Evening star. [volume], September 26, 1947, Page A-4, Image 4

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
i* of Senator Taft's Tacoma Speech on U. S. Foreign Policy
' "»• Associated Press
TACOMA, Wash., Sept. 26.—
- the text of the speech last night
by Senator Taft, Republican, of
- Ohio before the World Affairs
- Council follows:
fl appreciate the invitation which
you have extended to me to talk to
the World Affairs Council of Ta
eama. The council has provided one
Of the greatest forums for discus
elon of foreign policy in the North
west.
During this trip to the West, I
■Jiave been interested primarily in
jltscusslng the record of the first
^jteepublican Congress in 16 years.
*The Republican Party has shown its
Ability to formulate a program in
r ordance with its principles, and
carry that program through over
Jthe strenuous opposition of many
^special interest groups, and in spite
k>f the New Deal propaganda which
ptas been built up so strongly for so
taany years.
| In the domestic field, the people
fleeted a Congress for the purpose
of eliminating wartime controls,
deducing Government regimentation,
^expense and taxation, and eliminat
ing injustices which had developed
In labor relations. I have shown
that the Republican Party has kept
Ma promises and done its job.
Cites President’s Power.
-In the field of foreign policy, the
Republicans have not had the same
responsibility, because the Demo
crats still control the Presidency.
The people do not realize to what
a large extent the field of foreign
policy is controlled by the President,
and how little Congress has to say
about it. Under the Constitution,
the President is given the power
to initiate au negotiations witn
foreign nations and carry them on
in every field up to the point where
a treaty is entered into. He has
power to make executive agreements
with foreign nations without the
approval of Congress, and more
and more this power has been de
veloped, often, I think, in deroga
tion of the right of Congress to
insist upon treaty ratification. The
President’s power was also tre
mendously enlarged by the state ol
war by war legislation. Much of the
war legislation has been repealed,
Sut the state of war exists until
the peace is signed or declared.
U. N. Power Delegated,
t In the field of the United Nations
tre have delegated complete power
to the President to direct the ac
tions of our representatives in the
Security Council and the Assembly,
so that the President may actually
involve us in war without a decla
ration of war by Congress. In the
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act,
we have temporarily delegated tc
the President the power to reduce
tariffs by 75 per cent from the
statutory rate without the approval
of Congress.
The truth is, that unless the
President needs money to carry out
the agreements or arrangements he
may make with foreign nations, he
practically does not have to ask
Congress for approval of any im
portant item of his foreign policy,
Just at the present time, however,
it is true that much of our deal
ings w'ith foreign nations seem to
require cash from the United States
Treasury, and so we have had to
pass on the British loan, the ap
propriations for relief, and the
Greek and Turkish loans; and the
Marshall Plan, if developed, must
be submitted to Congress. Even in
this Held, however, it is difficult
for Congress to repudiate agree
ments made by the President with
out at least bringing charges of
bad faith on the part of this
Nation.
In^ general, I believe Congress
should hesitate to Interfere with
the President’s foreign policy, un
less it involves us in the danger
of an unnecessary war, or pro
poses to drain to an unreasonable
degree the resources of our tax
payers and the product of our labor.
I believe it is a field where Con
gress should not, except with great
provocation, give foreign countries
a picture of a divided America.
Bi-Partisan Policy.
The Republican Congress has
done its best to co-operate with the
President. Much has been made
of the so-called bi-partisan foreign
policy, but most people do not real
ize that it has covered a very limited
field. It has really extended only
to Senator Vandenberg’s partici
pation in the formulation of the
United Nations Charter, in negoti
ations with European nations re
garding peace in Europe, and in the
regional agreement with South
American nations. In these fields
Seantor Vandenberg has taken the
lead and accomplished results
which could never have been reach
ed without his sound Judgment and
force. But in most other fields of
foreign policy even he was not con
sulted until the policy itself had
been formulated and was ready
to be announced.
Thus in the matter of the Greek
loan and the Marshall Plan, the
Republicans were called in only to
be asked to go along with a policy
aireaay aaoptea. me KepuDucans
were not Invited to have any part in
the policy in China, the policy in
Oermany, or the policy in the Ar
gentine. Nor, of course, was any Re
publican In any way responsible for
the fatal mistakes made earlier at
Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam.
In spite of the lack of co-opera
tion on the part of the President
and the State Department, the Re
publicans, since they have controlled
Congress, have tried not to rock
the boat or upset any reasonable ef
fort to correct past errors. They
have supported the United Nations.
Since the Russians Indicated their
unwillingness to accept the spirit of
the United Nations, and their inten
tion to veto all important actions,
the Republicans have opposed any
concessions to Soviet Russia.
Function of Opposition.
In my opinion, current foreign
policy as far as possible should not
be a subject of partisan debate, and
tha Republicans have not made it
ao. But it certainly Is the function
of the opposition to point to the
serious errors of the past and the
philosophy of government which
brought them about. Foreign policy
must be judged by its results, and
the results of the foreign policy of
the Administration during the past
three years have created a situation
as bad or worse than that which ex
isted before the war, and have
brought the world to a state of eco
nomic collapse. Certainly the Ad
ministration whose policies have
produced these results has no basis
for appealing to the people for fur
ther oonfldenee on the ground that
they are peculiarly fitted or fitted at
all to administer foreign policy.
We could have had only one justi
fication for entering the war, a war
we really entered long before Pearl
f
Harbor. That was not because we
desired to reform the world, but be
cause we believed that German suc
cess would ultimately threaten our
own freedom. After the magnificent
work of our armed forces, backed by
our industrial and agricultural pro
duction, we had only one real in
terest. That was to Insure through
an organization of nations that no
nation whatever should again un
dertake po conquer the world, and
Jin particular, that such restraints
be imposed upon Germans and
Japanese production as would pre
vent their re-arming.
Essence of Charter.
Of course, having become involved
in the war. we had the responsi
bility of seeing that the' new world
started on a basis of freedom, jus
tice and equality. This was the es
sence of the Atlantic Charter, a
joint declaration by Franklin
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill,
formally transmitted to Congress by
the President as the policy of his
administration.
The second clause of the Atlantic
Charter stated that we desired to
see no territorial changes that did
not accord with the freely expressed
wishes of the peoples concerned.
The third clause stated that we
respected the right of all peoples to
choose the form of government un
der which they would live, and
wished to see soverign rights and
self-government restored to those
who had been forcibly deprived of
them.
The fourth and fifth clauses ex
pressed our intention to further the
J enjoyment of all states, great or
small, victor or vanquished, of ac
cess, on equal terms, to the trade
and to the raw materials of the
world which are needed for their
economic prosperity, for the pur
pose of securing economic advance
ment for all.
The sixth and seventh clauses
looked towards a new League of
Nations.
Have Lost the Peace.
Beginning, however, at Teheran,
Ideals stated In the Atlantic Charter
until today the attainment of many
of them Is impossible. We have
won the war? but we have lost the
peace.
Until Senator Vandenberg en
I tered the picture, our attitude to
ward Russia was one of complete
surrender. We gave them billions
of goods under lend-lease, without
a condition looking to the post-war
i world. We seemed to feel that we
had to beg Stalin to continue the
battle against Germany, and ac
cepted his views of military strategy
In attack, which gave him the
Balkans with Tito as the recognized
leader In Yugoslavia. Later we seem
to have insisted on Russia entering
the Japanese war, when the en
trance proved to be unnecessary,
and has only resulted In turning
over Manchuria to Russia.
President Roosevelt apparently
felt that If Mr. Stalin received mili
tary aid and kind treatment from
England and the United States, he
would be transformed Into an angel
of light, bringing freedom to the
world. This was the attitude clearly
shown In the President’s Interviews
with Forrest Davis, published In the
Saturday Evening Post, referred to
as the “Great Design.”
New Deal PhQoeophy.
This attitude at Teheran, at Yalta
and at Potsdam was promoted ap
parently by the baste new deal phi
losophy which influenced the whole
administration. The general atti
tude was exemplified In the influ
ence of the late Mr. Harry Hopkins
was a very friendly one toward com
munism. Many New Dealers would
not go along with Mr. Henry Wal
lace who felt that communism was
merely another form of democracy,
perhaps a little better form than
our democracy; but there were a lot
who did have that attitude. Others
uuuuicu, uut yiciucu w tne party
philosophy. Remember how very
soft they were toward the admission
of Communists Into Government de
partments? Certainly Communists
were there, or President Truman
would not finally, two years after
V-E Day, have requested fifty mil
lion dollars to get rid of them, We
can see now what a complete mis
conception of the whole Russian
character and the character of com
munism was Involved, in the con
cessions made, and In the failure
to exact guarantees regarding the
postwar world. Those concessions,
to anyone who understood the Rus
sians at all, were certain to make
Stalin the dominant figure In Eu
rope and give powerful support to
the cause of communism and
to totalitarianism throughout the
world.
The Administration apparently
did not even suggest that Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia, under the At
lantic Charter, were entitled to have
their sovereign rights and self
government restored.
We recognize the right of the
Russian army to occupy the Bal
kans, and also Berlin and Vienna,
which gives them today their pow
erful hold in Europe. With feeble
protests, we turned over a large
part of Germany to Poland In order
that Poland might be compensated
for territory desired by Russia, thus
agreeing, In effect, to territorial
changes contrary to the wishes of
the peoples concerned, In violation
of the second clause of the Atlantic
Charter. We actually withdrew our
troops from territory we occupied
In battle In Germany, occupied by
us partly because the Russians were
so busy seizing all of southeastern
Europe except Greece.
Results Seen In Occupation.
The results of the New Deal pol
icy are seen today in the occupation
by Russia of large sections of Baltic,
German and Polish territory,' and
their effective domination by force
of Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ro
mania, Yugoslavia, and large sec
tions of Manchuria. Of course, it
has made it infinitely more difficult
to build a world state on a founda
tion of free nations when so large
a section of the world is governed
by a foreign oppressor. Any world
state must be based to a consider
able extent on a maintenance of
the status quo if war is to be
avoided. If that status quo contains
fundamental injustices and oppres
sions the task of the new organi
zation is almost impossible, it is
contradictory to talk about the Se
curity Council preventing aggres
sion when aggression on a major
scale has already occurred.
Our dealings with Germany have
been equally a repudiation of our
ideals and of the Atlantic Charter.
I think it is fair to say that our
policy has been dominated pri
marily by vengeance and a desire
to punish for the policies which
caused the war. That is a very
natural feeling which has tended
to dominate every nation successful
in a major war, but it has never
produced any good result. We had
in this country after the civil war
the most striking example of its
futility and its tragedy.
Adopted Morgenthau Plan.
In effect, we adopted the Morgen
thau Plan. It was suggested in the
Yalta Conference, but it was for all
practical purposes approved at Pots
dam by President Truman in the
text released on August 2, 1945.
The policy of the occupation was
designed expressly to convince the
German people of their criminal re
sponsibility and to reduce them to
a level of subsistence only. Pro
duction of all important manufac
tured goods was to be prohibited or
limited, with the exception of coal.
Payments of reparations in kind was
to leave enough to enable the Ger
mans simply to exiist without exter
nal assistance. Millions of Germans
were to be deported from Eastern
Germany and thrown into the rest
of Germany to feed and support.
Germans were to be educated in de
mocracy and taught to abhor Hit
ler—a good idea if it could be done.
The policy at Potsdam was carried
out by a directive issued to the Com
mander in Chief of Occupation in
April, 1945, known as JCS 1067.
Thereafter, in spite of constant dis
avowal that we were enforcing the
Morgenthau Plan, this directive,
which was in effect the same thing
remained in force until this year.
It finally came to an end on July 15,
1947.
This policy was a repudiation of
the Atlantic Charter promise that
all nations, including vanquished
nations, should have equal treatment
from an economic standpoint. It
was also utterly futile unless we were
going to govern Germany forever.
That always was impossible. Ten
years from now the Germans are
bound to be governing themselves
even though foreign troops remain
to prevent rearmament. If the de
struction suffered by Germany in
the war was not enough to discredit
Naziism, certainly it would not be
more discredited by harsh treatment
for a few years by armies of occu
pation.
Opposite Result Seen.
In fact, attempted education by
foreign invaders is more likely to
produce the very opposite results
from that which is sought. The
policy extreme de-nazification down
to the smallest units can have no
possible effects once we have left
Germany, and in the meantime de
prives the nation of the services of
nearly all Germans trained in gov
ernment in those routine activities
of local organization, so necessary
to economic recovery.
The result has been to keep the
German people so short of food that
many of them believe that starva
tion is our deliberate intention. It
has been to deter all economic re
covery so that it costs us six hun
dred million dollars a year simply
to bring the German diet up to a
I remember several years ago In a
committee hearing, I asked Mr.
Morgenthau how he thought Europe
could be prosperous if a nation of
eighty million in the midst of Europe
was reduced to an agricultural
subsistence. His answer was that
other countries around about Ger
many would quickly develop the
necessary industries. I expressed
doubt, but he was convinced. Of
course he was utterly unrealistic.
Not only has the policy deprived
the rest of Europe of many products
which could be manufactured in
Germany, but it has deprived them
of a market for their own exports.
It has, thus, completely upset the
economy of Europe and now we are
called upon for taxes from our tax
payers to remedy the breakdown.
Only One Way of Control.
There is only one way in which
Germany can be effectively con
trolled. That is to control the pro
duction of a limited number of es
sential products. The Vandenberg
Plan proposes that we remain in
Germany indefinitely, but only to
prevent re-armament. If that is
the ultimate practical plan—and I
believe it is—there is no reason why
it should not have been adopted
from the beginning of the occupa
tion and German recovery pro
moted, so that its people might move
towards the equal economic condi
tions promised by the Atlantic
Charter.
The result of our whole policy,
fnyfViarmAva Via* Uaam
the reputation which we had ac
quired in the world for justice and
fair dealing. Until this war the
United States had been looked upon
in Europe as a disinterested party.
But today we are regarded as • n
other imperialistic nation acting in
our own selfish interest. A recent
poll shows that one-third of the
British and a larger percentage of
the French believe that America
desires to dominate the world.
We have failed to keep our prom
ises to many people yearning to be
free. We have failed to keep our
promises to the world regarding
Germany.
Attitude of Expediency.
I do not see how we can hope to
secure permanent peace in the
world except by establishing law
between nations and equal Justice
under law. It may be a long, hard
course, but I believe that the public
opinion of the world can be led
along that course, so that the time
will come when that public opinion
will support the decision of any rea
sonable Impartial tribunal based on
Justice. Our general attitude has
been one of policy and expediency
instead of law and fair dealing.
Again I believe this attitude derives
from the domestic policy of recent
years which has proposed to turn
over all discretion to deal with any
Men's All-Wool
2-Pants
Hard-Finished
WORSTED
SUITS
906-908 7th St. N.W.
serious problem to administrative
boards unrestrained by definite stat
utes and unrestrained by court re
view. THat domestic policy derided
a government of law. and glorified
a government of men unrestrained
by law or Justice to individuals.
I believe our most creditable ef
forts have been that of establishing
the United Nations, and the new
inter-American treaty. There we
have made a serious attempt to
keep our promises. There we have
created a forum in which the prob
lems of the world likely to lead to
war can be discussed and brought
out into the open, and at least par
tially solved. 'Hie inter-American
treaty, credit for which must go to
Secretary Marshall and Senator
Vendenberg, offers even more hope
of future peace. It sets an example
which may ultimately be extended
to the entire world.
Even in the United Nations Char
ter, however, and particularly in its
first draft, we forgot about Justice
and turned to force as the basis of
peace. All of the emphasis is on
the powers of the Security Council
to police the world. The Charter
is not based primarily on a system
of law or the administration of Jus
tice. Its plan is like one of setting
up vigilantes to punish crime with
out a criminal code. The Security
Council is required to make such
decisions in its final use of force
as will maintain peace and security,
without any express reference to
illcfIfiO Of ooliven IVwt » - i.
" ---- -1 »«v WAV UUb
synonymous.
Security Council Theory.
In theory, the Security Council,
acting in full compliance with the
Charter, could take territory from
one nation to which it Justly be
longed and give it to another be
cause it felt that such action would
produce peace. Thus, Mr. Cham
berlain agreed to the transfer of
Sudetenland to Germany. In theory
the Security Council might find that
the destruction of an entire nation
would tend to a more peaceful
world. Poland, for instance, has al
ways been a bone of contention be
tween other nations. By substitut
ing the maintenance of peace and
security by force for law and jus
tice, we authorized the basing of de
cisions on expediency, and for ex
pediency there are no rules which
cannot be changed to fit the facts
of the particular case.
It is astonishing that the original
draft of the Charter at Dumbarton
Oaks contained practically no ref
erence to justice whatsoever.
Through Senator Vandenberg’s
strenuous efforts, numerous refer
ences to justice were inserted in the
final draft, but I do not believe that
they extend to the Security Council
in its use of force. The new em
phasis on Justice will certainly Jus
tify us in using our veto power
whenever we think it necessary to
prevent unjust decisions. By that
uvuiec x ueueve we can develop a
practice In accord with Ideas of
law and justice.
In the long run, however, peace In
this world can only be affected by
a law agreed to by all nations, a
court to interpret that law, and a
police force to enforce the law. Un
til that occurs it is hard to see how
we can surrender our veto except
in limited fields covered by very
specific definitions. Yet, as long as
the great nations retain their veto
power the Security Council cannot
prevent a major war.
Dealings In Economics.
The dealings of the administra
tion in the foreign economic field
have certainly not tended to pro
duce world stability. We hastened
into a theoretical plan for an Inter
national fund and an International
Bank costing us *6,000,000,000.
We were asured It would bring eco
nomic stability to the world. Even
assuming its principles were sound,
which I have always questioned, It
was a complete waste of funds to
set it up before we had created a
world in which it could effectively
operate.
Subsequently we found that the
Bretton Woods agreement did noth
ing whatever to meet the real crisis
in Europe, and contrary to the as
surances of the Treasury at the time
we were considering Bretton Woods,
we had to make a direct loan to
Great Britain. Now we see that that
loan failed largely of Its purpose.
In the Bretton Woods agreement,
we forced the British Empire to
agree to give up various established
trade relations which they consid
ered essential for their own eco
nomic life. No doubt our planners
thought we were benefltting the
world, but the British feel we were
forcing them to buy American prod
ucts they did pot desire.
In the British loan agreement, we
insisted upon sterling being made
convertible into dollars. It proved
to be the last blow to the British
economy. We have created the im
pression that we are desirous of
forcing American economic control
over the entire world and particu
larly imposing on all nations the
Hull-Clayton theory of free trade. I
don’t think the charges are remotely
justified, but they come about from
an Itching desire on the part of the
administration to tell the rest of the
world how It shall run Its affairs.
Dominated by “Mr. Fixit.”
As I see It the administration was
dominated by the “Mr. Flxlt” phil
osophy,of the New Deal. Just as the
New Dealers wanted to run the lives
of all citizens and Improve them
whether they wished to be Improved
or not, so have they tried to use
our financial resources to force on
the rest of the world the manner
In which they shall conduct their
foreign exchange, their foreign
trade, and even their currency and
other domestic affairs. No doubt we
have acted In good faith In sup
porting an international control of
international trade, but to Europe
it looks like an American control
trying to boss their affairs.
I maintain, therefore, that out
side the actual conduct of the war,
we could not have made a worse
mess of our foreign policy than we
did. The only bright spots are
Gen. MacArthur’s conduct of the
occupation of Japan and the estab
lishment of the United Nations, and
the recent agreement signed at Rio.
True, Senator Vandenberg and the
bi-partisan policy finally reversed
our whole attitude toward Russia to
one of firmness, and was responsible
jor reversing our policy In Germany.
But even In these restricted fields
the bi-partlsan foreign policy was
up against handicaps previously im
posed, which have, up to now, pre
vented any solution of those prob
lems.
It may be asked, what is the Re
publican foreign policy? I have
said that under a Democratic Presi
dent its keystone is co-operation
I have tried to point out that foreign
policy should not be partisan. Of
course, when we reach the time
of the presidential election, it will
be incumbent on the Republican
Party to state the manner In which
it will conduct the country's foreign
policy, but in the meantime I see no
reason why it should do more than
declare certain general principles,
and oppose measures which It con
siders completely dangerous to the
welfare of the country. Even when
a Republican President Is elected
we must recognize that there is
no panacea to solve the present
confusion from past error.
Guiding Principle,
But certain general principles can
be stated which have succeeded in
the past. My own belief is that the
guiding principle of any foreign
policy should be the maintenance
of peace so long as conditions do
not threaten the freedom of the
people of the United States. In
my opinion that has not been the
guiding principle of our foreign pol
icy In the last 15 years. Short of
the loss of freedom, war is the
greatest destroyer of all ideals.
This was has cost us 300,000 lives,
hundreds of thousands of perma
nently disabled, and the happiness
of many families. It has cost us
$250,000,000,000 of debt. It has im
posed upon us a current financial
budget for interest, veterans, armed
forces and foreign aid so heavy as
to threaten the successful continu
ation of a system of free enter
prise. It has brought destruction to
many parts of the world.
In the end that destruction must.
injure us also. Successful though
we were in all the military phases
of the war. we face a condition
in the world today not much less
threatening than existed in 1940.
Evep the nation that wins a war,
loses the war. That nation must
abandon at least temporarily the
very freedoms for which the war
is fought; and once abandoned we
have found that those freedoms
are not easy to recover.
Emphasis On Justice.
I believe our foreign policy should
be built around the United Nations,
changing the whole emphasis of the
organization to the establishment
of law and equal justice under law.
Only then could we consider the
abandonment of the veto power.
I do not see how we can abandon
our own veto power, and thereby
give a majority of the Security
Council the right over our objection
to carry through an unjust attack
on the United States or any other
nation. There must first be a
law written and agreed to by all
dealing with the subject on which
the veto is waived. That is not
impossible. A beginning has been
made to writing a definition of
aggression at Rio de Janeiro. The
American Legion has proposed a
number of amendments to the
Charter moving in the direction
1 have indicated.
Of course, we face a situation in
the present Russian attitude which
makes progress along this line diffi
cult. If it becomes imppossible, if
Russia in effect withdraws from any
real participation in effective action
by the United Nations, I believe we
should proceed without Russia to
perfect a United Nations which will
operate in a limited field. We have
perfected such an organization with
the Latin American nations, which
may serve as an example to the
rest of the world. But I am hope
ful that in time there may be
enough agreement with Russia to
permit effective operation of the
present United Nations in many
fields. I have not believed that
Russia intends, or desires, a con
quest by(force of arms of additional
territory' to that occupied during
the war. I have not felt—for the
present at least—that Russia desires
a fighting war, or would give serious
consideration to it. I do feel that
Russia desires to make communism
the accepted form of government,
both in occupied territories and
throughout the world. I do not
believe we should yield to Russia
In any way in its plan for spreading
the Communist philosophy.
Form of Aggression.
In communism we face a curious
form of aggression. But outside the
power of the Russian army limited
to Europe and Apia, it is the battle
of ideologies, we cannot fight the
ideology of communism with sol
diers. War in itself creates a con
dition favdrable to totalitarian gov
ernment, and therefore to commun
ism.
In general, the battle must be
fought out in each country by the
people of that country. Undoubted
ly the conditions are more favorable
for communism in countries having
severe economic hardship, and so In
that field we can be helpful with
loans and other assistance. But let
us not overestimate the power of
our money. Certainly, our money
cannot rule the peoples of the world.
I was willing to try a large-scale
use of money in Greece to maintain
the status quo during the Deace
negotiations, but we might as well
recognize that the Greek type of
experiment is impossible in Italy
and France because of the tremen
dous scale on which money would
have to be poured in. It might well
produce more hostility to the United
States, and more arguments for the
Communists.
But one thing is certainly clear.
We should meet communism first
here in the United States, bring it
out into the open and eliminate
its influence. If we can’t njeet
it successfully at home, how can we
hope to meet it in Europe? Our
leaders should speak out in behalf
of the American system and get
away from the inferiority complex
about it we have seen in recent
years. The New Dealers really at
tacked .the basic philosophy of
American government, its belief in
individual and local freedom, in
competition and in reward for in
centive. They echoed the arguments
of Moscow against it, and wanted
to move our system well over to
wards that of Russia. The time
has come for leaders of all our par
ties to point out the merits of the
American system, and the principles
behind it.
Should Reverse Potsdam Plan.
In Germany, we should speed up
the present tendency to reverse the
Potsdam plan. We should help the
Germans develop an economic sys
tem which will support them with
out assistance from this country.
We should work out at once, and
announce, the limitation and nature
of the controls required to prevent
the development of another war ma
chine. We should also work out the
amount of coal and other current
production which can properly be
required in the nature of repara
tions. Within those controls and
requirements, the Germans should
be allowed to develop their own
economy regardless of competition
with other nations, and with the
same freedom of access to raw ma
terials which the other nations have.
In Japan we should proceed to
--* wjJAUiJ Ou puooiuic
and with controls to insure against
the development of armament, a
much more simple matter in the
case of Japan than Germany. We
should permit Japan to support it
self like any other nation.
We might as well face the fact
also that if we are going to keep
any nation, at a lower standard of
living than the rest of the world,
it will soon learn to produce more
cheaply than other nations arid
compete with us throughout the
world. We might well return to the
principles of the Atlantic Charter
and recognize that our policies
should be directed as far as prac
ticable toward raising the standard
of living of every nation, including
the conquered countries.
The Marshall Proposal.
In the economic field, we have
had proposed to us the so-called
Marshall plan, which is not really
a plan at all, but only a combina
tion of suggestions. The first sug
gestion is that European nations
try to help each other before ask
ing the United States for help. That
certainly is a reasonable proposal,
but we have heard little of any
effective proposals to that end from
the conference in Paris. If such
self-help can be worked out by a
customs union, it should rebound to
the development in each country of
that production to which it is best
suited. I still hope that we can
reach an agreement with Russia
regarding a unified Germany. If
that is not done, then the rest of
Germany outside the Russian zone
should certainly be integrated into
the economy of Western Europe..
When it comes to our part in the
Marshall plan, however, there are
certain principles which must gov
ern its application. We cannot af
ford to go on lending money on a
global scale. These loans in all
Enjoy the smarter appearance and added comfort of
Kassan-Stein's tailored-to-measure formal clothes. Take
advantage of these savings now . . . and- have your K
tuxedo, full dress or cutaway when the fall social season ntr
opens. This is a one-day event—Saturday only.
Reductions, Also, on Men’s ond Women’s Custom Tailored Suits
and Coats ,
510 ELEVENTH STREET N.W.
0 1
human probability will never be
repaid. They are gifts to other
countries of our labor, anti our nat
ural resources, of which we have
none too great a supply. They are
paid for by heavy taxes on American
production and American workers.
I have always felt that we should
help the nations whose economy was
destroyed by war to get on their feet.
We should give them the machinery
and the raw materials necessary to
set the wheels going. We have to
continue to ship food to prevent
starvation, and some additional
food to tide them over at a reason
able standard of living, until the
machinery does move. But I believe
our loans should be made to specific
countries for specific purposes and
rnily to pay for goods shipped from
the United States.
An International WPA.
This year we have In our budget
some four billion dollars to finance
foreign shipments. I would hope
that our annual contribution might
be gradually less until it Is entirely
eliminated in a period of about four
years. In the meantime, the Inter
national Bank is In operation with
resources of eight bililon dollars or
more and can be of further assist
ance, such assistance Incidentally
coming almost entirely from the
United States.
In the long run, no nation can
u,t wumy oi anotner nation
It can only permanently enjoy a
standard of living produced by its
own earnings or reasonable hope of
future development. I think we
overestimate the accomplishments
to be secured by a few dollars from
outside compared to the inter
national organization and manage
ment of any nation by its own
leaders. Certainly we wish to help
but an international WPA would
fall to solve the problem of world
work Just as it failed to solve un
employment in the United States.
I do not believe that America can
save the world with money. We
can only help the world to save
itself if it wishes to be saved and
makes its own utmost effort.
Of course, in this intermediate
period, we must maintain a strong
Army and Navy, and while the Rus
sian attitude remains what It is, we
had better retain the atomic bomb.
I do not sympathize with those who
say that our Army and Navy have
fallen to pieces. They are still the
most powerful in the world, unless
we want to fight the Russian mil
lions in their own back yard. If we
can’t maintain adequate armed
forces with an expenditure of ten
and a half billion dollars a year,
then we must have a very inefficient
management of the Army and Navy.
We know that is not so. We want
the most expert army the world has
ever seen to meet the contingencies
of modern warfare. We want the
• «
best research for military purposes,
and we want the best organised in
telligence service. This Congress ha*
already unified the armed service*
and has provided a system of pro
motion in the Army and an intelli
gence service which should tremen
dously improve the efficiency of our
defense.
Expression of Ideals.
In conclusion, our foreign policy
should be the expression of the in
terests and ideals of the American
people. It should express first our
determination to maintain peace if
at all possible. It should express a
determination to join with others in
opposing aggression by other nations
in order to preserve peace. It should
express our interest in an interna
tional organization to prevent ag
gression. It should not interfere
with the kind of government other
nations wish to have, nor with the
economic policy they wish to pursue
if it is reasonably fair to us.
The United States does not want
to be a busybody. We don’t want to
develop an era of American im
perialism. Somehow our people
don’t like to boss other people, just
as they don’t like to be bossed—and
so they are not good at the Job. We
can never make a success of im
ircuiuisiu Because we are not, im
perialists.
We must stand up for our system
of Individual and economic freedom,
and point out the dangers of a total
itarian world. If we can show that
this country can maintain freedom
and the highest standard of living
in the world under the American
system, it will not be many years
before the example set will be fol
lowed by every other nation.
3 U. S. Doctors Concerned
Over Reich Medical Setup
ly th» Associated Pratt
FRANKFURT, Sept. 26. —Three
officials of the American Medical
Association reported today they had
found United States Army medical
facilities in Germany “excellent,”
but they expressed concern about
the German medical situation.
Although they explained they had
not thoroughly studied German fa
cilities in their six-day tour, the
physicians said they had received
reports of a shortage of competent
German doctors and medical sup- '
plies.
They refused to comment on the
denazification program which bars
many young physicians from prac
tice because of Nazi affiliations.
However, Dr. Roscoe L. Sensenich
of South Bend, Ind., president-elect
of the AMA, observed that “this is
an example of how the medical
practice can suffer when involved
in politics.”
Our selection of finer \
flannel trousers is
especially complete now.
All are tailored in the
Saltz F Street manner
for comfortable fit
and very smart
appearance. \
t
*
.. ——
*" i
ibl* i
nlw I
"»> I