Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
February 28, 2002
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 12, 1958
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP80B01676R003800130053-1.pdf3.98 MB
STATINTL Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130031 /67' 12 JUL 1958 very =oh far the proofs et the of PRZEDOM & LINION ettieb went deal at' interest on: esee Orig - DCI 1 - Col. Grogan 1 - AAB ER 1r/basic 1 - Heeding INIMELing tee this toted. Allem W. rulles Director es lay 58 (EXECUP7 fr.S47" Approved For Release 2002/05(07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Freedom Eor.Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 i-reeaom z union 2700 Ontario Road, N.W. aWashington 9, D. C. \--- Executive Registry ---- - -- 7 July 1.958 Mr. Allen Dulles Director, Central Intelligence Agency Wsshington 25, D.C. Deer Mr. Dulles: Mr. Streit, who is presently in Europe, asked me to see to it that you received advance proofs of the July-Aug- ust issue of Freedom & Union. He said that you e ressed a desire tagee the psoofs when you sn. r. re.t hsd I-Unch together recentli. PKM:hs 1 Endl -Very truly yours, PAUL K. MARTIN MsnRging Editor Approved For Releasp 2nn9ingin7 CIA RDP801301070R003800 JUUDJ-1 De Gaulle Urged Federal !Union on Churchill in 1940 P 14 4 Whither France ;Now ? & Divided West? By AMAURY DE RIENCOURT P. 9 4"72?woved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R0038001300n-IN. The Rising Demand For American Greatness By LYNDON B. JOHNSON P. 6 Can de Gaulle Now Surpass Churchill and Roosevelt? By CLARENCE STREIT P. I JULY-AUGUST 1958 35 st?$ 4 A YEAR Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 C. 14 1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800130053-1 Can De Gaulle Now Surpass Churchill and Roosevelt? ?Editorial 1 A drama worthy of a Shakespeare is now being played before the unseen eyes of the people of Atlantica, and the fate of all us spectators turns on that Of the hero. Will de Gaulle, now that he has his supreme opportunity, re-enact the tragedy of Roosevelt and Churchill?devote rare qualities of leadership at a turning point in History to preserving the passing order in- stead of constituting the new I Will he strive only for Union of the French with the Arabs or also for their Union with the American, British, and other free people of Atlantica? The former course leads at best to illusory success; the latter will make our. children rank him as we rank George Washington. The odds against this are much worse than those that daunted Churchill and Roosevelt; yet sonic of the very traits of character that led them -to deride de Gaulle as a "Joan of Are" lead him. now to surpass them. The record of this misunderstood man gives cause for hope.-- The drama turns really. on whether le grand, Charles. is ?grand enough to _see that Union of the Free would- be the apotheosis of all that is best in France. The Rising ? Demand for American Greatness 6 Lyndon B. Johnson In his commencement address at the University of Houston, Texas, Senator Johnson stated that "we have come to a time of great national rebuilding." if the U. S. wants to assume the leadership which the free world is expecting from ifs, we must gain anew the world's respect for the- principles for which America has stood. It is especially up to ? America's youth to chart the course America should take ? and not by what it should not take. "We must rebuild the American spirit," said Senator Johnson, "and with it, the fiber of American character." Whither France Now?and the Divided West? 9 .4maury de Riencourt Russia's tremendous technological progress, the rapid develop- ment of China's industrial power, the creeping depression and many other dangers looming on the horizon have grown with the turn of the tide in France. The Western world is seriously challenged and cannot afford to counter totalitarian threats with instinctive reactions only. The free world must pare common dangers with a ?deliberate and purposeful:, pooling of all se- sources in -view of -a- permanent union. Bruges Conference Unit Maps Atlantic institute Research Program 11 Conferees at the meeting in Zurich mapped: out a-program of independent scholarlyres.earch and informatiOnal- activities de- signed to bring.- the nation-s of the Atlantic Community closer together in dealing with their common problems. This program includes the operation of a bibliographical 'digest service cover- ing these major fields of interest, the creation of advisory panels of experts and the convening of specialized conferences designed to produce concrete results. When Our Forebears Dreamed About Space Travel 12 -Brian McArdle For centuries man has dreamed of realizing what Icarus so tragically failed to achieve: to travel into outer space and fly to the sun, the moon and the stars. Science -fiction is not a branch of literature invented in our rocket age; it has been a favorite topic with writers from the ancient Greeks to the modern prophets of the Welfare State. But none has surpassed in imagination Jules Verne who, almost 100 years ago, foresaw "Laika" in the Soviet satellite and had situated the launching pad of his moon rocket near Cape Canaveral, Florida. De Gaulle Urged Federal Union on Churchill in 1940 14 Research Report?Clarence Strait De Gaulle, widely considered the arch-type narrow nationalist, immediately accepted the idea of Anglo-French Federal Union when this idea was put before him on June 16, 1940, and played a leading if not decisive role in persuading Churchill?who began by balking?to make his famous offer. The dramatic story of that desperate day is told here in the -first article that gives both De Gaulle's version and Churchill's?plus the report by Pertinax, famous French journalist, of the French rejection of _the offer by only two votes, and the author's recollection of the version given John Foster Dulles and him a little after the event by the real father of that proposal, Jean Monnet. Italian Election Moves Toward Fewer Parties 17 Elio E. Grandi The recent Italian elections, with the victory of the Christian ilammerats, give hope that the cause of Atlantic Union may be further advanced during the next five years. The men to do it will be the two major exponents of the Christian Democratic Party: Amintore FM-doff and Giuseppe Pella. Quoto Quiz . . Who- Said 18 Atlantic Union News 18 Patriotism ?True and False 19 Rev. Robert J. McCracken, Patriotism means many things to many people. To sonic it means "my country right or wrong." Machiavelli preferred his country to the salvation of his soul. Hitler construed patriotism to mean German supextority over inferior people in order to create a new world order. Such ideas may be labeled as false patriotism. True patriotism, on the other hand, combines love of country with love of humanity and. of God, It does not require that one nation he elevated over another; it recognizes that each nation needs every other nation; it accepts the premise that to impose one culture on the world would be to impoverish the world. U.S. Must Build Anew 21 Livingston Hartley Today the U. S. faces a- serious challenge. Our security, our way of life is in danger. Admittedly, the world is moving toward political integration, but it is integration by force, not by agree- - merit. Integration by force threatens our future as a nation, and tends directly to channel that integration toward a Cominu--?. nist world empire. To offset this, we must build anew, we must build something which is biggger and stronger than our nation Russian Disengagement Policy Threatens West Thomas J. Hamilton The Russians are becoming increasingly skillful in diplomacy and propaganda. By -announcing' that they intend to stop nu- clear tests, and by their farther claim that they are thinning out Soviet troops in the satellite countries, they place the U. S. in the position of a warmonger. Through their adroit machinations. they hope to force the U. S. to stop its own nuclear tests, and to make us agree to some sort of disengagement policy. The Little Dog Laughed Third Cover Cover: Ivey, St. Petersburg Times FREEDOM & UNION is published monthly except August by Federal Union, Inc. Annual subscribers receive, however, 12 issues. Offices: 2700 Ontario Rd., N. W., Washington 9, D. C. Offieel'S: President, Clarence K. Streit; Sioretary, Mrs. Muriel A. Davies; seer, F. F. Joseph Donohue. Author's opinions do not necessarily reflect the views held by the editors. For change of address, allow 30 days and give both old and new addresses. Subscription rates: $4 a year anywhere in the world. Gift ratio": first subscription $4, each succeeding one, $3. European representatives. London, Rolls House Publishing Co., Breams Bldg.; Paris, Galignani, 224 rue de Rivoli; Switzerland, Naville & Cie, 7 rue Levrier, Geneva. Printed in U.S.A. Entered as second-class matter October 11, 1946, at the post office at Washington, D.C., under the Act of March 1, 1879. All rights reserved. Copyright 1958 by FREEDOM & UNION. International copyright secured. Copyright reserved under Pan-American Convention. Indexed in 'Public Affairs Information Service" Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Freedom Union "For the Great Republic, for the Principle it Lives by and Keeps Alive, for Man's Vast Future."?LINCOLN. -Vol. 13, No. 7-8 (.43 July-August, 1958 111111111111RIIIMulinSolIWIllifiSIIIIIIIMIDISIIIHM111011111MMIX111101111111111111ilillelenallfelassamIlitionwaisaisumsuCeseusea ..t11111111111111111111111111111111)i11111.1111111111111111111111,111111111111.111111011/1111,111111111111111111111111111,11t1...11/1.2 FREEDOM & UNION'S POLICY To think, write and act always in terms of all the democratic world, and not of any one country in if. To mean by "we" (except editorially) the citizens of the coming Atlantic Union or Federation of All the Free, not mere- ly those of any existing democracy. To speed its coming by helping its people understand better fhe principles of individual freedom and federal union, and their importance to peace, produc- tion, higher living standards and greater spiritual growth and happiness. To advance it also by helping the peo- pre of this Free Atlantic Community to see that they do form a community which they need to govern democratically. To provide a forum for all views in the vast field of freedom and federation. To bring out the facts in this field by objective, imaginative research. To seek to extend the Union's free federal relationship to other nations peacefully and as rapidly as this will ad- vance liberty and peace until eventually it grows into a free federal world re- public. To assure that, pending universality, this union shall be a loyal member of the United Nations. The gaulic knot Editor CLARENCE K. STREIT Associate Editor HERBERT AGAR RAFFAEL GANZ Executive Editor Managing Editor PAUL K. MARTIN European Editor J EANNE DEFRANCE Business Manager HELEN G. BERRY Contributing Editors OWEN J. ROBERTS, 1946-1955 Louis DOM ERATZKY HELEN B. HAMER On Second Thought Can de Gaulle Now Surpass Churchill and Roosevelt? CHARLES DE GAULLE now has his chance to go down in History as a greater man than either Roosevelt, who treated him and fallen France so cava- lierly during the war, or Churchill, who had a better understanding of the impor- tance of both but followed FDR. Will He Outdo FDR, Churchill? Will de Gaulle measure higher than Roose- velt and Churchill did when they had their opportunity? The situation is such that if he fails to surpass them in vision, courage and faith, all of us in the At- lantic Community?and not merely the French will suffer disastrous conse- quences. He is, in short, the leader on whom the fate of us all depends to a degree that few now realize. From my knowledge of him person- ally and my study of his record, I am hopeful, on balance, that le grand Charles will prove to be the great Atlan- tic leader that the times imperatively re- quire. The odds against his succeeding are heavier than those that daunted Roosevelt and Churchill, and there is much other reason to fear that he will not even make the attempt. Even so, de Gaulle has certain rare virtues that make me think that he may not, and certainly need not, re-enact their tragedy?fail even to try to do the No. 1 task when it lay in one's power. Drama Needing a Shakepseare. The drama in which de Gaulle now has the heroic role would need a Shakespeare to depict. To understand the immense sweep and spellbinding fascination of what is transpiring on the Atlantic stage, one must understand the nature of the supreme test de Gaulle faces, the crush- ing odds against him, the reasons to hope that he will overcome them, and the immense stake that even the spectators have in his success. How Tell No. 1 from No. 2? How does one begin to decide what is. the su- preme opportunity that de Gaulle has now, as FDR and Churchill had once? The verdicts of History are generally deemed superior to contemporary opin- ion, because the former are made with more knowledge and perspective, less emotion and prejudice. It is obvious, but apparently often forgotten, that the judgments of History are always those made in the future. It is even more for- gotten that the unborn will _judge what we do in the light of the conditions in which they themselves live rather than the conditions in which we act. Two Examples. By the values of the present generation of Americans, Lin- coln stands out highest among all the leaders of his time. The values of 1860 were such that he was elected President by only a minority. No one cares today who was chief ex- ecutive of Virginia, the strongest of the 13 States in the period when each was a sovereign nation. Everyone now would agree that George Washington was wise in not seeking that office after winning the war, and in devoting himself instead to bringing about the Union of the 13 under a Federal Government. At that time, however, nearly every Virginian believed that the most important civil office any man could fill was that of Governor of Virginia. Most people were either indifferent to what seemed all im- portant to Washington, or opposed the proposed Union as visionary, remote, impractical, undesirable or dangerous. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 2 FRT7,17.DOM 8t UNION .1.111Y-August, 1958 1111111(111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1P1111111111111111111111111111PIL11111111111[1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1111111111111W111111111111111111111111111111,11111 11.1P1,11111111111111111111111L1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.111111111111111111111111111111111111111'111111111111111L11111i1111111 11'.111111h1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111W11111 Now, when conditions change from generation to generation increasingly, a statesman's greatness is determined more and more by his vision of what the unborn will consider was the thing to do in his time, and less and less by the valu- ations of contemporaries. Thus can we tell the statesman from the politician, the hero from the statesman. History's 3 Voices. Our century's ac- celerating development of machines and weapons whose reach is further and wider, together with History's repeated but much slower development of larger bodies politic from smaller ones, indicate that the peoples now living around the Atlantic must do one of three things: 1) unite in a federal union, 2) fall slaves of a communist empire as the merely- allied states of ancient Greece fell to Rome or 3) sink into Dark Ages of an- archy as did the West after Rome's fall. If Atlantica Rises. If Atlanticans live in future as citizens of a great United States of the Free, they will put their pride in belonging to it. They will, of course, still rejoice at having been born Americans, Britons, Frenchmen, but the importance of the pre-Union history of the U. S., Britain and France will be relatively on a level with that of Vir- ginia, Wales and Burgundy in their na- tions today. History (not only in At- lantica) will then honor those who led in founding the Atlantic Union. It will downgrade, condemn or brush into lim- bo the statesmen of our time who, when they had it in their hands to bring about this federation, turned deliberately away and devoted themselves instead to doing what their contemporaries thought was more important or practical. History may well rank Truman above Roosevelt. The latter dismissed France and all Western Europe as secondary, and put his trust in Russia and China; the former saw the prime importance of Western Europe to freedom and made the first great step toward Union with it?the Atlantic alliance. If Atlantica Falls. If the West falls under communist dictatorship, the deeds of Roosevelt and Churchill that now loom so large will shrink to little. While men still dream of freedom, these deeds will pale beside their failure even to try to unite the free enough to save them from this fate. That failure will pre- Serve their memory?in vinegar. Men do not honor long those who lost the war by the way they won the battle, nor those who lost the century by the way they won a war. If our civilization disintegrates, what passes for History in the barbaric sequel will be of small importance. The Supreme Opportunity that Pre- mier de Gaulle now has is to do what Roosevelt and Churchill failed to at- tempt. Both the latter seriously consid- ered Atlantic Union during the war. Both turned away in favor of solutions based on the sovereign nation rather than the sovereign citizen. Roosevelt thereafter overshot the mark. He aimed at a world "family" composed of his Big Four?the U. S., Britain, Soviet Russia and Nationalist China?with all the oth- ers reduced to non-veto status in a tooth- less, headless U. N. His solution was too big, and immovable; Churchill's too small and weakly put together. He un- dershot the target, aiming at a vague combination of European unity linked to Anglo-American alliance. De Gaulle's Acid Test. The supreme test that de Gaulle now faces is whether he will take for basic building blocks the nation or the citizen, and whether he will then aim above, below, or at the target. Practically speaking, the ques- tion is whether he will devote himself only to uniting the French with the North Africans in a French Union, or will also aim at uniting the French with the Americans, British, Germans and other people of Atlantica as fellow citi- zens of a Union of the Free. France's Present Problems. The peaceful solution of the Algerian prob- lem and the establishment of effective democratic government in France are generally rated the two biggest chal- lenges to de Gaulle. On these two his attention is now centered. Both are charged with immense, immediate diffi- culties and dangers. Even among de Gaulle's admirers few are confident he can solve them. But great as these chal- lenges are, and necessary as it is that he devote most of his attention at present to them, they do not form his supreme challenge. The real challenge does not require that he give it much time just now, but it does require him soon to make clear his overall aim. Unless he meets this test right, his efforts to meet the other two arc doomed to failure. Suppose de Gaulle solves France's North African problem as successfully as Britain worked out an association with India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon. Flow- ever great an improvement one considers this, it has still left Britain facing much graver economic and social problems than London did in its imperial years. Suppose de Gaulle succeeds in estab- lishing as stable a democratic govern- ment as the U. S. has. Since the U. S., even so, faces economic and military dan- gers too great to he overcome by it alone, how can one hope for France to do better with far less strength? Common Fate. The problems facing de Gaulle in France have this in com- mon with those facing Macmillan in Britain, Eisenhower in the U. S. and Adenauer in Germany?and with those that faced Churchill and Roosevelt in their time: They are of such nature that they cannot be solved within the frame- work of the nation alone, in a way which meets the nation's ideals. They can be solved that way only within the frame- work of their common Atlantic Com- munity and civilization. The time for solution of the major problems confronting France, Germany, Britain and. the U. S. on a less than At- lantic scale had already passed when de Gaulle first appeared on the world scene in 1 940: His recognition of this fact then helped make his name. Since 1940 the less-than-Atlantic solution has be- come more obsolete with every year of technical and scientific advance. Tragedy No. 3 Ahead? Will le grand Charles see his supreme opportunity now, as he did in 1940? Or will he re-enact the tragedy of Roosevelt and Churchill ?devote great qualities of leadership at a malleable moment to preserving the passing order instead of constituting the new, seek the approval of the dead rath- er than that of the unborn? The odds against his becoming the George Wash- ington of the United States of the Free are immensely greater than those that proved too much for Roosevelt and Churchill; they are almost hopeless. Odds Against de Gaulle. Roosevelt and Churchill had their opportunity when war against a common aggressor gave them the most powerful of the forces that unite nations. If dc Gaulle is to lead the way to Atlantic Union, he must act not only in time of peace but when economic difficulty increases the normal divisions between democracies. ,A- I Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 July-August, 1958 F REEDOM St. UNION iamuwummuwumummfflmmmunmmmmmmumnmwmmmmmmmunmmnmHmnmnwmmuwummmmmmmmHmmmnmnnmmmnwNmnmunnHmmwuumnnnmommuummHummmu Roosevelt and Churchill each had for home base one of the world's stablest na- tions; de Gaulle's is the least stable of the dozen oldest democracies. Roosevelt had such personal prestige and power in his country that he was able to break the tradition against a third term, even before Pearl Harbor united nearly all Americans behind him. Churchill came to power when appalling disaster solidified his countrymen around him and made him their idol and oracle. De Gaulle returned to power at a time when the strife within France neared the point of civil war. He must act in a country where powerful elements at either extreme bitterly oppose him, and only despair has overcome the distrust of many who support him. Alas, Poor Charles. Conspicuously lacking in de Gaulle are both the experi- ence in, and gift for, politics which so distinguished Roosevelt and Churchill. Nor does he have their ability to charm, their warm, friend-making personalities. Roosevelt occupied the most powerful position in the world?so powerful that even Churchill felt that the British Em- pire, whose might gave him such pride, was too weak to lead toward Atlantic Union, or follow any other major pol- icy, against Roosevelt. France does not have the strength the British Empire had when Churchill was Prime Minister. De Gaulle can not talk to Americans in their own language. Churchill can speak it much better than they can themselves. Can He Even See Atlantica? The odds against de Gaulle's trying to do what Roosevelt and Churchill shied away from seem hopeless; indeed, most people would be astounded if he even considered coming out for Atlantic Un- ion. They look on him as an extreme nationalist, naturally inclined to auto- cratic rather than to democratic princi- ples and practices. Though the prevail- ing view results from much misunder- standing of de Gaulle and neglect of his record, one must concede that the cards seem stacked against his even thinking in terms of Atlantic Union. Roosevelt and Churchill came from the most democratic and broadening of backgrounds; de Gaulle from the least. Where they rose through politics, he rose in the army?the most dictatorial and nationalistic institution in any country. Roosevelt breathed the air of a coun- try which is at once the largest democra- cy and the one most impregnated with federalism. Churchill's formative years were in the most far-flung of empires? one which had found federal union to its liking in Canada, Australia, South Af- rica, De Gaulle has spent nearly all his life in the land whose French Revolution set the pattern for the modern unitary national democracy. It remains the most highly centralized of them all, with no experience in federal union. All This & Scars, Too. There is as little in de Gaulle's background to lead him to Atlantic Union as there was much in Roosevelt's and Churchill's to make them turn to it naturally. On top of all this there are the bitter memories de Gaulle has of the way Churchill and, even more, Roosevelt treated France and him during the war when they were weak. These are enough to cause him to want above all else to make France strong now and to lead him to look with doubt and distrust on the American co- lossus . . . which, through Roosevelt's misunderstanding of both France and de Gaulle, misused its power grievously in their regard during the war. Hero, Sage & Saint. All things consid- ered, it would seem that de Gaulle, to become the George Washington of the United States of Atlantica, would have to be not only a hero and a sage, but a saint. What hope is there that he may prove that great? I, for one, find more hope that he may prove to be the leader whom these times demand than I find elsewhere. True he lacks great assets that Roosevelt and Churchill had, and that Adenauer, Macmillan, Eisenhower and Dulles have today. Yet he has cer- tain rare qualities that can offset all this, and make him not only try what they have found too difficult, but achieve it. I believe he can outdo them, and may. De Gaulle the Baffling. De Gaulle is probably the most misunderstood and baffling of all the great leaders in the public eye since 1940. This is partly be- cause he is a much rarer kind of man; he fits no pigeon-hole. It is also because Roosevelt misjudged him so plausibly, and set a rut which many have followed. A Churchill in French. Few of those who have tried to inform the U. S. pub- lic about de Gaulle since his recent re- turn to power seem to have read his War Memoirs, whose publication began in 1954 in Paris. There they created a literary sensation, for the General proved he had the command of the French, language that Churchill has of English.. The Viking Press published a transla- tion of the first volume, under the title, The Call to Honor; it sold so little that the second volume remains unpublished. In these very enlightening Memoirs, de Gaulle stands out as a man whose stature and potentialities for democracy are much greater than the public believes. Left-Handed "Joan of Arc." So in- spiring a person was the Maid of Or- leans that a higher compliment could hardly be paid anyone than to be called a "Joan of Arc." When Roosevelt linked de Gaulle with her, however, he meant it in derision. The point of the "Joan of Arc" slur was that de Gaulle claimed to be France, and everyone agreed this was preposter- ous. But Joan made the same claim and it seemed no less preposterous then. The True Joan. Joan of Arc not only maintained that she spoke truly for France wheri she spoke alone, but when the event made all agree that she was right, she made a far more sweeping claim. She asserted that the Voice she heard within her was the true Voice of God, the whole Catholic Church to the contrary notwithstanding. When on trial for her life, Joan was capable of saving to the presiding Bishop: "You say that you are my judge. Take care of what you do, for, verily, I am sent from God." When asked later: "Do you mean to say that you recognize no judge on earth, and his His Holiness the Pope is not your judge?" Joan could haughtily answer: "I will tell you no more. I have a good master, Our Lord, on whom I count for everything. I have no other master." 'After the court decided to condemn Joan as a heretic, the Bishop asked: "Do you believe that you are not bound to submit your acts and your statements to the Church militant?to anyone but God?" And the record shows that she replied: "I will maintain what I have always said and done during the trial . If I were in the fire, still I would not speak other than I have spoken." Joan kept her word?and myriads of Christians now need no heroism to as- sert the supremacy of the individual con- science over all else . . . though they still need heroism to practise this 'basic principle of democracy. 64--- 'A-21 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 F/3 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 4 FREEDOM & UNION July-August, 195$ 11111/11111111111/111111111011111111111111111111111111111111/11113H111111111111N111111111111111111111111111511111111111111111111111111111111i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111illi111111111111111111111111111111111111i111111111 IirlfiallIIIIIIIIINI;111,01/1111101111ifilila111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/11111IIIINIIIMPI111111111111111111111111111 Our Crying Need. Freedom is not en- dangered in the West today from lack of decent respect to the opinions of man- kind and majority rule. What freedom 'dangerously lacks are individuals who will to do as Joan did. We may get them by looking less cocksurely on men with de Gaulle's record. Le Grand Charles. The record proves that de Gaulle not only claimed to speak with the authentic voice of France and proved himself right, but has shown to a rare degree the vision, courage, pa- tience, tenacity, faith that Joan had. His Vision. At a time when foes held the heart of France and the feeble in spirit governed the rest, de Gaulle, like Joan, had the vision to sec that amazing victory could be won from means that left all others in despair. Remembering as I do the blue funk as regards not only France but Britain which blighted Washington after Dunkirk and the French surrender, I am the more im- pressed by de Gaulle's vision then. His Courage. In June 1940, de Gaulle showed that, like Joan, he had the cour- age that faces impossible odds and, when all else fails, rises dauntless?not in the mass hysteria of battle, but when one stands for months in the midst of ene- mies or disbelievers, with only one's own soul for support. When France turned to Petain and surrendered, de Gaulle in London decided to make his famous broadcast appeal the next day to the French to rally around him as the true voice of France. Of that decision he says in his Memoirs: "I seemed to my- self, alone as I was and deprived of everything, like a man on the shore of an ocean that he proposes to swim across." Yet he plunged in, and had the greater courage to continue until he did swim across. His Patience. De Gaulle's Memoirs make it plain that it was a soul-searching thing for him, a career officer, to violate as he did the basic military law of obedi- ence?a crime for which Marshall Pc- tain's government condemned him to death. He was all too aware that he was little known in France, and had still less status abroad and no legal leg to stand on. This was rubbed into him for weeks when no important French leader rallied to his standard, and even such great men as Jean Monnet, who shared his belief that French resistance must -continue, rejected the method he pro- posed. When he did gain the unques- tioned leadership of the Free French, he still suffered all manner of snub, slight and slur from the British and even more from Roosevelt, who recog- nized Petain, instead, as the voice of France. To swim through all that briny ocean took more than courage; it took Joan's patience?and tenacity. "Haughty" or Tenacious? It is hard to insist unyieldingly that the multitude take you at your own value without their condemning you for stubbornness, arro- gance, fanaticism. Lincoln laid down the hest way to be tenacious without falling into the vice of haughtiness when he counselled: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on." Too Burdened to Bow. Even Joan of Arc appeared haughty when she brushed aside questions from Bishops at her trial with a curt, PaSSCZ outre! "Pass on!" or "Next question!" was one of her fre- quent answers. De Gaulle has none of her graces, by nature he seems stiff, un- bending, aloof, unable to be firm in his dealings with other men without seem- ing to ignore Lincoln's qualifying words. Yet in his Memoirs he shows impressive fairness and magninimity in his judg- ment of other men, even Roosevelt. In a revealing passage he answers the charge that he was unbending and haughty when he badly needed to win friends by saying: "I was too loaded down to be able to bow." De Gaulle's Faith. The rarest of Joan's virtues was her sublime faith, both in herself and in her people?faith that, if she did what she alone thought was right and could be done, they would in the end rise with her . . . faith that if she was true to her deepest self they, too, would. outdo themselves and the miracu- lous would come to pass. In the years of his ordeal, le grand Charles showed that he had this kind of faith, both in himself and in his fellows?and the event again justified the faith. This kind of faith presided over the birth of the American Federal. Union; it is no less essential for Atlantic Union now; it has been sadly lacking in the West. Washington's Faith. When the cause of federal union seemed hopeless in America, and the apathy was such that the Federal Convention in Philadelphia could not meet from lack of a quorum, most of the assembled delegates con- cluded that the people would approve only patches on the existing alliance. George Washington?who agreed that "It is too probable that no plan we pro- pose will be adopted"?turned the tide by saying: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can re- pair; the event is in the hand of God." He gave the Founding Fathers faith that if they turned from "practical politics" and did what they believed was right, enough Americans would support them to get the Constitution adopted. With- out that faith there would be no U.S.A. Where Churchill Fell Short. Church- ill showed a superb faith in himself and his people when they stood alone. He showed faith, too, in de Gaulle and even more in America. But he did not have faith enough to believe that if he called for Atlantic Union, as he called for Anglo-French and later for European Union, he could persuade the American people to agree. Even when Roosevelt was gone and Churchill stood at his apogee at Fulton, he sold both himself and the American people short by pro- posing only alliance. Instead of appeal- ing to the greatness in Americans and challenging them to bridge the ocean with their federal principles, he appealed to their lesser instincts. The Faith FDR Lacked. Roosevelt seriously considered proposing Atlantic Union. I was much impressed and en- couraged by his rare creative approach to it. Yet even when the war gave him the opportunity of a century, the Presi- dent who had proved so often his power to sway Congress and the people did not have enough faith in himself and his fel- lows to try to project Washington's ex- ample on an oceanic scale. "You'll never get this over in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha," he said to me in effect. From the way people in those cities re- sponded even to my own pleas for At- lantic Union, I felt then?and still do? that Ile tragically under-estimated both himself and the American people. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 July-August, 1958 F R.EEDOM St UNION 5 Eisenhower, as Commander of the Al- lied armies, -came to the Presidency with the exceptional kind of authority that Washington had. As NATO Corn- mander, he had warned against the no- torious weakness of such alliances and pointed toward Atlantic Union. As President he has thus far lacked the faith in himself and in his people even to call for a Convention to explore Union. Ironic Justice. By ironic justice the very traits of character that once made de Gaulle a butt of derision, have brought him his opportunity now. If he sees it, he has the kind of character to grasp it. But can he see it? Will not nationalism blind him? One can hope. De Gaulle's Two Aces. When de Gaulle on June 18, 1940, made his crucial broadcast to France to continue the war his only argument was that the French were not alone, for they could rely on the British and the Americans: "But has the last word been said? Must all hope vanish? Is the defeat final? No! Believe me, who speak to you with some knowledge, when I say that France is not lost. The same means that conquered us can bring us victory one day. For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone! She has behind her a vast Em- pire. She can form a bloc with the British Empire which holds the seas and continues the fight. She can, like England, utilize without limits the immense industry of the United States." At the showdown, de Gaulle did not place his faith in France alone, or in North Africa; his two aces were Britain and the U. S. Will he risk another catas- trophe for the nation he loves, by build- ing its future only on France and North Africa instead of on union with the British and Americans? De Gaulle on FDR's Plan. In volume II of his Memoirs de Gaulle tells of his first visit during the war to Washington ?where, incidentally, he made a pil- grimage to Mount Vernon. After de- scribing the plan for peace Roosevelt outlined to him, he remarked to the President, "In treating Western Europe as secondary, will your plan not weaken the cause it aims to serve?that of civili- zation?" He added: "It is the West that must be restored. If it finds itself again, the rest of the world will take it willy-nilly for model. If it de- clines, barbarism in the end will sweep the word. Now, Western Europe, despite its disruptions, is essential to the West. Noth- ing can replace the value, power and radia- tion of these ancient peoples. This is true above all of France which, of the great nations of Europe, is the only one that was, is and will always be your ally." What of Union? It would seem clear that de Gaulle is basically Atlantic- minded, but would he not balk at federa- tion? Here again there is good cause for hope. He crossed that Rubicon, too, long ago. Two days before he made his ap- peal to France to continue the war, he learned of the proposal that France and Britain form an organic union. The dramatic story of that offer is told on page 14 of, this issue in his own words and those of Churchill and others. They leave no doubt that whereas Churchill at first balked at Union, de Gaulle not only immediately backed it, but urged it on him and perhaps was the one who persuaded him to make the offer. My Talk with de Gaulle. His reputa- tion as a nationalist came partly from his opposition to the European Defense Community. I reported in the February 1952 FREEDOM & UNION: "The de Gaullists will oppose it because General de Gaulle?with whom I had a long talk?insists that a strong European political federation must first be constituted before a European army becomes practical or safe. Further, he insists that this fed- eration be established through direct popu- lar action. He promises if be becomes Premier to issue a dramatic appeal to the people of Western Europe to elect delegates to a constituent assembly to draft a federal Constitution. Without this, he deems it more realistic and better for France to rearm on a national basis." The picture is one of a federalist rather than nationalist. The Real Difficulty that Atlantic Un- ion faces in de Gaulle, I think, results from the distorted picture he got of the U. S., partly from lack of Lafayette's and Tocqueville's firsthand knowledge, and more from his experience of vast American power misused by Roosevelt. He would be only human if distrust of the U. S. giant led him to flirt with Moscow to build up France. Or he may conclude that Europe must first unite or the U. S. will swamp its nations in an Atlantic Union. Yet, if he can give the subject time, he is statesman enough to understand that in a true Atlantic fed- eration France and the other European nations would have a stronger position as separate states than as a European Union. The Key Factor. My guess is that if (L' Gaulle decides the game among the free is going to continue to be played by n :.ional sovereignty rules, he will aim only at making France strong enough to play on fairly equal terms with Brit- ain and the U. S. If he decides it is time to change these rules before they result in worse disaster, he is man enough to make the heroic effort needed to build the future on federal rules. The Final Question. The future may well turn on the answer to this: With what does de Gaulle most identify the France he loves so deeply? If he can see Union of the Free as the culmination of France, as I see it as the climax of what is clearest to me in America, then I believe he will be the George Wash- ington of this more perfect Union. Can he understand that France will not be lost in it, that all the best French values will be safeguarded by it as by no other solution and can radiate as never before? French Means Freeman. To de Gaulle France is not merely the land, as it was to Petain who thought all was lost when the land was. France to de Gaulle is an ideal, something that lived in London and America in 1940 rather than in Vichy. He is the kind of Frenchman who can see that France is almost a pre,, destined founder of Union of the Free. Francais originally meant "freeman." America, England, Germany are geo- graphical names, but the very name of France stands for the political ideal of all the Atlantic Community. France comes from Franks, and that German tribe left their name even in the English dictionary as an adjective, frank, orig- inally meaning "free?not in bondage," and now meaning "free in uttering one's real sentiments . . . candid . . . open"? the same as franc in French. Happily enough, the American who first proposed Union of the Free, and persuaded the French (who loved him) to help establish it, was a man called Franklin . . . which meant in old Eng- land a "freeholder, a freeman." Why shouldn't de Gaulle conclude that Union of the Free means Union of the Franks in its oldest, highest sense? ---CLARENCE STREIT Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 6 FREEDOM & ITNTO-N 'Yuly-August, 195 ATURITY RESERVES its rewards for those who turn most willingly to face the future's challenge. As it is with each of us in our personal lives, so it is also with our nation. Nations, too, grow older. Nations, too, assume burdens of maturity. With nations, as with indi- viduals, maturity requires a turning away from the certainties of yesterday to meet the uncertainties and unknowus of the present and the future. This I%consider no fearful prospect, but a future of the very greatest promise. Life without challenge is life without reward. Whether among men or among nations, absence of challenge can only mean mediocrity?and in such a cli- mate, greatness cannot flourish. Looking about us at the world today, we can see on every hand a rising de- mand for American greatness?a great- ness of mind and spirit and character and purpose such as has never been de- manded of us in the past. We have come to the time of a great national re-building. We must re-build the American spirit and, with it, the fibre of the American character. We must re-build the American image be- fore the world, and, with it, the world's respect for the principles for which America has stood. We must re-build the American position and, with it, the strength of freedom as the most power- ful force at work in the hearts of the human race. And we must realize above all that the path to the future does not lie solely in physical and material re- sources. We must concentrate on the humanities and the social studies with the same fervor that we pursue the arts of physics and engineering. It is as important that we learn to get along with our fellow human beings as it is that we learn to build satellites and space ships. Challenges Free U.S. Many basic American assumptions have undergone the greatest change and challenge. The assumption of American tech- nological superiority has been made sub- ject to direct and serious challenge. The assumption of American economic sta- bility and permanent American pros- perity has been dealt a blow which commands respect and attention. The assumption of American leadership among the community of nations in the West has been severely undermined. THE RISING DEMAND FOR AMERICAN GREATNESS By LYNDON B. JOHNSON Majority Leader, U.S. Senate As Americans, we do not live now in the same world we knew twelve months ago. Our resources, our capacity, our knowledge, our competence are the same, undiminished and unfettered. Yet only the wilfully blind can fail to see that America's world is shrinking, that the shoreline of freedom is receding. France, the center of the great North Atlantic line against Soviet imperialism, is disintegrating in chaos. The Middle East is aflame with the bright fires of nationalism. North Africa is covered with a pall of smoke from smoldering ruins of colonialism. Canada stirs un- der an awakening spirit of independence and challenge to our policies. The once friendly lands to the South of us are exploding with old resentments and new ambitions. On every hand, men and nations we have counted on the side of freedom are challenging--openly and angrily?our own assumption that we were secure as leaders of all free men. It would be all but impossible to overstate the seri- ousness of this challenge. If we continue long on this course, America will be left as an island in an angry sea of world contempt. We shall be poor amid our abundance, ignorant amid our knowledge, weak amid our strength, and without hope amid all our promise. This must not come to pass. America must not stand with cotton in its ears and hands over its eyes and pretend that it neither hears nor sees the walls of freedom crumbling at its feet. What has happened to the American position? I do not presume to suggest that there is a single and final answer. But I do believe the answer lies somewhere with- in the fact that we have drifted away from the fundamental truth that Ameri- ca is a young nation with the best years of its life still to be lived. Through all the years of America's growth to preeminence in the world, we have moved forward with the inner fire and ambition of youth. We have had the daring and self-confidence of youth. We have not had the smugness and contentment that sometimes comes with age. Americans Too Fearful Americans have tamed rivers, leveled mountains, joined oceans together, made deserts bloom, fought with the winds to reclaim the dust-bowls. We have built great cities in the wilderness and brought the wonders of electricity to rural homes. For all the peoples of the earth who had yet to accomplish these goals, America was an inspiration--and the freedom for which America stood was their goal and their dream, too. I cannot believe that it is entirely coincidence that the state of America's position in the world has come about so promptly in the wake of a changing American attitude toward these enter- prises which have been the showpieces of freedom. Our American attitudes have changed. We have grown fearful and cautious about building great dams to harness the power of our streams. We have derided public projects as pork barrels. We have filed our plans on the shelf and tucked our dreams away in drawers. We have told ourselves?and the world?that the American economy was mature, that it required no more This is slightly condensed from the commencement address by Senator Johnson, University of Houston, Texas, May 31, 1958.?EDITORS. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For For ail the peoples of the world, the freedom for which America stands is their goal and dream, too. expansion, that its great threat was over- expansion. Beyond this, we have lectured to our friends, scolded them, and preached to them and talked down to them. We have complained about their backward- ness, their lack of development, their need to work harder and sweat more in pursuit of the carrot of American dol- lars we dangled before them. The tragedy was two-fold. We have been neither fair to them nor to our- selves. We have placed reliance upon upon dollars alone to buy what cannot be bought. Aid to other nations has never bought for us what we once got free by the exercise of inspiration and leadership. Without such inspiration and leadership, aid itself becomes a cynical and cor- roding gesture ? which diminishes the self-respect of both the giver and the receiver. We have preached freedom but patted the foes of freedom on the back. We have accorded our friendship to leaders of other governments who stood 676R003800130053-1 in those lands for what we oppose at home. We have trafficked in expedien- cy and sold ourselves down the Filler for doing so. We have, most seriously of all, de- luded ourselves about what we need to do here at home. America is not a land where all prob- lems are solved, where all answers are written, all the examinations passed. We still face the future of a young and growing land. Thirty years ago, when I sat at com- mencement in San Marcos, the mem- bers of my class looked forward with total confidence to a world of certainty and stability. The war to end all wars bad been fought. America was isolated. and immune, free of danger of involve- ment in foreign wars. economy was prosperous. Ex- cept in the most academic way, none of us knew the meaning of the word "depression." But in a matter of months, each of us knew in the most personal way the real and raw meaning of depression. I'REE1)0M & UN ION 7 1111.1111111111111,111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 11,11 11,11111 11,11,11,11,1 111111111111111,11111111111 In a matter of years, we could see the forming of the clouds of war over Europe and Asia?and finally over our own land. In my own case, my whole life since college has been consumed with prob- lems and challenges which were un- known?did not, in fact, exist?on the night that I graduated from college. For you in this class of '58, life may hold much the same pattern. You will work in fields that are not yet named. You will live by skills that are not yet known. You will travel to stars and planets that cannot now be seen by the naked eye. You will know worlds and wonders that do not even have a place in our fiction and fantasy. Your world will change more in five years than the world of your fathers has changed in fifty years. And it will change more in your lifetime than it has changed in the two thousand years of Christendom. But you will realize the promise and the opportunity and fulfillment of this world only if America returns to its tra- ditions of expansion and challenge and daring. You will realize it only if America recaptures the spirit of youth and ambition and self-confidence. How can our nation recapture such a spirit? Many Americans are asking that question but many who ask it despair of finding the answer and thus resign themselves and the nation?to a state of hopelessness. Greatness Cannot Be Bought I do not presume to say that I have the answer or that any other one per- son has it or should have it. It is an error of the most serious sort for Ameri- cans to blame our national troubles on individuals or expect those troubles to be resolved by individuals alone. In our world today?and in the fore- seeable world beyond?Americans will not find the secrets of greatness pack- aged neatly in one-man leadership or one- idea thinking. We cannot buy _,)-reatness with our check books. What we freely need in America today, it seems to me, is a rekindling of the search for truth, the search that leads us into exploration of the frontiers of the human mind. With all that we have done, with all that we have at- tained, we have as yet barely penetrated these frontiers. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 H Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 FREEDOM & UNION fulY-August, ,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;11.11:1111111111111111111111I111 dillli111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iiiiiiiIii1;1111111111111111111i111 How is this to be done? I think we might well compare our challenge with the challenge that faced earlier generations who opened the fron- tiers of the American West. They had no road maps, no super highways, no motels along the way?but they went into the West together, gaining both strength for the task and security from the hazards by traveling in bands and groups. Our government did not and could not order the American settlers into the West, nor could Washington guarantee what they would find. But Washing- ton could?and Washington did?offer incentives for those who dared the wil- derness and by those incentives a conti- nent was won for freedom. We can today apply that same pat- tern to our own times and our own challenges. Progress is a Joint Adventure America and Americans cannot ex- plore the distant frontiers of human knowledge alone and neither can we expect all the pioneering to be done by or in the capital city of Washington. This is a joint adventure. Let's make it that in truth. Let's set in motion without apology a frank and open search for new ideas, new decisions, new careers. In each State and in each region, let's bring together the finest of minds? young and old?to reexamine both our attainments and our ambitions. Let us inventory our intangibles as well as the obvious measures of our wisdom, and Fitzpatrick, St. Louis Globe-Democrat' As America goes so goes the world by so doing arrive at a new estimate of our potential and our problems. Rather than dwell upon the differ- ences and distinctions between our na- tional regions and sections, let us make a start by bringing our people together as Americans to climb over the walls of our own provincialism to come to a bet- ter, first-hand understanding of one another. In our relations with other nations, let us travel. this same road and travel it together. Today, in the eyes of the world, Washington is seen as a capital of power ?a distant and sometimes indifferent city of wealth and authority. I say, let us set about to make Washington and all of America the campus of free men where men and women of young lands -can come to discuss their work together in a climate of real freedom. Let us use the round table, the semi- nar, and the lecture room as instruments of freedom and make America the spiritual leader of the awakening that is now stirring the west. We can, I am sure, safely invest each year at least the cost of two nuclear bombs in the building of great, new libraries. We can channel the costs of an army division into the support of great, new schools for the humanities. We can certainly set aside a percentage of our national budget for the financino- of the laboratories and other facilities re- quired to set in motion a program of pure research. We can, with applied imagination, far outdistance the lands of tyranny in open- ing the way for men to search for truth along the unexplored frontiers of human capacity. Wider Exchange Program Needed America cannot forever sustain the burdens of a mammoth military. We must and we can invest a greater por- tion of our wealth in creative endeavor, leading the world not merely in the pro- vision of instruments of war but in the provision of the arts of peace. Out of the ferment of such labors, we shall en- rich our own lives and add to our own strength as well as to the strength of free men everywhere. ? Let's make America the meeting ground for free men and free men's ideas. Let us not merely bring the young here to teach them but bring their elders here to help teach us. Let us not Hitchhiking isn't enough confine our exchange programs to the graduate students but bring to America the farmer of India, the worker of Europe, the teacher of Latin America? bring men and women of all stations of life, so that we can learn from them and they can learn from us. "Set America on this Course" This, as I see it, is a way to revitalize the spirit of our nation and to recapture the wisdom that comes only from a continuing search for new ideas. It is your personal challenge--and the challenge to your elders ? to set America on this course again, not to- morrow, not next year, but now. Stale and static policies, good though they were yesterday, may not still be good today. Searching reexamination is in order and it must begin soon, for we have little time to linger and wait for better days to return. We need to dwell on what America can do?not on what our nation can't do. We need to chart our course by what America should do?not by what it should not do. This is the spirit of youth, the spirit you carry in your hearts tonight as you enter the world beyond this campus. It is the spirit that your nation must emu- late as it enters a world beyond the di- mensions of any known in the past. The challenge immediately before us is great. The challenge beyond?the challenge to your generation?is greater, but, in the mastery of that challenge lies reward and promise far greater than any generation has known. Approved For Release 2662/05/07 : CIA-RDP8013/01676R003800130053-1 ? r Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 j'uly-August, 195S FREE1)om Sc UNION 'IIIIIIIIIIIIHNI1111111111111H1111111111!IlrINVII11N11111111111111111111111111HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH111111111111111111111111111111IHE1111111/11111111111111111111111111111111111111111!11111111/1rn 11(111! 1n1u1111niiiii11111111111111111111111111111111/11111i1111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111H1111111111111111111111111111i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111d111111101;11111 WHITHER FRANCE NOW - & THE DIVIDED WEST? To Save Our Civilization New Era Must Realize Atlantic Unification FUTURE HISTORIANS are likely to claim that the post-World War II era came to an end when France's Fourth Re- public collapsed in the spring of 1958. Twelve years have elapsed since the end of the war, 12 disastrous years during which 700,000,000 Asians fell into the Communist orbit and a hundred million Central Europeans were dragged into it, during which a vigorous Soviet Russia repaired its tremendous war dam- ages and surged steadily to great eco- nomic power and technological suprem- acy, during which a compact Commu- nist world stretching from Berlin to the South China Seas has gradually emerged to challenge an uncertain and disunited West. What has happened to the West? What is it that paralyzes Western though and action, that it should have let this disastrous change take place without counteracting it? Well, the answer stares at us; it is so obvious and so trite that we simply overlook it. West Ignores Its Spiritual Aims The answer is that the Communist world has a strong faith to live by, an overall philosophy to guide its actions, a definite goal to look forward to and. a will to achieve it. The West, today, has nothing of the kind because the West has turned its hack on its own past and on its spiritual aims. Communism is actually a monstrous caricature of our own darker self, come to life in flesh and blood, and deter- mined to destroy us. But its power springs first of all from its relentless striving towards unity, unity of all those faithful who believe in the same doc- trine. And, philosophically, this striving towards unity is based on an interpre- tation of history seen as a unifying stream moving from past to future, gathering all human beings in its sweep towards some distant goal. This is the underlying assumption of the Marxist faith, one which we view By MAURY de RIENCOURT with contempt but which we do not destroy because we refuse to fight it on its own philosophical level. You cannot satisfy a psychological urge by denying its existence yet this is what we do. The West is politically and econom- ically disunited today because it has fragmented its cultural life to death, because its scientific concepts, philo- sophical judgments, religous values, social attitudes and economic policies have all developed separately and often in conflict with one another. Facing an enemy who has geared all his thoughts and actions to what he be- leaves to be the inevitable course of ?.Pablo, Bach, ach Amaury de Riencourt was born in Orleans, France and studied in Switzerland, at the Sorbonne and the University of Algiers. He has traveled extensively throughout the world, lived in Africa, in the Balkans, in Asia and spent 10 years in North America, where he traveled and lectured in 40 states of the U.S. He has written many articles and essays for various publications here and in Europe and published in 1950 a book about Tibet titled The Roof of the World. FREEDOM & UNION will publish in Septem- ber an extensive review of Mr. de Rien- court's latest book The Coming Caesars, by Col. George Patrick Welch, a scholar in the same field who contributed two articles bearing on this subject to FREEDOM & UNION in January and February, 1947. history, the West has deliberately em- phasized its cultural dislocation, each separate component going its merry way. This is not cultural freedom but anarchy. The basic point, therefore, is that the hoped-for political unification of the Atlantic world cannot be brought about without a major cultural effort: some- how or other, the cultural leaders of the various Western nations must formulate anew the common spiritual purpose to which all our thoughts and actions should be geared. 'There must be some form of spiritual unity underlying the coming unification of the West; the only alternative is the forcible unification of the West under the Caesarian rule of its strongest mem- ber, with the inevitable loss of freedom that this would entail. An Overlooked Phenomenon This vision of Western unity haunts us, as unity has haunted all human soci- eties at a certain stage of their histories. It haunted the classical world on the eve of its unification by Rome, 2,000 years ago, as it haunted the Hindus and the Chinese about the same time. Yet the strange political evolution of the world in the past 50 years points to an overlooked phenomenon: wherever Western power withdraws, it leaves only fragments in its wake. "r he collapse of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires after World War I left behind it nothing but con- glomerations of small, powerless states ripe for re-incorporation into new em- pires; we are familiar with the Balkan- ization of Central Europe and the Mid- dle East. Then, in the aftermath of World War II, came great changes in Asia: while the Red Chinese colossus took shape, the withdrawing West left to the south of it a medley of weak or conflicting nations: instead of one powerful Indian Empire, we have four nations: India, Pakistan, Ceylon. and Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 10 FREEDOM & UNION July-August, I95 ri Burma, every single one of them torn by separatist movements. Instead of one French Indochina, we have two Vietnams, one Laos and one Cambodia. While the Red empires grow stronger and more united, the "free" nations split and divide ad in- finitum. In other words, there is some- thing debilitating in Western influence, some evil element of disunion that must be rooted out as soon as possible. This evil of nationalism, which Europe has exported all over the world, gave signs of expiring in its birthplace after World War II. Somehow, the vision of unity began haunting many statesmen and thinkers, on both sides of the Atlantic in the late forties. But in the fifties, this vision seems to have become dim again. Upsurge of French Chauvinism A slow process of desintegration has been allowed to take place since the Korean conflict. The social and eco- nomic rebuilding of Europe that had done so much to bring together the major Western people, was replaced by frantic rearming, and by renewed dissen- sions between them. The collapse of the European Defense Community (EDC) in the midst of bickering cast a shadow over the social and economic integration of Europe. NATO has become weaker, split by con- flicts and mutual suspicions because its military aspect was over-emphasized. In Europe, tensions between the proponents of the Common Market and the Free Trade Area threaten to paralyze all progress toward integration. Bit by bit, as the years have gone by since Stalin's death, every element of disunion has been allowed free play in the West, and the climax of this develop- ment was the Suez crisis. From the Suez crisis stems directly the French revolu- tion of 1958. It would be extremely dangerous to close one's eyes to the fact that General de Gaulle's accession to absolute power in France threatens the entire move- ment toward Western integration. The danger does not lie only in de Gaulle's personality, although it is, in its old- fashioned nationalism, an element of great importance. It lies in the fact that it is an upsurge of chauvinistic spirit that brought him to power, and that whether he leads it or whether he is pushed by it, or even succeeded by it, this spirit is likely to animate French policy for the foreseeable future. French extremists of Right and Left are united in a common hostility toward Western solidarity and the U.S., and the weak center cannot hold them off be- cause it is itself going to he weakened further by the looming economic crisis. If General de Gaulle fails to solve the Algerian problem and fails to find a way out of the dilemma?bankruptcy or austerity-and-unemployment?France might find herself on the verge of civil ?WVhams, Detroxt Free Press "America's greatness sprung from its re- lentless striving towards union," yet Europe asks: Is U.S. able to lead the free? war. A political crisis that was not too dangerous in the spring of 1958 because a precarious economic prosperity saved the masses from real discontent, could become disastrous in six months or a year in the event of financial bankruptcy and growing unemployment. Key to Problem Lies in Washington The key to the problem, however distasteful it may seem to both the French and the Americans, lies in Washington. France can no longer recover her stability without consider- able help, and not merely financial assistance. Without it, a simultaneous collapse of NATO and European eco- nomic integration is a definite possi- bility. But, disastrous as it would be, it would not be irreparable. It might even clear the ground for a new, fresh approach to the problem, one that has not been sufficiently em- phasized as yet: a true unification of Europe is inconceivable without a simultaneous unification of the entire Atlantic world. The historical and psychological reasons are plain: Europe's greatness sprung in the past from the stimulating rivalries between its component nations; America's greatness, on the contrary, sprung from its relentless striving to- wards union, even at the cost of a bitter civil war. The principle of unity is incarnate in the American body politic, and it is only under American leader- ship that such overall unification of the West can take place. Lack of leadership in Washington has let a dangerous loosening of Western unity take place since the early 1950's, and the present French revolution is but another landmark on the road to disintegration. It is to be hoped that, under the spur of the inevitable problems created by this French situation, leader- ,;hip will again assert itself in Washing- ton as it did in the late 1940's. But the situation today is different and more truly dangerous. We All Have a Part to Play The Marshall Plan and NATO were pragmatic devices evolved in the face of an unexpected emergency. Their succes- sors in the 1960's will have to be born out of a far more profound, far-sighted vision; they will have to be shaped on a long-term basis with Western unifica- tion as their first major goal. They can- not be just instinctive reactions to a common danger but a deliberate and purposeful pooling of all Western re- sources in view of a permanent union. Many more dangers are looming on the horizon now than after the war: Russia's tremendous technological prog- ress, the fast development of Red China's industrial power, the growing danger of an economic depression in the free world?all those dangers grow along with the French crisis. There is a real war going on right now, a conflict on many levels in which we are all taking part, whether we like it or not. Whatever the nation we belong to and whatever the level on which we work, we all have a part to play, and we will play it well if we keep in mind the constant goal of all our endeavors: unity, the reunification of our threatened Western civilization and the rediscovery of our spiritual purpose which it pre? sumes. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 July-August, 1958 FREEDOM Sc UNION II lIllilltlOooOrl1111011filloomo011iO011iOollillilloiiiON1111111111111!1111111E111111111!111111E1111111111111111111111111111111111111iiiiioricilli111111111111iiiiiiiiiimmilliiiiiiiiiiiiiminumiiiimmujImmiljtjilijijiidullictiiiiiiiiiii!n1:111!11111111:Ei111111111111111111111111111111111111i11111111111111111111111111HIIMOONOH111111111111111H111111111111 Bruges Conference Unit Maps Atlantic Institute Research Program MEASURES LEADING towards a strengthening of the intellectual and and cultural basis of the Atlantic community were proposed by the Stand- ing Committee of the Conference on Atlantic Community meeting in Zurich from May 28 to June 1, 1958. The committee was formed to follow up the recommendations of the Confer- ence sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania and the College of Europe last September in Bruges, Belgium. That conference designated three major areas which its standing Committee should consider: 1. the strengthening of the internal bonds and the relieving of ten- sions within the community; 2. the threat of totalitarianism and particularly of Soviet communism in Eastern Europe; and 3. the relations of the Atlantic world as a whole with the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Willy BRETSCHER, Editor in Chief of the New:. Zurcher Zetnng, was elected Chairman pro tempore of the Conference Standing Committee. Hen- drik BRUGMANS, Rector of the College of Europe and Dr. Robert STRAusz- Hur, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Foreign Policy Re- search Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, were named vice-chair- men. Other members of the Standing Committee present at the Zurich meet- ing were: Erasmus H. KLOMAN, Dr. Hans KOHN, Mrs. Oswald B. LORD, Mr. Walden MOORE, Mr. James HuNTLEy (all from U.S.), Adriano OLIVETTI (Italy), Robert SCHUMAN (France), Arthur GAITSKELL (Great Britain), Dr. Leo MOULIN (Belgium), Judge Jacques KUEFF (ESCS), Frode JAKOBSEN (Denmark), Dr. Otto von der GABLENTZ (Germany), Mr. MEI- JER (Netherlands). 111111,111.111.1111.111111A111111111111111,111.11,11114111111111111111.111111111111.1.113111111111.1111111111111.1111.111111111.1111.141.11,11,11111,11r1m1111.1111miiiiiIIIIIHWimimillillmiiiiiiiiniviiii.wiiii.miiiiimiiiiiimpl...nimilliimi.... Zurich Declaration Standing Committee Conference on Atlantic Community THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY stands for the preservation and expansion of individual and collective liberties throughout the world. The moral force of these ideals is the source of confidence to the Atlantic people in assessing the future. Yet the Atlantic Community so far has not been able to live up fully to its high standards. While NATO has safe- guarded the security of the Atlantic Community, the political disunity of the Atlantic governments and the tensions between their peoples have seriously im- paired their effectiveness in the conduct of their affairs. To give greater unity to the policies and actions of the Atlantic nations it is necessary to take concrete steps strengthening the spirit and forms of their cooperation. These were the questions which were considered by more than 100 Europeans and North Americans attending the Conference on Atlantic Community meeting in Bruges, Belgium, from Sep- tember 8 to 14, 1957. From this Conference a Committee has been formed to continue the work started in Bruges. This Committee met in Zurich, Switzerland, from May 28 to 31, 1958. As to the spirit and method of its future activities, the Com- mittee states: I.Since it seeks to contribute to the elaboration of a common policy of the Ad antic peoples, the Committee considers its task to be a long-term one. 2. This policy must be based on a deepened awareness of the cultural and spiritual values of free open societies. It seeks to achieve the realization and growth of these values all over the world. 3. The unique aspect of modern West- ern civilization is its emphasis upon liberty and equality. We are concerned with the safeguarding of human rights everywhere ?in the Free World: in the countries sub- jected to dictatorship; and in all areas striv- ing for emancipation. The Committee will devote itself to the study of three groups of problems of vital concern to the Atlantic Com- munity: a) the relations between the members of the Community, and especially the prob- lem of the basic values on which attempts to strengthen these relations must rest; b) the response to the intellectual and moral challenge of totalitarianism; c) the relations of the Community with the underdeveloped and uncommitted worlds. The Committee intends to operate as an independent scholarly group. The Committee will select its subjects for consideration from the point of view of common Atlantic concern and deal with them in the spirit of a common At- lantic responsibility. In dealing with these subjects, it may employ various objective methods. It will proceed as follows: The Committee will seek to define, in as complete a manner as necessary, the three general groups of problems which have been in In this process of definition the compila- tion of bibliographic materials is funda- mental. In addition, panels of experts will be consulted to advise as to: (1) the scope of the general problems; (2) the specific topics within these problem-areas which deserve most immediate attention; (3) the unique contribution which the Committee could make to their solution; (4) the methods which the Committee should employ. The Committee will synthesize and use such opinions to guide it in selecting prior- ity topics for its consideration. Once it has selected specific subjects, the Committee may decide to employ one or more of the following methods, by itself or in cooperation with other groups or (1) preparation of a critical bibliography; (2) solicitation of the advice or cooperation of other groups; (3) the preparation of research reports, with the assistance of out- side experts; (4) the convening of special- ized con-feredces for analysis or preparation of recommendations; (5) the publication of reports; (6) the presentation of the Com- mittee's findings to other appropriate bodies. These efforts would ultimately be pointed toward the elaboration of a political strategy for the Atlantic Com- munity. They should be looked at as an organic whole, which, expanding in future years, should be conducted by a central responsible body. The Commit- tee considers itself as a nucleus of such a body, which, with the cooperation of all individuals and groups wishing to support this end, might, in due time, become a full-grown Atlantic Institute, as proposed at the Bruges Conference. (-1 - Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80B01676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80B The picture of this inter-stellar train hurtling towards the moon is taken from Jules Verne's anticipatory book, "From Earth to Moon," published in 1865. It has delighted and startled readers of every age with the fantastic imagination of both the author and the illustrator. ALITTLE RESEARCH shows that for nearly 2,000 years space travel has been a favorite topic with writers from the ancient Greeks to the modern proph- ets of the Welfare State. True, some of their accounts of imaginary space journeys have been lacking in conviction, but all of them have been strong in at least one element: sheer excitement. Lucian, the Greek historian, pioneered space fiction some 1,800 years ago. His heroes were the crew of a ship sailing off the coast of Greece. One day a fierce whirlwind seized the vessel and whisked it through the air, depositing it a week later on the Moon. The crew got on well with the inhabitants and helped them wage war on the Sun. Lucian followed with a sequel in which the hero acquires the wing of a vulture and the wing of an eagle and teaches himself to fly. He takes off and lands on the Moon, which he uses as a base for forays to nearby planets, thus antici- pating by a couple of thousand years some plans being put forward today. After Lucian the field of space fiction remained neglected for more than 1,000 years. This was probably due less to a rack of imagination, than to the fact July-August, 1958 July-August, 1958 WHEN OUR FOREBEARS DREAMED OF SPACE TRAVEL that the Fathers of the Church had de- cided there was no world besides the Earth. Any writer who dared to sug- gest otherwise ran the risk of ending his career at the stake and having his works suppressed. So it was not until after the Reforma- tion that we find the real boom in space travel beginning. In 1638 an imagina- tive English prelate, Bishop Godwin, produced his "The Man in the Moon," a tale of an intrepid young man who trained a team of swans to draw a car- riage through the air at 175 miles an hour. He landed on the Moon to find it inhabited by a delightful race who communicate with each other by fluting notes in varying combinations. Unlike Lucian's Moon-dwellers, this race hated war and lived in perfect peace with its neighbors. But the bishop's invention seems com- monplace compared to the outpourings of a contemporary across the Channel. This was the dashing French swords- man and adventurer Cyrano de Ber- gerac, whose ebullient fantasies leave us almost breathless. Cyrano decided to visit the Moon and made his preparations as follows: "I fas- tened all about me a number of little bottles of dew. The heat of the sun drawing them up carried me so high that at last I found myself above the loftiest clouds." However, his navigation went astray and he found himself steering for the sun. He descended simply by break- ing his bottles of dew?and landed in Canada, to the astonishment of his coun- trymen there! Cyrano's next attempt at space travel used a modern device? rocket. He festooned himself with small rockets which he ignited in stages and in no time had landed on the surface of the Moon. Cyrano was not in the least surprised to be informed by a young man of great beauty that he was in Paradise, together with Adam, Eve, St. _John, Enoch and Elijah! Back once more on Earth, the dash- ing Cyrano found himself in prison near Toulouse. He planned his escape with great originalit) ?by building a machine to take him to the sun. This consisted of a box rather like a sedan chair with a series of holes in top and bottom. On top was what the intrepid inventor called an "icosahedron," and which he vaguely described as being made of crystal. He stepped into the contraption and in no time he was sailing far off into mace. "This did not surprise me," wrote the imperturbable Cyrano, "because I had foreseen that the void which would occur in the icosahedron through the sun's rays uniting by way of the concave glasses would attract a furious abundance of air to fill it, which would lift up my box"?which is no harder to follow than the theory of relativity for most laymen! Moon Fleas Larger than Sheep It is not until the next century that we learn more concerning the people of the Moon from an authority who is about as reliable as Cvrano?the noto- rious Baron von Miinchhausen. His method of space travel owes quite a lot to Lucian, for he tells us how, while sailing the South Seas, "a hurricane blew our ship at least a 1,000 leagues above the surface of the water and . . . we travelled at a prodigious rate for six weeks above the clouds. "At last we discovered a great land in the sky, like a shining island, round and bright; where coming into a convenient harbour, we went on shore and found it was inhabited." It was the Moon once again, of course, and the Baron tells us he saw "huge figures riding upon vul- tures of a prodigious size, and each of them having three heads." Baron Miinchhausen, indeed, believed in giving his readers full value for their pennies. "Everything in this world is of extra- ordinary magnitude," he informs us. "A common flea is much larger than our sheep; in making war their principal weapons are radishes which are used as darts. Their shields are made of mush- rooms and their darts (when radishes are out of season) are the tops of aspar- agus.,, The Baron had an opportunity of meeting some of the natives of Uranus. "Their faces are like large mastiffs, with their eyes near the lower ends of their noses. They have no eyelids, but cover their eyes with the tips of their tongues when they go to sleep. They are are generally 20 feet high." As for the Moon's inhabitants, they were all at least 36 feet high, according to the baron. He adds informatively: "They are not of the human species, but are called 'cooking animals' for they all dress their food by fire as we do, but lose no time at meals as they open their left side and place the whole quantity of food at once in their stomach, then shut it until the same day in the next month." "Their heads are placed under their right arms; and when they are going to travel, or about any violent exercise, they generally leave them at home." "I know these things appear strange," said the baron with the best grace in the world, "but if the shadow of a doubt remains in any person's mind, I say, let him take a voyage there himself and then he will know I am a- traveller of veracity." 900 Feet Cannon in Gulf of Mexico After reading the M?nchhausen ac- counts, one finds that even the scientific romances of Jules Verne seem almost colorless at first. It isn't long, however, before Verne's mastery of detail and skilled narrative have us completely en- tranced. His notable "From Earth to Moon," which appeared first in 1865, would he a minor classic in space fiction if it were not for one glaring scientific error. Like his predecessors in the field, Verne had to face one major problem: how were his protagonists to escape the pull of gravity? Writing in the era when explosives were reaching perfec- tion, Verne decided to shoot his heroes through space. He had an enormous rr, cannon 900 feet long built in the earth near the Gulf of Mexico. A charge of 5001b. of gun-cotton was used to propel the aluminum space ship at a speed of 36,000 feet per second. Inside were three men, two dogs and a great volume of food and equipment. But Verne overlooked?or preferred to ignore?the fact that his travelers, by the sudden huge acceleration, would have become grisly heaps of bloody flesh and crushed bone the moment the voy- age began. Apart from this major blemish the book is one of Verne's most successful fantasies, combining scientific accuracy with excitement and charming touches of character drawing. When the projectile reached the point where the force of gravity is neutralized, strange things began to happen: "With a slight spring, Michel left the floor and remained suspended in the air like the good monk in Murillo's 'Cuisine des .Anges.' The others joined him in mid- air and Michel cried, 'AM If Raphael could have seen us like this, what an Assumption he could have put on can- vas!' ,, Then they discovered that one of their dogs, "Satellite," had died from the wounds he had suffered at the mo- ment of take-off. They jettisoned the body into space, only to find it floating with the projectile in its flight, causing the other dog great distress whenever she looked out the porthole and saw her late playmate's corpse still haunting them. In another work, Verne recounted how a comet struck the earth and car- ried a large chunk of it?comprising Gibraltar, Corfu, and a bit of Algeria? whirling off into space. After roaming haphazardly through the cosmos, the comet and its load again comes in prox- imity to the earth and the passengers, by using a balloon, manage to return to the globe from which they were so abruptly torn. Verne's successor in the space fiction realm, H. G. Wells, was guilty of grave blunders when he wrote his version of FREEDOM St UNION 13 rntr ' '111:,!. !!!' II ! By BRIAN McARDLE Moon exploration. Confronted with the old problem of beating gravity, Wells put his tongue in his cheek and ignored science. His hero was called on to in- vent a strange substance called "Cavo- rite" which screened the objects it sur- rounded from the gravitational pull of the earth. Even to Wells's most fervent admirers this artifice was too hard to swallow. His space travelers' adventures on the Moon with Selenites and Moon- calves were thrilling enough, but they lacked the realism of Verne and the airy nonchalance of M?nchhausen or Cyrano. But these writers, however bizarre their notions may have been, at least envi- saged interplanetary travel at a time when none of their contemporaries could have anicipated the sputniks circling overhead. (From World Veteran) The interior arrangements of Verne's manned moon rocket was cozy and com- fortable: the two dogs (for Verne had the notion long before the Soviet Sputnik carried it out) seem completely relaxed and contented. The farming tools and a young tree stored in the cabin give the impression that Verne's space traveler was to be the first squatter on the moon. lease 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP801301676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 _ - 1 FItEEDOM SC UNION July-August, 19-58 [Research Report) De Gaulle Urged Federal Union on Churchill in 1940 CITARLES DE. GAULLE, whom many consider a super-na- tionalist, was the man, according to his War Memoirs, who persuaded Churchill to make Britain's famous offer to form a federal union with France on June 16, 1940, after the Dunkirk disaster. He also persuaded Paul Reynaud, then Premier of France whose government had retreated to Bor- deaux, to defer its crucial decision on surrender long enough to consider the Union proposal. Churchill's account, as given in his own Memoirs, leaves no doubt that this proposal originated with the French? notably with Jean Monnet, then chairman of the Coordinating Board of the Anglo-French alliance, whose sub- sequent efforts for European unification have earned him the title of "Mr. Europe". Churchill admits that he himself was at first against the Union offer, and agrees that de Gaulle "im- pressed on me" that this "dramatic move was essential," but says that members of the British Cabinet had persuaded him the previous day to make the proposal. Both men's recollections of the sequence of events in those desperate hours might under- standably differ. The French evidently were unaware of any change in Churchill's opposition when they asked de Gaulle to try to bring him round, and Churchill could easily have given him the impression of having been persuaded by him. Certainly de Gaulle seems to have clinched the matter with him. The dramatic, little known story of June 16, 1940, when Franco-British Union rose and fell, throws significant, timely light now on the character and valuations of the present French Premier at a moment of supreme test. We give this story here first in his words and then in Sir Winston's. There- after follow the report by Pertinax, famed French journalist, of the French Cabinet session that rejected the Union offer, and my own recollection of the account which M. Monnet gave John Foster Dulles and me a few weeks after the event. Both differ from Churchill's story on one major point: accord- ing to him the "overwhelming feeling" of the French Cabinet was against Union but it was "never put to a vote," whereas the other two agree that it fell in an informal vote by a major- ity of only one or two. De Gaulle's Story of Union Offer This translation of part of volume I of General de Gaulle's Memoirs (Nam & Nourrit, Paris, 7954) is reprinted by permission of the Viking Press, New York, which published a U.S. edition of it entitled The Call to Honor. (C... I went to London where I arrived at dawn June 16. A few minutes later Ambassador Corbin and Monnet came to my room in the Hyde Park Hotel. Ambassador Corbin first told me of various appointements I had with the English. . . . Then my visitors turned to another subject. "We know, they said, 'that at Bordeaux defeatism is grow- ing rapidly. . . . We are approaching the end. . . . It seems to us that some dramatic stroke, adding something quite new to the situation, could put new spirit in people and, in any case, strengthen [Premier] Paul Reynaud in his intention of falling back on Algeria. With Sir Robert Vansittart, Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, we have therefore prepared a project which seems striking enough. It is a pro- posal of a Union of France and England which the London government would solemnly make to the one in Bordeaux. " 'The two countries would agree to the fusion of their governments, pool their resources and their losses?in short, tie together com- pletely their respective destinies. Such a step made in such circumstances could possibly give our Cabinet Ministers a better perspective, or at least cause them to defer surrender. But first our project must be adopted by the British Gov- ernment. Only you can persuade Churchill to do this. We have arranged for you to lunch with him today. This will be our supreme chance, if you approve the idea.' "I examined the text they gave me. I saw at once that it was so grandiose as to exclude any possibility of quick realiza- tion. It was obvious that one could not, by a simple exchange of notes, even in principle melt together England and France with their institutions and their Empires, assuming this was desirable. . . . But the offer which the British Government would make to ours would be a manifestation of solidarity which could have real significance. "Above all I thought as did MM. Corbin. and Monnet that this project was of a nature to bring some comfort to M. Paul Reynaud in the final crisis in which he was plunged, and give him an argument to convince his Cabinet to hold firm. I therefore agreed to try to persuade M. Churchill to make this offer. . . . "I came with MM. Corbin and Monnet to lunch with the British Prime Minister at the Carlton Club. . . . I then took up with M. Churchill the project for a Union of the two peoples. "'Lord Halifax spoke to me of it,' he said. 'But it is an enormous thing.' " 'Yes!' I answered. 'And so its realization will take a long time. But the declaration can be made immediately. With things at the point they are, you should neglect nothing which can sustain France and maintain our alliance.' Charles de Gaulle Approved For Release 2005it::: eada80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 :Tilly-August, 1.9 5-S FREP13-0M -8L UNION 1'5 "After some discussion, the Prime Minister agreed with me. On the spot he called a meeting of the British Cabinet, and went to Downing Street to preside over it. I went with him and, while the Ministers deliberated, I sat with the French Ambassador in a room adjoining the council room. Meanwhile, I had phoned M. Paul Reynaud to say I hoped to make a very important communication to him in accord with the English government before the afternoon ended. He answered that he would therefore postpone to 5 o'clock his Cabinet meeting, adding, 'but I can't postpone it longer.' "The meeting of the British Cabinet lasted two hours, dur- ing which one or another of the Ministers came out from time to time to clarify some point with us. Suddenly they all came out, M. Churchill at their head. " 'We have agreed,' they exclaimed. "The text they brought was the same as the one we lAd proposed, except for some details. I phoned M. Paul Reynaud at once and dictated the document to him. " 'It is very important!' the Premier said. 'I am going to Use it at the meeting in a few minutes.' "I said all I could briefly to, encourage him. M. Churchill took the phone: 'Hello, Reynaud! De Gaulle is right! Our proposal can have great consequences. We' must hold fast!' . . . "I took leave of the Prime Minister. He loaned me a plane to go at once to Bordeaux. . . . At 9:30 p.m. I landed at Bordeaux. Colonel Humbert and M. Aubertin, my assistant, were there to meet me. They informed me that the Premier had resigned and President Lebrun had asked Marshall Petain to form a government. It meant surrender." Churchill's Version of Union Proposal The following condensation from Churchill's Their Finest Hour, is reprinted by permission of the publisher, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston: "In these days the British War Cabinet were in a state of unusual emotion. The fall and the fate of France dominated their minds. Grief for our ally in her agony, and desire to do anything in human power to aid her, was the prevailing mood. There was also the overpowering importance of making sure of the French Fleet. It was in this spirit that a proposal for Winston Churchill Balked at Union an 'indissoluble union' between France and Britain was con- ceived. "I was not the prime mover. I first heard of a definite plan at a luncheon at the Carlton Club on the 15th, at which were present Lord Halifax, M. Corbin, Sir Robert Vanisttart, and one or two others. On the 14th, Vansittart and Desmond Morton had met M. Monnet and M. Pleven, and had been joined by General de Gaulle, who had flown over to make arrangements for shipping to carry the French Government and as many French troops as possible to Africa. These gentlemen had evolved the outline of a declaration for a France's Jean Monnet Fathered Federation Plan. Franco-British Union with the object, apart from its general merits, of giving M. Reynaud some new fact of a vivid and stimulating nature with which to carry a majority of his Cabinet into the move to Africa and the continuance of the war. "My first reaction was unfavorable. I asked a number of questions of a critical character, and was by no means con- vinced. However, at the end of our long Cabinet that after- noon the subject was raised. I was somewhat surprised to see the staid, stolid, experienced politicians of all parties engage themselves passionately in an immense design whose implica- tions and consequences were not in any way thought out. I did not resist, but yielded easily to these generous surges which carried our resolves to a very high level of unselfish and undaunted action. . . . "We reassembled at 3 p.m. that same afternoon [June 16.] I had seen General de Gaulle in the morning, and he had impressed on me that some dramatic move was essential to give M. Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his government in the war, and suggested that a proclamation of the indissoluble union of the French and British peoples would serve the purpose. . . . The Foreign Secretary then said that after our morning meeting he had seen Sir Robert Vansittart, whom be had previously asked to draft some dramatic announcement which might strengthen M. Reynaud's hand. Vansittart had been in consultation with General de Gaulle, M. Monnet, M. Pleven, and Major Morton. Between them they had drafted a proclamation. "The draft statement was passed around, and everyone read it with deep attention. At 3.55 p.m. we were told that the French Council of Ministers would meet at 5 p.m. to decide whether further resistance was possible. Secondly, OA? Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 16 FR'EF.DOM & UNTO IV. July-August, 1958 General de Gaulle had been informed by M. Reynaud on the telephone that if a favorable answer on the proposed proc- lamation of unity was received by 5 p.m., M. Reynaud felt he could hold the position. On this the War Cabinet ap- proved the final draft proclamation of an Anglo-French Union, and authorized its despatch to M. Paul Reynaud by the hand of General de Gaulle. This was telephoned to M. Reynaud forthwith. "We must now pass to the other end of the wire . . . when my message, telephoned by General de Gaulle, came through. 'It acted,' said the [British] Ambassador [who had just given Reynaud another message that he did 'not take well,'] 'like a tonic.' Reynaud said that for a document like that he would fight to the last. He then left 'with a light step' to read the document to the President of the Republic. He believed that, armed with this immense guarantee, he would be able to carry his Council with him on the policy of retiring to Africa and waging war. . . . "The hopes which M. Reynaud had founded upon the Declaration of Union were soon dispelled. The Premier read the document twice to the Council. He declared himself strongly for it, and added that he was ar- ranging a meeting with me for the next day to discuss the de- tails. But the agitated ministers . ? . torn by division and under the terrible hammer of defeat, were staggered. . . . Most were wholly unprepared to receive such far-reaching themes. The overwhelming feeling of the Council was to reject the whole plan. Surprise and mistrust dominated the majority, and even the most friendly and res- olute were baffled. . . . To make a union with Great Britain was, according to Petain, 'fusion with a corpse.' "We arc assured that Reynaud's statement of our pro- posal was never put to a vote in the Council. It collapsed of itself. . . . At about 8 o'clock Reynaud, utterly exhausted . . . sent his resignation to the President. . . . This action must be judged precipitate." Pertinax Pertinax: Union Lost by Only Two Votes The following story of what happened in the French Cabinet meeting is condensed from The Gravediggers of France by Per- linen (Andre Geraud) who was in Bordeaux that day. A fuller version was reprinted in the June 1947 FREEDOM 8Z. UNION by permission of the publisher, Doubleday, Doran,GardenCity,N.Y Y. "General de Gaulle twice called Reynaud on the tele- phone: first in the morning and in the afternoon of June 16. He implored him to do nothing final until he had once more seen Churchill, whom a cruiser was, that very night, to deliver on the French coast. And he briefly outlined the plan of amalgamation which the British Ambassador was shortly to present. The Premier ?was astounded: " 'Are you sure of what you are saying' " "'Certainly. I am speaking from Mr. Churchill's office. He is right here and would like to speak to you. . . " "At 5 o'clock the Cabinet reassembled. Reynaud did not immediately inform it of the amazing British suggestion. He deemed it good tactics to announce at the start [London's rejection of the French Cabinet's plan to ask the Pope or President Roosevelt to serve as intermediary in investigating. armistice term.] . . . Reynaud proved wrong in his forecast of ministerial reactions.. . . . He utterly failed to impress his audience when he sprang upon it the grandiose plan. He succeeded only in irritating Vice Premier Petain and his group. To them England was doomed. Of what help would it be to France to grasp the hand stretched out to her? By choice, a drowning man does not seize hold of another. . . . "Think of it! All the politicians who knew how to jabber away in English would certainly have the best of it. . . . There was no debate worth that name. A few absurd re-- marks passed. 'I would not have my country become a dominion!' shouted Ybarnegaray. . . The vote was taken informally, loosely. . . . There were 13 ministers in favor of his [Vice Premier Chautemps1 proposal [to reject the Unioif and seek a separate armistice] and 11 against. Reynaud should never have regarded the decision as being final. . . Why did he let go? Why did . he humble himself before a narrow majority of ministers who had no right to judge him and exercise the function of scattered Parliament?" Monnet's Moral for Atlantic Unionists De Gaulle in his Memoirs tells nothing about how the Cabiner. reached its derision, and does not make this criticism of Reynaud ?which Churchill also made later. Instead de Gaulle pays a warm tribute to him a..nd his struggle to keep France in the war, and shows a sympathetic understanding of his difficulties. Only a few weeks after the fall of France I spent an un- forgettable day in the New York home of John Foster Dulles with him and Jean Monnet, who had just arrived from London, and who told us in detail the story of the British offer. He too said it had been rejected by only a vote or two, in a confused informal vote, and added these details to the foregoing stories: The idea originated in his (Monnet's) office in London, where he was head of the coordinating board of the Anglo- French alliance. He said it came to Inm from reading Union Now?though the book proposed an Atlantic and not an Anglo-French Union. He and some others had been seeking converts to it very discreetly in high places for some weeks. They had feared to come out in the open with it, he said, lest it might upset the alliance which they thought then was working very well. "This strategy," he said, "proved a basic mistake, for when the disaster came and we found we had to move at once Or not at all, too few people had heard of our Union idea. People tend to shy away when faced with having to act at once about a big project that is quite new to them." I think it significant that Gen. de Gaulle accepted the Union idea at first sight. Turning to me, M. Monnet added in substance: "You and your friends have been very wise in putting and keeping your proposal for Atlantic Union before the public, so that the largest possible number Of people be- come at least familiar with the general idea. This will be very helpful when your time comes." M. Monnct also said that Neville Chamberlain was in favor of the Union proposal before Churchill was, and that if the latter had agreed to it "only 10 days sooner," before the French Cabinet became so defeatist, France would have accepted the offer.?CLARENcE, STREIT Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 July-August, 1958 FREEDOM & UNION 17 ,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111h11111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111Ill Ncyvv THAT ALL THE VOTES are in and counted perhaps it is not inappropri- ate to consider what significance the re- sults of the general elections in Italy, held on May 26, may have for the At- lantic Community. In the Senate the Christian Democrats polled 10,757,656 votes (41.2 per cent), giving them 122 seats representing a gain of 10 seats over the 1953 elections. The Communists polled 5,694,816 votes (21.8 per cent), and increased their seats from 51 to 60. The left-wing Socialists got 3,683,845 (14.1 per cent) and gained nine seats for a total of 35. The Social Democrats got 1,135,151 votes (4.4 per cent), gained one seat, and now have a total of five seats. The two Monarchist parties (Partito Nazionale Monarchic? and Partit? Mon- archic? Popolare) got 14 scats in 1953 by pooling their votes, but kept only half between them this time by going their separate ways. Also, the Neofascists lost one seat for a total of eight. In the Chamber of Deputies the Chris- tian Democrats got 12,508,674 votes (42.2 per cent), increasing their seats from 261 to 273. The Communists with 6,700,812 votes (22.7 per cent) lost three seats for a total of 140. The left- wing Socialists, however, captured six more seats for a total of 84 with 4,198,- 522 (14.2 per cent) votes. While Social Democrats went from 19 to 23 seats both Monarchist parties polled a total of 23 in lieu of 80. The Neofascists dropped from 29 to 25. The most significant facts to emerge are the substantial losses suffered by the minority parties?mainly the Monarch- ists. This is indicative of a trend against the historical tendency of European par- liaments constantly to form political splinter parties. Should this trend continue, it is not unlikely that in future elections one or more of the smaller parties will receive so few votes as to be ineligible for even one seat in either chamber and fall into oblivion. The English-speaking part of Atlantica would no doubt welcome this as a vote of confidence in the two-party system of government. This trend has been helped by events outside Italy. The most obvious one was the spectacle of multi-party anarchy in France, whose political life has paralleled that of Italy since the Second World War, but has gone to a far greater ex- treme. Recent events in North Africa Italian Election Moves Toward Fewer Parties By ELIO E GRAND! and the Middle East, however, had a far greater influence on the Italian voter than is generally recognized. The Italian people are too close to the Mediterranean countries to the East and South not to be vitally concerned with such major occurrences as the recent formation of the United Arab Republic. Until recently the Middle East has been the most important market for various Italian exports and a large portion of the oil vital to Italian industry still comes from that area. The federation of Egypt, Syria and Yemen on the one hand, and thc coun- terbalancing action by Iraq and Jordan on the other, consequently played a ma- jor role in the thinking of most Italian voters. They are used to the ups and downs of French governments by now and are more likely to dismiss a crisis in Paris than be unconcerned with the sud- den turn of events across their own seas. The tendency towards a consolidation into two major political forces in Italy is a real one and gives added hope to those who believe that Atlantic Federal Union is the only answer to the Com- munist threat. The Italian elections per- mit the Christian Democrats to govern for the next five years with substantially the same fairly stable plurality as before. This is indeed a happy result. Two men, in my opinion, are well equipped to lead the Christian Democrats during the next few years: Signori Giuseppe Pella and Amintore Fanfani. The former originated the proposal last year which would make the nations that received Marshall Plan aid partners of the U.S. in a program of develop- ment for the underdeveloped countries of the world. As for Signor Fanfani, he is reckoned the chief organizer and titu- lar head of his party. Both, in their own way, are positive men and command a considerable following within their own party and a like amount of respect among their opponents. Both are to a great degree "doers" in a country of so many ?indeed too many?"thinkers." From these two men leadership must come if the cause of Atlantic Union is to advance in Italy during the next five years. The numerical results quoted above indicate that the Communist Party has lost a few seats. The Socialist Party, however, has gained quite a few, so the situation with respect to the relative strength of the popular front parties re- mains virtually unchanged. With the cooperation of the Social Democrats Signor Fanfani will undoubt- edly be able to form the solid govern- ment needed for continuation of the in- ternal economic and political reforms that are consistent with the ideals of a democratic nation. The national council of the Christian Democratic Party, in a unanimously approved communique on Tune 11, expressed its confidence that the other democratic parties of the nation, i.e., the Social Democrat, will "insure the continuation of a policy of European integration and Atlantic solidarity. . . ." Though it would be only natural for the U.S. to take the initiative in Atlantic Union, it may very well be that the next five years or so may witness a return to international greatness by the people who inherited the political acumen of the great Roman statesmen. By their actions within the councils of the present alli- ance, they may generate the spark that will bring about the long overdue con- solidation and modernization of the rela- tions between countries with basically Approved For Release 2002/05/1-4715r401676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 4.8 PEIaISDOM & 13N.T0N juTy-August, 195-? 11111 Ill1111111111111 11,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 the same spiritual and material aims. Judging from thc latest pronounce- ments of the de Gaulle government, however, I would not be at all surprised if the :General beat everyone to the punch, and was the first responsible head of government to come out strongly for the proposed conference to explore At- lantic Union. mmultiattimptimvinimilitnimiluilliiilmum111,1111111.111111111.11111timilluiquiflimill The author, although an American by birth, was educated in Italy. He is a graduate of the University of Padua, where he obtained a Doctor of Letters degree, and has written for La Gazzetta del Veneto and for the literary review /I Sentiero dell'Arte. Mr. Grandi was connected with the USIA in Italy and, since his return to the U.S., has done some work for the Language Division of the State Department. At present he is employed by the New York Life Insurance Company as an insurance underwriter. 1111111111111111111111111.111111111111111. 11 Puoto Quiz Who Said: 1. "THE IMPORTANT TRUTH is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a gov- ernment over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory so in practice it is subversive of the order and the ends of civil polity." 2. "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Call treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?" 3. "The magnitude of the object is indeed embarrassing. The great system of Henry the IVth of France, aided by the greatest statesmen, is small when com- pared to the fabric we are now about to erect." 4. "Not only has the rebuilding of a sound economic structure become absolutely essential but the re-establishment of order under law in relations among -nations has become imperatively necessary." 5. "I have only this to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal." 6. "We have now reached a stage in the growth of civilization which cannot go further, and is doomed to go back, until we discover the means of passing from the national to the international state." 7. "There is no greater mistake than to try to leap an abyss in two jumps." 8. "Shall we putter along with treaties and more treaties until it is too late to form any union of the nations to give security to their peace-hungry citizens? . . . The United States, above all the nations, must defend individual freedom everywhere. It must contrive that free men of other countries have the oppor- tunity to form an organic union with our citizens for common defense and com- mon welfare." 9. "Dire necessity and extreme peril compel us and invite us to undertake the formation of this great Western political society. This is the new order of things which, if the world is not to sink into anarchy and war, will emerge from the chaos of our time." 10. "I do not believe there are any people who treat peace as the ultimate end. Permanent freedoms, rights and liberties are the ultimate ends." These quotations are all taken from the postwar edition of Union Now (Harper's:, 1949). Score yourself 10 points for each correct answer. If you total less than 50 you might consider re-reading the book. Answers on page 24. ATLANTIC UNION NEWS Ti IE Eiciur NEWEST members added to the Atlantic Union Committee Council are: Dr. Clifford M. HARDIN, Chancellor of the. University uf Nebraska; the Rev. Theo- dore M. HESEURG C.S.C., President of the University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Ind.; Volney Hump., Chief of the Paris Bureau of the Christian Science Monitor; Henry A. KISSINGER, Associate Director of Harvard Center for International Studies, and famed author of Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy; Philip M. KLUTZNICK of Park Forest, Ill., Alternate U. S. Delegate to thc U. N.; Dr. Kevin MCCANN, Presi- dent of Defiance College, Ohio, a chief speech-writer for President Eisenhower; the Rt. Rev. Msgr. William J. McDoNALD, Rector of Catholic University of America, in Washington; and Director Jerome B. WIL:SNER of the Research Laboratory of Electronics of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the Gaither Com- mittee. Within thc past few months, the Council lost by death two eminent Unitarian minis- ters: The Rev. Frederick M. Furom, Presi- dent of the American Unitarian Associa- tion, and Dr. A. Powell DAVIES, of All Souls Church in Washington, D. C. The Tenth Annual Unitarian Award, given to an outstanding member of that denomination, was voted to Dr. Davies posthumously. Other Atlantic Union Council Members in thc news included: Herbert H. LEHMAN, former Ti. S. Sen- ator from New York, received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Columbia Uni- versity; and has been awarded a Bruce. Rogers edition of the Bible, by the Ameri- can Jewish Committee, for service to hu- man welfare. Dr. Frank STANTON, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System, was given the honor Award of the University of Mis- souri School of journalism for distinguished service in journalism, and thc Keynote Award of the National Association of Broadcasters for distinguished service to broadcasting. Dr. Paul BAGWELL, head of Oral and Written English at Michigan State Univer- sity and past National President of the jun- ior Chamber of Commerce, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for Gover- nor of Michigan. David L. LAWRENCE, Mayor of Pitts- burgh, won the Democratic nomination for Governor of Pennsylvania. Edmund ORGILL, Mayor of Memphis, is. a Democratic candidate for Governor of Tennessee. Approved For Release 2002/0?37A1A-hibil??filt y6R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 July-August, 1958. -FREEDOM & UNION 1 9 Hifillommuluminniumminumniummulpfillimuniumummliumminiiiimmunklimmilmilammaiminimuiniminimmumminniminliclimmumminimulumiliniumildlimumullumfluflummullummilm EThe Human Venture) PATRIOTISM TRUE AND FALSE By ROBERT J. McCRACKEN IT IS ONE THING to be born a citizen of a country; it is an altogether dif- ferent matter to become a citizen. In the first case citizenship is automatic; in the other it is the result of deliberate choice and involves a decision neither lightly nor easily made. James Truslow Adams once wrote: "There is much in English history that I admire and much in Eng- lish life that I find comfortable, but I could no more give up by American citizenship and go permanently to Eng- land and become British than I could change my skin. I am an American, whatever that may mean." Think about that and you will appreciate that asking for naturalization can be a soul searching business. On the third of January of this year I became an American citizen. I did so gladly, proudly, wholeheartedly. Per- haps only those who have taken the step know what it does to the emotions to declare on oath, "I absolutely and en- tirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, poten- tate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." The Judge before whom the oath was sworn made one thing crystal clear. Becoming an American citizen did not mean forswearing one's cultural heritage. The strength of the U. S., he said, lay in part in the varied peoples, the mingled strains, the blended traditions which make it what it is. - The naturalized citizen owes political allegiance to the land of his adoption. It provides him with maintenance and pro- tection. It gives to its adopted children every privilege and prerogative vested in its native sons and daughters save that of the Presidency.* Giving all this it is certainly entitled in return to expect poltical allegiance. But political allegiance is one thing and cultural allegiance is another. I suppose I shall always have a nos- talgic affection for the Scottish Psalter, for the poems of Burns, the novels of Walter Scott, the disquisitions of Thomas Carlyle. There is no treason surely in singing with special fondness the songs of one's native land, in cherishing a sen- timent for the traditions of one's race, one's customs, one's religion. Becoming a citizen has made me think afresh about patriotism. At its best it is a noble sentiment. Love of country is as old as the world. The literature of the Ancients is full of references to it. What are the roots of this love of country? Nowadays we enter into long- winded explanations of our motives in fortifying ourselves against possible ag- gression, and we end up by extolling such abstract terms as democracy, lib- erty, our way of life. But ordinary peo- ple don't fight and suffer for abstract ideas even if they understand them. Anyone who served in the Forces dur- ing the last war, or had much to do with those who served, will remember how often the puzzled question was asked, "What are we fighting for?" I found that to answer that query in such abstract terms as "democracy," "lib- erty," "conscience," "our way of life" was often quite meaningless to young people of 18 to 20. There was a student whose reply was: 'What do you mean by liberty when I have no liberty not to fight?" What did we fight for? What would we fight for again, if the disagreeable necessity should be forced on us? In the final case, as the governing motive, llOn his first day at school in the U. S. one of my boys Came home exclaiming, "Do you know that I can never be President of the United States?" would it not be for the land of our birth or adoption ? its great mountains, its rolling rivers, its fertile plains; and above all for that little bit of land we call home? Love of country is as old as the world and, with love of home, one of the most enduring of human affections. We can all understand how it came about that Zwingli, the Swiss patriot, in translating the twenty-third Psalm, rendered the second verse, "He maketh me to lie down in an Alpine meadow." When a man feels like that about his country he is ready, unless he is a mere senti- mentalist, to devote himself to its service. But there is a false as well as a true patriotism. When I say that I am think- ing of the patriotism that is always beat- ing a big drum, patriotism of the jingo- istic sort such as finds expression in the slogan, "My country, may she never be in the wrong, hut my country right or wrong." That is going further than a Christian can go. No one who believes in God as revealed by Christ can sub- scribe to that slogan. He would then be making the State the custodian of his conscience. He would be surrendering to government the responsibility for moral choice. Yet some have gone much farther. Said Machiavelli, "I prefer my country to the salvation of my soul." It was Machiavelli's preference, made an article and instrument of state policy, that led Cavour to remark, "What scoundrels we should be if we did for ourselves the things we are doing for Italy." The fact is patriotism has been singularly liable to perversion. At times it has incited hate, jealousy, discord, war. It has been a prejudice motivated by downright sel- fishness. The last refuge of scoundrels, Samuel Johnson characterized it. Patriotism is perverted when it is made the basis for dogmas of racial su- Approved For Release 20 0 /07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 .20 FRErDOM & UNTON July-August, .195S - flusnimmismilillidillUligilliiiHHIJIIIIIIHMIUMIHISIIIIH1111111111111H1H111111111MHISAU11111111111RHISHUHIlild14131111H11111111N111111HINIMIONIISHIIIIIIIIIHIMIHIMIHIHIHIBIIIMMUNIIIIANIUMIIHIHIMMINISIIIIHIHISIVNIIIIIIIIIHIUMIHMIUMIHIflifliflidifliNIIIHNIISISISISIIIIVIVANISISIMi periority. In Mein, Kampf Hitler let loose a witches' brew of hate, destruc- tion and death with the credo: "The Germans constitute a master race that has a mission to rule over inferior peo- ple and create a new world order." But every nation inclines to think of its citi- zens as the Herrenvolk. "I contend," Cecil John Rhodes used to say, "that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race." He sighed longingly when he stared up into the sky. "I would annex the planets if I could. I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and so far away." Nationalism easily grows into imperi- alism. Patriotism, the love of one's own country and its inhabitants, too easily degenerates into fear and hatred of other countries. Love of country tends to become, in the logical growth of na- tional sovereignty, a love of more coun- try--even if it belongs to other people. Patriotism is peverted also when it is made the basis for any kind of totali- tarian dogma. "Nothing uncontrolled by the State," which was the fixed principle of Hitlerism and is the guiding rule of communism, sooner or later means "Nothing above the State." This in- volves the complete secularization of human life and is the very height of idolatry. If the State is to do justice to man's deepest needs there must be some- thing beyond it and above it. A true Christian cannot subscribe to the dogma, "The nation over all." The totalitarian State, with its demand for the whole of man in its service, should meet everywhere with the opposition of the Christian Church, which calls for allegi- ance to One who is above all dictators and reminds men that there is a Law higher, more imperative, more absolute than that of any State. Said Jan Ma- saryk, "I hold to my father's creed: Jesus not Caesar." Because of the fear of communism there is a tendency among us to give to the State something approaching totalitarian power. It is no exaggeration to say that there are some who would substitute for the slogan, "This nation under God" another, namely, "My nation, thou art my God." There is an Americanism, as Dr. John Mackay put it bluntly to the Gen- eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, whose devotees believe implicit- ly that the highest role of education, and even of the Christian religion, is to serve their idol, that: is, their private inter- pretation of patriotism and their con- ception of national welfare. Theirs is a narrow and negative loyalty construed in terms of rigid conformity to certain economic, political and diplomatic views, of passive acquiescence with the status quo. It is a loyalty that has no use for tolerance, no place for the dissenter, and no recollection of the fact that this na- tion owed its birth to a revolution, flourished on dissent, became great through experimentation. "VATe should behave toward our coun- try," writes J. B. Priestley, "as women behave toward the men they love. A loving wife will do anything for her husband except stop criticizing and try- ing to improve him. We should cast the same affectionate but sharp glance at our country.'' Hasn't that been the American tradi- tion? Jefferson and Paine, Emerson and Thoreau, Channing and Parker, Garri- son and Howe and Phillips?they claimed the right to criticize, to dissent, to experiment and did so out of love and loyalty to their country. To Americans who remember Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience, Seward's cry about the 'higher law than the Constitution,' Gar- rison, the abolitionist, who publicly burned the Constitution, Woodrow Wil- son who warned that our flag was 'a flag of liberty of opinion as well as of political liberty," conformity will never be an idol nor intolerance the prerequisite of security. To be sure a nation cannot have citi- zens flouting the collective sense of the community in the frivolous and selfish pursuit of their own nostrums, but a nation if it is to have real independence and greatness must respect the indi- vidual conscience and the Higher Law, the obedience man owes first and fore- most and beyond every other loyalty to his Maker. "If there is any fixed star in our Con- stitutional constellation," the Supreme Court ruled in the Barnette flag-salute case, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith there- in. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception they do not now oc- cur to us." The truest patriotism is that which combines love of country with love of hutnanity and love of God. It is not at odds with the Christian doctrine of the Brotherhood of Man. It does not re- quire the elevation of one nation at the cost of the exploitation or subjugation of another. It recognizes that to impose one culture on the world would be to im- poverish the world. It sees that each na- tion needs every other nation, that We arc but parts of one stupendous whole Whose body Nature is, and God the soul. No one in my congregation ever urged me to become a citizen. One member expressed the wish that dual citizenship were possible, that I might become an American citizen without ceasing to be a British citizen. Benjamin Franklin looked forward to a day when world citizenship would become a real- ity. 'God grant," he prayed, "that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot any- where on its surface, and say, 'This is my country.' " In offering the prayer Franklin may possibly have recalled the observation of Epictetus: "If the statements of the philosophers are true, that God and man are akin, there is but one course open to men, to do as Socrates did: never to re- ply to one who asks his country, 'I am an Athenian,' or 'I am a Corinthian,' but 'I am a citizen of the universe.' " Perhaps a declaration from a far higher Source was in Franklin's mind, the de- claration of the Bible, "God who made the world and all things therein, hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." -r ???-? !JUL LIIG G.6,1111p1G Ill LUG tions has made the Free World, despite ample is, of course, the Soviet empire. whole of histork is our own U. S.; the Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 22 FuEt DOM & UNTO'N Yuly-August, .195g federal system, adopted by thirteen states comprising three million people along our Atlantic Coast and now governing a continental area containing 170,000,- 000 people, enabled our country to be- come the most powerful, productive and influential nation in the world. These examples show that the two rival means of political integration are as different as day from night. Integra- tion by agreement is based upon law and respect for law. The powers of the central authority are limited by laws which reserve to local governments ex- tensive powers over local concerns. The peoples who have integrated by this means remain on an equal footing re- gardless of their numbers or economic importance; no one of them dominates or rules the others. Integration by force is based upon the domination and rule of those who possess the force. The result is cen- tralized power, wielded by an emperor, presidium or dominant people and ex- ? erted upon subject peoples without re- gard for their wishes. To see the extent of the contrast, wp need only compare the situation of Rhode Island with that of Hungary. The past development of mankind points directly to some broad conclusions about the future. It seems clear that the relentless and increasing pressure of the forces considered above is pushing man- kind toward eventual political integra- tion. In the long run, which may be very long, the entire world appears destined to become one political unit. This eventual unity will be established by one of two alternative means?force or agreement. Since these conclusions may be startling to some, the validity of two contrary Conclusions should be con- sidered. The modern nation, as we all know, is only a few centuries old. Can it be seriously held, in the light of the progressive shrinkage of our planet, that nations as we know them will still exist as separate sovereign units 1,000 years from now? For those who answer "yes", it is only necessary to raise the ante to 10,000 years, longer than re- corded history. Our conclusion is that the world will be united eventually, not at any given time. The other contrary conclusion is that civilization will be demolished by nu- clear war. Eminent scientists have warned us that this is a possibility, but it .is necessary to consider what this term implies. For the entire world to relapse into tribal barbarism, all people who can read or write and every library would have to be destroyed. Otherwise, the remnants of mankind would seek to rebuild factories and cities. It can be argued that, after such an experience, the survivors would not recreate sov- ereign nations, each endowed with ar- maments and the capacity to make war, but would instead establish some over- all political authority. But even if they did restore the old international society., the forces pushing us toward integra, tion would soon renew their relentless pressure. The only sure alternative to eventual world political unity appears to be the destruction of all mankind. In the light of the trend toward such unity, the present international line-up has special significance. Instead of the seven "Great Powers" of the Thirties, there are now two "Super- Powers", who outclass all others and who alone have enough military strength, resources, size and self-suf- ficiency to enable them to perform at all effectively the functions which a "na- tion" used to perform. One of .these, the U. S., is history's outstanding ex- ample of integration by agreement. The other, the Soviet Union, is the post-vvat period's outstanding practitioner of inte- gration by force. What will be the final outcome if the Soviet Union succeeds in pursuing this road until it has reached its ultimate goal? The answer is ?obvious because the outcome will be the same as the goal: world empire ruled from Moscow. What will be the final outcome if political integration proceeds by the American way which 'the founder's of our country So SuccessfUlly blazed? Here again, the answer is clear. The final outcome will be some kind of world-wide federal structure to which powers will be granted and limited by agreement among its constituent.peOPlea ?Front a patntIng by _Upward Chandler Christy When the Thirteen States, comprising three million people along our Atlantic Coast, united under a Federal government they created the most outstanding example of political integration by agreement in all history. Approved For Release 2002/07 01676R003800130053-1 le-4114B Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 July-August, 1958 FRE17.'DOM 8c UNION 25 and in which each country will run its own affairs in its own way. The choice between these outcomes for Americans is equally clear, for we have no wish to set up and rule a world empire ourselves. Such a course, in- volving the threat and use of aggressive war, domination of the entire world and denial to all other peoples of the rights we enjoy at home, is contrary to our history, our instincts and our tra- ditions and would be regarded with hor- ror by an overwhelming majority of Americans. And even if we possessed the will to create a world-wide Ameri- can Empire, we arc badly situated for such a task. The Americas, containing only one-eighth of the world's people and separated from the other seven- eighths by oceans, do not provide a good springboard for world conquest. Short of a cataclysm, such as might result from a world-wide nuclear war, these conditions appear to point to a fur- ther conclusion: if some nation finally does succeed in unifying the world by force, that nation will not be ours, but one in the "world island" of Eurasia. ? The principal contender today is the Soviet Union. Let us follow this possible ultimate shape of things to come and consider the position of our country in that kind of a world. The U. S. would be re- duced to the status of a subject province, ruled from an alien center as Rumania is today. Our internal laws would be decrees of an alien Commissar. Our economy would be exploited and our living standard depressed for the benefit of the imperial rulers. Ambitious Ameri- can "subjects" who wanted to get ahead would seek their favor. And our free- doms would vanish inside a world em- pire ruled by force as they have within countries ruled from Moscow. In a world united by agreement, in contrast, we would maintain our free- doms and our institutions. Our govern- ment, chosen by our pepole, would con- tinue to govern us in all matters which we had not agreed voluntarily to en- trust to the world authority. These contrasts indicate that the means by which integration proceeds are of per- sonal concern to every American who gives serious thought to the future of his country and his family. Integration by agreement offers the only final out- come which will allow us to maintain our way of life to the end of the road. The lessons of the past indicate, how- ever, that the cards are stacked against this eventual outcome. Examples of integration by agreement are rare in history, whereas examples of empire- building occur on every page. The process takes time, as those examples show, because people will not accept new political institutions voluntarily until a majority of them have become convinced that it is necessary to do so. Despite the proved inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation, it required seven years of increasing chaos to bring about the adoption of the Constitution, and then it was ratified in some states by only the narrowest margins. Despite the ominous shadow of the Soviet Union and the inability of relatively small European nations to maintain effective defense or prosperous economic life today, tile first step toward integration achieved so far in Western Europe re- quired seven years. Integration by force, on the other hand, can be effected rapidly. Wars can sometimes be won in a few months, as were the wars which created the German Empire. The Soviet Union took over Czechoslovakia in a few days, once the necessary preparations had been completed. The only agreement required for the aggressive use of force by a dictatorship is that of a few men around a table. This difference in speed of operation appears likely to persist upon a world scale. It is conceivable that the Com- munist leaders could gain their goal of world empire during the present cen- tury. Whereas it does not seem likely now that any kind of effective but freely accepted world-wide governmental sys- tem can be established until long after the year 2000 has passed into limbo. There is one factor which might contribute so substantially to Communist success in the future that it is unwise to disregard it. That is the attraction which. a world empire might exert on many peoples besides its masters, peoples who have never known freedom as we know it, peoples who lack enough to eat and peoples ready to pay any price for peace. For it is evident that a world empire could maintain international peace, even thoupdi at a terrible price in liberty and human values. It could also abolish all armaments except those of its police, thereby lifting a heavy burden from mankind. Finally, it could eliminate all national barriers to trade, thus raising world living standards. There is a danger that if the Communists ever appear likely to gain their ultimate goal, hundreds of millions in Asia and else- where may swing to their side. At the present time, there is no doubt which way the trend has been going. In the years since 1945, as the Communists have extended their control over 600,- 000,000 additional people and increased their power in relation to the free peo- ples, political integration by force has been the winner. If the conclusion that the entire world is moving towards eventual po- litical integration is valid, then it is clear that a continuance of Communist ex- pansion will both threaten our future as a nation and tend directly to channel that integration towards a Communist world empire. These considerations indicate the safest and surest way to maintain our security, our freedoms and our Ameri- can way of life to the end of this century and beyond. That is to build something which is bigger and stronger than our nation, larger in area and population and more powerful, by integrating, somehow and to some extent, with other free peoples. It is possible that we can survive and even succeed by "taking a chance" and confining ourselves to international co- operation. But this appears a precarious course, since it risks the destiny of the American people upon the possibility that Communist power can be contained peacefully and will eventually collapse as a result of internal strains, while denying Americans and other free men the opportunity to use their superior potentialities as effectively as they might. When the stake is the future of America and the world, when the issue is free- dom or slavery, and when the risk is nuclear war with unpredictable con- sequences, it is only common sense to seek some surer and safer course.?Mr. Hartley's article evJl be concluded in the September issue of FREEDOM & UNION. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 24 FREEDOM & UNION July-August, 1958 Russian Disengagement Policy Threatens West By THOMAS J. HAMILTON United Nations Correspondent, New York Times UNITED NATIONS, N. Y. THE SIGNS NOW POINT to a summit conference to be held late in the Fall, after the American elections, or perhaps early in 1959. The bargaining between the U.S. and the Soviet Union has been almost continuous since last December, when the Russians, within the U.N., started beating the drum for a heads-of- government meeting. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles have held out much longer this time than they did in 1955, when the first summit conference was arranged with a minimum of formality. Unfortunately, there is even less prospect of any substantial agreement now than there was three years ago. At that time the Soviet Union, by agreeing to a treaty with Austria, had given at least some preliminary indications that it might entertain a compromise. Now, however, the Soviet Union's lead in missiles, as confirmed by the success of its three sputniks?the smallest of which is larger than anything the U.S. has been able to place in orbit? has made the men in the Kremlin more cocksure than they were before. Furthermore, their skill in diplomacy- propaganda has been confirmed by their unilateral decision to stop nuclear tests and by their further claim that they are thinning out Soviet troops in the satellite countries. Thus they have obtained con- siderable support for their campaign to force the U.S. to stop its own nuclear tests and to accept some version of the Kennan "disengagement" program. As a result of the Soviet campaign, it will be supremely difficult for the U.S. to continue nuclear tests after the series this summer, whether or not the Soviet Union will agree to any kind of inspec- tion scheme to determine compliance. Already the U.S., by agreeing to joint technical studies on the cessation of nu- clear tests, has moved a long way to- ward acceptance of the Soviet-Indian demand that they be stopped without waiting for an agreement on any other phase of the disarmament question. It would seem that Secretary of State Dulles has been won over to this posi- tion, which was championed by Harold E. Stassen, despite Mr. Stassen's depar- ture from the government. Or perhaps it was because of it, since their person- al relations had become increasingly strained as a result of the rash behavior of Mr. Stassen during the London dis- armament negotiations last summer, when he submitted an American offer to the Russians without informing his British or French colleagues. Red Propaganda Scores The amazing thing about the nuclear test controversy is the way it has cap- tured the imaginations of the Socialist parties of Western Europe, particularly the British Labor party. There would seem to be little question of the fact that the indefinite continu- ance of nuclear tests will eventually af- fect the health of many people. By com- parison with the destruction produced by a nuclear war, however, the damage would be insignificant. Nevertheless the Soviet Union has managed to score a succession of propaganda triumphs on this issue, and the end is not yet in sight. The new Soviet campaign to popu- larize the disengagement doctrine is even more threatening. Adam Rapacki, the Polish foreign minister, started the ball rolling with his speech in the Gen- eral Assembly last October, when he proposed that Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and West Germany be proclaimed a nuclear-free zone. There are grounds for believing that, in making the proposal, Mr. Rapacki was interested in disengaging Poland from the danger of nuclear war. The Poles, in fact, would like to see an ar- rangement under which both Soviet troops as well as Soviet nuclear bombs would be kept away from their territory. However, the Soviet Union, follow- ing up the endorsement of the disen- gagement doctrine by George F. Ken- nan and by the British, West German, and Scandinavian Socialists, has now made the Rapacki proposal its own. The horrors of a nuclear war are so apparent to Europeans that it is easy to understand the appeal that this neo- isolationism has for them. What could be more tempting than the thought of cutting themselves loose from the con- flicting groups? A moment's reflection, however, shows the dangers that such a settle- ment would have for the Western pow- ers. 01Ily if the West German forces, and the American forces in West Ger- many, can use tactical nuclear bombs is there hope of overcoming the numeri- cal superiority of the Communist forces. This advantage, however, would be canceled by the Rapacki plan, and is the reason why both the U.S. and the U.K. have rejected it. Nor would the situation be improved if the conventional forces maintained in the four countries were withdrawn. For the withdrawal of American forces almost certainly would mean their withdrawal across the Atlantic, while Soviet troops would have to move only a few hundred miles cast to regain Soviet territory. The disengagement doctrine constitutes a very serious threat to the North Atlantic alliance, and there will have to be some hard thinking in the Western capitals about possible al- ternatives. For all the signs indicate that this will be a major Soviet proposal whenever the summit meeting is held. Quoto Quiz Answers ALL THE FOLLOWING page citations refer to Union Now, postwar edition (Harper's). 1. Alexander Hamiliton, The Federalist, No. 20 (p. 105). 2. Abraham Lincoln, on the eve of the civil war (p. 163). 3. James Wilson, in the American Constitutional Convention, 1787 (p. 14-9). 4. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, 1938 (p. 154). 5. Abraham Lincoln (p. 163). 6. Lionel Curtis, The Commonwealth of God, 1936 (p. 167). 7. Lloyd George (p. 226). 8. Owen J. Roberts, Former Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in FREEDOM & UNION, Feb. 1947 (p. 251). 9. Walter Lippmann, Sursum Gorda, 1948 (p. 294). 10. John Foster Dulles, before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, May 12, 1948 (p. 302). Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 'De ,Cittle Dog Laughed Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-D,P8060167 003800130053-1 Approved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 Dialectical Love Story J. G. Denkinov worked together with Anna Swerdlov in the same room. "I hope we will get along all right to- gether," Denkinov said as he entered the room on the first day. "I hope so too," was Anna's reply, "but I would like to make one thing clear right from the start. You should never look upon me as a woman, but only as a comrade." In this manner they worked together harmoniously until five o'clock. "I'm glad that we two are working together in the same room," said Anna. "Any other man would have asked me for a (late right away. But we two understand each other." Later they sat together in a tearoom and Anna continued in the same vein. "Do you know what I like about you so much? You treat me as if I were a man, and don't even see the woman in me. That's what I like about you." He answered with a friendly smile and squeezed her hand under the table. For hours they debated man to man with one another. Three months later they went to the city hall for their marriage license. "The whole thing seems like a dream to me. Why do you love me?", asked Anna's new husband. "Because you are not like other men. You never saw the woman in me, only the comrade," and Anna embraced him tenderly. A year later the two were bent over the cradle of their first child. "It's simply a miracle," Anna smiled. "What is? ," he asked. "Life," replied Anna. "This sweet little baby would never have been born if you had seen the woman in me." Nonsecret Secrets Two leading scientists testified . . . that a recent nonsecret report was trans- lated independently by seven Federal Government agencies, which then stamped it secret and restricted its cir- culation, according to Edward Gamare- kian, W ashington Post reporter. Lloyd V. Berkner, a member of the President's Advisory Committee, told the House Government Information Sub- comthittee that more than 90 per cent of the information now classified should be released. Berkner tangled with the Subcom- mittee briefly when he was asked to name the seven agencies that indepen- dently translated and classified the non- secret Russian report. Berkner said he could not reply because that information was classified. The lawmakers were non- plussed to learn that many agencies have classified the fact that they are trans- lating nonsecret Russian reports. Ouch! U. S. Army Headquarters, according to a German newspaper, recently issued the following order: "In the instruction manual, 'Training for Combat, No. 21- 20,' the following passage is to be de- leted since it is obsolete: 'How to De- feat an Enemy in Hand-to-hand Com- bat by Stepping on his Toes.' " --Munchner Merkur For Botanists Only An owner of a forest in Scotland ob- jected to unauthorized people strolling in his private woodland. To keep out trespassers he posted a sign which read: "Attention! Danger! In this wood are C orylus Anellana!" Actually, the latter is merely the Latin designation for hazel nuts! Parallels An official of the Soviet Embassy in Switzerland was present at a reception recently, at which a Swiss minister de- Z-5 dared that his country had decided to begin building a large merchant fleet and was about to create a maritime ministry in Berne. The Russian couldn't help himself and burst out laughing. For the moment his host was taken back by this behavior, then he patted the Russian on the shoul- der and smiled politely. "Why do you laugh? Do you believe that the existence of a Swiss Maritime Ministry is more absurd than that of a Soviet Ministry of Justice?" The Last Straw A wealthy American checked into an Irish inn last summer, and told the proprietor, "For dinner this evening I shall want a clear soup, salmon mayon- naise, a rare steak, strawberries and cream, and coffee." The flabbergasted inn-keeper ex- claimed, "Shure an' begorra, sir, if we had all them foine things, we'd have et them ourself." Modern Neros The Paris, France, Fire Department, concerned about large conflagrations in the metropolitan area and how to con- trol them, deliberately set fire to a vast slum. The holocaust, equivalent to a five-alarm fire, was successfully brought under control. The commander of the fire department, a colonel, was prompt- ly promoted to general. The report from Paris doesn't specify whether the colonel-cum-general played the fiddle. aX-,/f1-2 ?Gamier, W estrleutscho Allgetncino Approved For Release 2002/e5/9,7 : CIA-RDP80601676R003800130053-1 7_5) /4-'4:or-i