knowledge of true con-
ditions in the Communist area, as well
as the true aspects of the captives of
communism.
As evidence of original lack of knowl-
edge but a growing awareness of the true
facts, I submit the public reappraisal of
former Vice President Nixon. A recent
article by Columnist David Lawrence
discusses Mr. Nixon's latest views on the
subject of Eastern Europe, which I in-
sert here as part of my remarks:
[From the New York (N.Y.) Herald Tribune,
Oct. 7, 1963]
EASTERN EUROPE'S FEARS LINKED TO U.S.
DIPLOMACY
(By David Lawrence)
Wssmisicrow.?America's foreign policy is
going through a Critical stage. There is a
growing feeling that, in order to reduce ten-
sions, secret diplomacy has taken over, and
that important concessions have been or
will be made to the Soviets.
The peoples of Eastern Europe are re-
ported to-- be most apprehensive about an
American' tendency to grant such conces-
sions?as, for example, on the sale of wheat?
without achieving -anything in return.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3-1r%
18336
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Thus, former Vice President Nixon, in an
article in this week's issue of the Saturday
Evening Post, says flatly that, while the sign-
ing of the test ban treaty may have de-
creased the danger of war, "the danger of
defeat without war has been substantially
increased."
Mr. Nixon writes that "a great new Com-
munist offensive is being launched against
the free world, an offensive without resort
to war, an offensive all the more dangerous
because it is so difficult to recognize and to
meet effectively." He adds: .
"I believe that we are now entering a pe-
riod of the greatest danger of Communist
expansion in the free world since immedi-
ately after World War II."
Mr. Nixon, who has just rettirned frdm a
trip to Europe, says that an American for-
eign-policy adviser there said to him: "If
the Kennedy administration had not watered
down the captive nations resolution as it
did this year Khrushchev might never have
agreed to the test ban."
Mr. Nixon doesn't believe that such an
assumption is correct, but he asks, "was the
test ban worth the price we paid? _ Did we
sell out freedom for expediency?"
The former Vice President is well aware
that during the Eisenhower 'administration,
the people of Hungary revolted against Soviet
rule and did not get the support they had
hoped to receive from the United States.
He admits that mistakes were made in 1956,
when the Budapest revolution erupted. Con-
ceding that it is easy to second-guess, he now
believes that more should have been done
than was done. He blames in part the fact
that the British and French chose this very
same time to use armed force in the Suez sit-
uation, while America felt that on principle
it had to protest and rely on the United Na-
tions. But he ruefully remarks that
"Khrushchev did what he always does?uses
the UN when it helps him and ignores it
when it hurts him." And "We ended up with
a debate in the UN; the Hungarian freedom
fighters ended up without a country." Mr.
Nixon now outlines a policy that he thinks
should have been followed:
"First, we should have recognized the anti-
Communist Nagy government promptly.
This would have deprived Khrushchev of the
legal argument that the Communist Kadar
government had 'invited' the Soviet forces
to come in.
"Second, when Khrushchev refused to
withdraw his 'troops from Budapest, we
should have broken off diplomatic relations
with the Soviet Union.
"Third, we should have permitted the orga-
nization of 'volunteers' in free countries to
help the freedom fighters. This is the action
the Kremlin has taken in corresponding
situations.
"Fourth, when the plippet Kadar govern-'
ment was set up in place of the free govern-
ment, we should have recognized a govern-
ment-in-exile. Such a government-in-exile
by itself could not have changed the situa-
tion. But it would have been a symbolic
rallying point not only for Hungarians, but
for people throughout Eastern Europe who
admired their courage and shared their ideals
of freedom."
Mr. Nixon does not reveal how much of
the foregoing program he advocated in the
inner councils at the time. He says about
the current situation, however, that it would
be "shockingly immoral for the United States
to do anything directly or indirectly which
would give the impression that we accept
Khrushchev's price?namely, that in return
for `peaceful coexistence' we would draw a
line down the middle of E7rope and accept
as permanent the Communist enslavement
of 97 million Eastern Europeans."
A good deal of uneasiness prevails on
Capitol Hill concerning the possible changes
in American foreign policy. ,There have been
hints right along that some kind of "deals"
were being made behind the scenes. When
Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the missile
bases in Cuba, for instance, there were
rumors about side agreements. This was
repeatedly denied by the administration.
Now the signing of the nuclear test ban.
treaty has been followed by discussion in
the press of proposals for the sale of wheat -
by America Communist-bloc countries,
without any corresponding concessions to
the United States in the cold war.
The issue is hardly partisan. Though
there are many Republicans who have criti-
cized the trend of the Kennedy administra-
tion policy, there are lots of Democrats who
have done the same. The fear seems to be
that the Russians will persuade the State
Department to agree to a nonaggression
treaty as between the Warsaw Pact countries
and the NATO countries. The idea advanced
is that a kind of status quo could then be
attained. But, at the same time, those who
are familiar with Eastern European affairs
say it could be just a starting point for
the complete abandonment by this country
of the peoples in Eastern Europe who have
depended so much on the moral support of
the United States in their crusade for
freedom.
I believe it is fair to say that if Mr.
Nixon had as much knowledge of the
propaganda situation behind the Iron
Curtain at the time of the Hungarian
revolt, the course of history would most
certainly have been changed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all the Members
of the House to join the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. FlooD] and myself
in asking for favorable consideration by
the Rules Committee of a special Com-
mittee on' the Captive Nations.
THE DEBATE ON 'FEDERAL
FISCAL POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Missouri [Mr. Cuaris] is rec-
ognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, President
Kennedy has called the proposed Rev-
enue Act of 1963 the most significant
piece of legislation to come before the
Congress in 15 years.
This is an understatement if it is the
intention of the President to change our
basic Federal fiscal policy deliberately to
incur further deficits through cutting
revenues without cutting expenditures on
the theory that this will produce in-
creased economic growth from whence
additional Federal revenues will be de-
rived to make up for the planned deficits
and alleviate unemployment.
However, the President recently has in
effect stated that he is not advocating
such a novel fiscal policy; he has stated
that he intends to exercise even tighter
control over expenditures. Furthermore,
the President has accepted the amend-
ment placed in the tax bill stating that
it is the sense of Congress that rigid ex-
-penditure control be imposed.
The issue in the debate on the tax bill
before the House Of Representatives
boiled itself down, not to a difference of
opinion over a novel fiscal policy, but to a
question of how expenditure control,
which everyone agreed was necessary to
make the tax cut meaningful, was to be
brought about. In light of this develop-
ment it is now clear that the proposed
Revenue Act of 1963 is by no means the
October 10
most significant piece of legislation to
face the Congress in the past 15 years.
Indeed, it has already been relegated
with the tacit approval of the President
to at least second place, if not lower, in
significance in one session of a single
Congress, the 1st session of the 88th Con-
gress. The civil rights bill has been
given priority.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased with the
caliber of the debate in the House of
Representatives on the tax bill. Over-
all it was on a very high plane and much
good came from it. However, the debate
off the floor of the House has in many
instances taken a very low level. I
called to the House's attention by re-
marks on the floor appearing on pages
16439-16440 of the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD of September 18, 1963, a despicable
editorial appearing in one of our great
newspapers just before the debate began.
Regrettably, this was not an isolated
example of the low tactics being em-
ployed by some overzealous advocates of
what they deemed to be President Ken-
nedy's tax and fiscal policy proposals.
On October 9, 1963, another example
of this low-level-type debate was called
to my attention. This time it was in the
nature of a letter to the editor appearing
in the Washington Post signed by, of all
persons, a full professor in one of our
most respected institutions of learning,
Harvard University. It is certainly a
sad day for public debate in America
when the ethics of "gutter" politics is
employed by distinguished professors of
political science and deemed sufficiently
meritorious by one of America's leading
newspapers to print it in prominent
display.
I wish I could say that these are iso-
lated examples of the caliber of public
debate ,being carried on in America today
outside the Congress by those in promi-
nent and powerful public positions. Re-
grettably it is becoming so commonplace
that people just shrug it off. Many peo-
ple wonder why I still get excited about
it and continue to protest.
A few weeks ago I said in one of my
speeches of protests on the floor of the
House that I felt that the root of this
trouble lay in the school of neo-Machia-
vellian political scientists which seems
to be so dominant in our universities and
colleges today. I pointed to Dr. David
B. Truman, of Columbia University,
whose text books on political science are
so widely used throughout our colleges
and universities as a symbol or leader of
this modern school of political thought
which I think is so degrading, and, in its
cynical attempt to be realistic, so un-
realistic. Seymour Harris, professor of
political science, at Harvard, has estab-
lished himself as a neo-Machiavellian.
However, he seems not content to just
teach this questionable doctrine, but he
seeks to practice it.
I arm setting out in the RECORD a copy
of the letter of Seymour Harris which
appeared in the October 9 Washington
Post. I am also including the reply I
sent to the Washington Post. I trust
the editors of the Washington Post will
print my reply even though it is now
set out in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
After all, the readership of the CONGRES-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2014/02/05: CIA-RDP66B00403R000300200005-3