LETTER TO MR. PAUL K. MARTIN FROM ALLEN W. DULLES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R003800130053-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 29
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 28, 2002
• Sequence Number: 53
• Publication Date: July 12, 1958
• Content Type: LETTER

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