LATEST UPDATES
Publications; Correspondence and Clippings
Item
- Title
- Description
- Date
- extracted text
-
Publications; Correspondence and Clippings
-
box: 569
folder: 5
-
1954 to 1958
-
To
Walter Reuther
From
Don Montgomery
Subject
More
Dear
on
"New
wvnn
17 1954
Look"
Walter,
I have
important.
two
more
In the analysis
points
to
report
on
of the policy which
the
new
defense
policy
I mailed February
that
seem
15 I failed
to me
to note
This is that the formulation adopted
what is perhaps its most important feature.
by the Administration confirms and re-enforces what actually was implied in the
1952
Republican
campaign;
our becoming involved in
aggression, as in Korea.
namely,
any
that a political
further
limited
position has been taken
military
actions
Nixon re-affirmed this in his reply of March 13 to Adlai
|
Nixon said:
silent violin came to life by the way!)
against
against
localized
Stevenson.
(Adlai's
"We found that militarily their plan apparently was to
destroy us by drawing us into little wars all over the world
with their satellites, however, where they, themselves, were
not involved, and where, due to our inability to bring to
bear our great superiority on the sea and in the air that we
were unable to win those wars.
We found that economically their plan, apparently, was to
force the United States to stay armed to the teeth, to be
prepared to fight anywhere-~-anywhere in the world--that they,
Because they knew that
Why?
the men in the Kremlin chose.
this would force us into backruptcy; that we would destroy
our freedom in attempting to defend it.
“Well we decided that we would not fall into these traps.
And that new principle
And so we adopted a new principle.
summed up is this:
"Rather than let the Communists nibble us to death all
over the world in little wars we would rely in the future
primarily on our massive mobile retaliatory power which we
could use in our discretion against the major source of
aggression at times and places that we chose."
This political promise not to fight any more limited wars does more to
restrict our future action than does the plan to cut down on conventional arma(Hanson Baldwin told me when I saw him in New York four weeks ago that he
ment.
WPR
- more
on
on an
look
new
t
no
do
ey
th
e
nc
si
,
nt
me
ma
ar
al
on
ti
en
nv
co
in
ns
io
ct
du
re
e
th
t
ou
ab
d
me
ar
al
t
is not ye
l
ra
ne
Ge
at
th
r,
ve
we
ho
,
es
at
st
He
y.
pl
im
d
ul
wo
ts
en
em
at
st
ic
bl
pu
e
th
as
go as far
g
in
be
e
ar
vy
Na
d
an
my
Ar
e
th
at
th
d
be
ur
st
di
y
el
er
nc
si
e
ar
ey
rn
Ca
l
ra
mi
Ad
d
an
y
Ridgwa
san
tr
p
oo
tr
r
fo
al
go
d
ce
du
re
e
th
er
ov
d
me
ar
al
is
n
wi
ld
Ba
,
he
at
th
d
cut too far an
port wings.)
As I said in the February
the
15 report,
is that we will meet future
result
taking the risk of
the same at Miami:
d
an
e
ar
rf
wa
ic
om
at
ng
ti
ia
it
in
by
er
th
ei
id
sa
n
so
en
ev
St
.
ss
pa
it
g
in
tt
le
or
I
II
limited aggressions
launching World War
"All
another
try
nists
means,
this
if
it means
Korea we will
anything,
retaliate
that
the
if
by dropping
Comm-
atom
se
el
or
-se
oo
ch
we
er
ev
er
wh
or
g
in
ip
or Pe
ly
ab
um
es
pr
nd
-a
are
Ko
r
he
ot
an
of
the loss
after that-~-as "normal" in the course of
bombs on Moscow
we will concede
other countries
events.
~
as
"m
of
cy
li
po
a
on
y
el
iv
us
cl
ex
ed
li
re
d
What if we ha
d
ul
Wo
?
II
r
Wa
d
rl
Wo
of
e
os
cl
e
th
sive retaliation" since
e
th
et
me
to
r
de
or
in
r
wa
ic
om
at
al
ob
to gl
we have resorted
e
th
r
te
un
co
To
?
ey
rk
Tu
d
an
ce
Communist threat in Gree
a?
re
Ko
in
on
si
es
gr
ag
st
si
re
To
?
Berlin blockade
on
si
ci
de
is
th
es
do
,
ce
oi
ch
of
m
do
ee
fr
r
te
"Instead of grea
ce
oi
ch
r
ou
ow
rr
na
ly
al
re
s
on
ap
we
ic
om
at
to rely primarily on
we
e
Ar
n?
io
at
li
ta
re
of
es
ac
pl
e
th
d
as to the means an
mo
er
th
a
or
on
ti
ac
in
of
ce
oi
ch
im
gr
e
leaving ourselves th
d
an
ow
sc
Mo
ng
ti
vi
in
,
ed
de
in
,
we
e
Ar
nuclear holocaust?
Peiping to nibble us to death?
we
“This is the real danger.
turn brush fires and local
Will
our
go along?
allies
This is the
hostilities
real
into
Will
problem.
major conflicts?
ce
an
ct
lu
re
r
ou
on
up
g
in
ly
re
d
an
r,
wa
of
t
"Using weapons shor
t
mp
te
at
ll
wi
m
is
al
ri
pe
im
t
is
un
mm
to embark on global war, the Co
©
,
us
nd
ou
ar
ng
ri
the
e
os
cl
to
y,
tr
un
co
r
to absorb country afte
re
fo
be
ng
lo
m
do
ee
fr
d
an
y
nn
ra
ty
n
ee
tw
be
e
and to decide the issu
a final outburst of atomic fury."
Eisenhower's
of March 10 said:
reply
to
a question
along
this
line
at
his
press
conference
of
t
en
em
lv
vo
in
no
be
to
g
in
go
is
e
er
Th
A, "I will say this:
al
on
ti
tu
ti
ns
Co
the
of
lt
su
re
a
is
it
America in war unless
t
le
w,
No
.
it
e
ar
cl
de
to
ss
re
ng
Co
on
process that is placed up
."
er
sw
an
e
th
is
at
th
d
an
r,
ea
cl
at
th
us have
This
is
the
second
point
I want
to
report,
If
Eisenhower
means
what
he
says,
WPR- more
oo Jon
on. new look
military action in 5 of our 10 wars started on Executive action later backed up
by a Congressional declaration of war.
He notes also that the North Atlantic
Treaty virtually commits us to armed action if any of the parties to that treaty
is attacked.
He concludes that Eisenhower simply doesn't mean what he says.
I'm glad Stevenson raised the questions he did.
better done some other time and place than as part of
Democratic Party rally.
But it might have
a political speech
been
at a
Regards,
ro
IM:ds
testimony
This morning's papers report Ridgway's
PS:
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee:
~
xe HH
'"tIn the
templated
longerange
Ridgway
General
view,*
of yesterday
that the execution of (the army's)
3/16/54
before
con-
is
‘it
said,
the
miSSions may be
modified by complementary means being developed within the miliIn the development of these new means we
tary establishment.
must not, however, lose sight of the Army's missions and commitments of today, which must properly be met if our military
posture is to be maintained.'
"Senator Maybank asked the
fied,' with the reduction.
"tT
am not
perfectly
satisfied,'
Senator
saying:
"Was he 'satisfied,' the
clined to answer directly,
sound one.'
if he
general
General
‘perfectly
was
satis-
replied.
Ridgway
The general
persisted.
'I accept this decision
deas a
"The Army Chief explained that when a career officer received
a decision from higher authority ‘he accepts the decision as a
sound one and does his utmost to carry it out.’
"He had
‘no doubt
us with,'
accepted the 1955 military budget as sound
the Army will be able to solve the problem
General Ridgway said.
"When Senator
attitude within
budget,
putting
Ferguson
the
such
"tYes
%
2%
Maybank raised the question of General Ridgway's
the Joint Chiefs toward the adoption of the new
General
sir,'
HH HF
said
a question
whether
"'Because
and he had
it confronts
he
it might
the
he
at a public
could
be
Army
wanted to
reply
hearing.
later
embarrassing?!
Chief
challenge
replied."
at
the
propriety
He asked
a closed
Senator
Senator
session.
Maybank
asked.
of
gine:
280-mm.
Army's
The
A
cannon—“Mobile
atomic
”
ion.
liat
reta
e
esal
whol
of
ats
thre
than
on
essi
aggr
halt
to
more
do
will
units using tactical atomic weapons
defense
e
Plea for Another
The Dulles doctrine of ‘instant retaliation’
questions, says Mr. Bowles, which call for
who
Bowles,
Mr.
article
this
In
served as Ambassador to India and as
Governor of Connecticut,
Democratic
sets out a series of questions about the
policy of “instant retaliation.” A_reply
to Mr. Bowles will _appear_in a subsequent issue.
By
Some
CHESTER
BOWLES
O list the Great Debates over our
foreign policy since World War
|
II is to cal] the roll of the historic steps America has taken to accept
the world responsibilities thrust upon
her. The Truman Doctrine, the Marshall
the
Plan,
dispatch
to
refusal
the
North
of troops
the
expand
Treaty,
Atlantic
to
Europe,
war
in
the
Korea
—all these were basic decisions and all
were made after basic debate.
Sometimes the debates were marked
by shrill partisanship. But differing
points of view were heard, and the esand
asked
were
questions
sential
The debates, some feared,
answered.
would split the American people. In-.
the
stead,
and
new
We
We
might
was
result
determination.
new
agreement
need another Great Debate.
need to debate the doctrine—it
be labeled the doctrine of “in-
set out first in a
stant retaliation”
speech made in New York last Jan. 12
by Secretary of State John - Foster
Dulles before the Council on Foreign
In his address Mr. Dulles
Relations.
outlined
clearly
FEBRUARY
the
28, 1954
“new
look”
of our
Great Debate
raises grave foreign-policy
further clarification.
world strategy. And in doing so he re-
ferent kind of support for local resist-
vealed what appears to be a far-reaching shift in our foreign policy.
report
Dulles’
Mr.
reading
On
ance to local aggressions.
But in other parts of his speech—
parts upon which he lays very heavy
hearings, Congressional
of committee
contropublic
heated
and
speeches,
abandonment
I braced myself
round
for the familiar
Curiously, although there has
versy.
been increasing discussion, the kind of
nation-wide debate this issue deserves
has been slow in starting. This, to my
mind, is disturbing. For there are questions, crucial] questions, to be raised.
My purpose is to clarify, not to cavil.
If the questions I present here help to
define some of the grave and complex
issues which our foreign policy-makers
face, and encourage them to spell out
their own
views
their
served
/
T=
further,
purpose.
2s
they will have
&
first question,
it seems to me,
stress—he seems to propose the virtual
of
local-resistance,
the
limited-war concept. He emphasizes the
retaliatory
massive’
of
“deterrent
strategy
and says our new
power”
places
“more
deterrent
on
reliance
power and less dependence on local defensive power.” Formerly, he says, “we
needed to be ready to fight.in the Arctic and
in the tropics,
in Asia, the Near
East and in Europe; by sea, by land
and by air, with old weapons and with
This is now said to
new weapons.”
be changed by a new “basic decision”—
“to depend primarily upon a great capacity to retaliate, instantly, by means
and at places of our own choosing.”
The
always
term
been
“instant
associated
retaliation”
with
has
strategic.
does Mr. Dulles
what y
precisel
mis
atomic bombing. Retaliation at “places
deal
beyond the area of aggression, for that
The
area is chosen by the enemy.
mean?
Some
passages
of
his
speech
with the development of a concentrated
military striking force, a highly mobile
reserve,
armed,
presumably,
with
tac-
These sections
tical atomic weapons.
seem to suggest the freer use of our
ground, naval:and tactical air forces
threatened
at
aggression
meet
to
points. Wars would still be “limited.”
These parts of the speech involve no
real
They
departure
simply
the
from
provide
a
old
policy.
somewhat
dif-
of
our
places
own
we
choosing”
implies
chose if they
are
places
to pro-
vide the most suitable A-bomb targets,
are likely to have highly concentrated
populations. And since it makes little
sense to bomb Warsaw or Budapest in
retaliation for an attack on, say, Burma or Iran, they are likely to be cities
in China or Russia.
All told,
the Administration
seems
to
be saying that in dealing with future
armed Soviet or Chinese aggression in-
territory
non-Communist
to
anywhere
in the world, it proposes to rely chiefly
upon atomic attack by the Strategic
Air Force against the major cities in
This interpretaCommunist countries.
off-the-record
by
is supported
tion
statements of high Government sources
that “this is the most important speech
‘that
Mr.
Dulles
has
ever_likely to make.”
ever
made
or
is
F this, then, is the new policy, what.
“YSIS chances of success—tirs!
couraging aggression, and, second, in
repelling
aggression
if it should
break
Will it, as Mr. Dulles maintains,
out?
give us “more security at less cost’?
First, it should be said that in West-
ern Europe such a policy is neither new
From the time of our
nor untested.
peli-mell demobilization at the end of
World War II until the NATO build-up
in 1950, the greatest military deterrent
to a Red Army move into the vacuum
between the Elbe and the Atlantic was
our
ability
to
destroy
Russian
cities
through our monopoly of the atomic
bomb.
Russia undoubtedly knows that we
would consider an attack on Europe as
an attack on ourselves; and that in. response to such an attack we would use
the atomic bomb against her, even
though the ensuing general war would
probably involve widespread atomic destruction in our own
country.
But
would America be willing
these same (Continued on
to accept
Page 24)
Plea For
A
New
Debate
(Continued from Page 11)
terrible risks to meet
local
aggressions in Asia—say, in
Afghanistan, Burma, Iran or
Indo-China? Our deep-felt re-
action to the war in Korea and
to the bare prospect of an even
Safe... Seaworthy ...Seakindly
more
limited
. ence
fundamental
between
mitments
of
all!
beautiful
outboard.
25 mph.
Inboard
buy
“Speed
From
oe
or
Fes
to
aa
$990.
amma
Ready
soon!
Comfortable
‘living for 6. Two staterooms,
shower,
cabin.
airy
Speeds
picture-window
32
to
in
Indo-China
seems
to
say
clearly that we would not.
Ohta
Most
involvement
mph.
American
differcom-
in Europe and Asia
is almost certainly apparent to
the Russians and to the Chinese. If we place our principle reliance in Asia upon a
method
of retaliation which
carries what are probably unacceptable risks, and at the
same time reduce our capacity
for
more
limited,
local
responses,
as
the
new
policy
seems to do, will we not in fact
invite, rather than deter, local
aggression in Asia?
_ House Speaker Martin, left, and Senator Ferguson leave last week's Congreswould mean anything but a
lengthy, sprawling, indecisive
conflict in which China’s main
asset,
manpower,
aggression, we do prove ready '« \. And is there not a broader
sible general war, does not the
new policy tempt the Communists to miscalculate our readiness?
And if, on the other
hand, the Communists calculate that we will not risk general
war
over
some
small
Asian
Speeds
to
42
succeed
~
|
mph.
AA’
ti
i
Luxurious living afloat,
spacious
interiors,
long-life
construction.
Incomparably
beautiful.
aggression,
in
cities,
as
calling
our
of
Russian
cities,
the
next
the
step,
that
Chinese
of
with
some atomic bombs and bombers for retaliation on us. How
beautifully
vulnerable is vast, decentralized China to our atomic at-
styled express. Foam
rubber
berths.
Sleeps
6.
Modern
galley.
tack?
Cece.
or
5-staterocom motor yacht
promenade
deck
express.
Accommodates
Flagship
of
se-
dan for finest family
comfort
and
safety.
Sleeps
6.
a 70-341
’round the
Send for FREE booklet:
FUN—F ACTS—FIGURES
OWENS YACHT CO.
24
they do
would result in the outbreak
of world war III.
But suppose, for some
reason,
that
after an American retaliatory
attack on Chinese cities, Moscow decided to ignore its commitments
under
the SovietChinese alliance and held its
fire. Suppose it did not even
supplying
Two-stateroom
once
and
bluff, does not much of any
deterrent value of the policy
disappear overnight ?
These questions assume that
American
strategic
atomic
yombing
of
major Chinese
take
Fast,
2221
Stansbury
Rd., Baltimore
22, Md.
9
any
to
10.
fleet!
The
oc-
“cup
y
mos
t
of
-~
cont
inental] Asia.
ch
su
of
t
en
ev
e
th
in
if,
n
Eve
for atomic retaliation and pos- “issue,
All - mahogany express<- a2 symphony
in
motion!
Excellent
seaworthiness.
might
other hand, that the common |
action itself does not increase
the possibility of the threat’s
becoming a reality. Even these
convictions, however, are not
completely compelling. ~They
have
not,
for example,
dispelled the ancient antagonisms
indeed
a
moral issue,
implicit in this
“fiew policy, ‘which in all conscience we should resolve with
our eyes open? We are a religious people, who believe that
man is sacred to God. We pride
ourselves on our democratic
faith in the ultimate worth of
the individual. It is these beliefs that distinguish our way
of life from that of the Communists.
Yet,
if we
millions
of
threaten
the Soviet
Union, has no major industrial
concentrations. The entire steel
production of Manchuria is no
more than one-half that of the
new United States Steel plant
on the Delaware. The Chinese
economy
is
not
dependent
upon highly articulated transportation and communications
networks. Chinese armies are
mobile, schooled in guerrilla
warfare and in survival off
the
land,
and they
operate
without the elaborate supply
and
support
formations
of
Western armies.
Against China we could not
limit ourselves to the use of
sea and air power, which we
employed
so _ effectively
in
World War II in defeating integrated, industrial nations—
Japan and Germany. We cannot
hope
that
the
atomic
devastation of Chinese cities
between France and Germany.
Will the new policy make our
European friends more or less
eager to be associated with
us?
We may be willing to accept
the all-or-nothing risk of a
third world
war. which
the
policy of atomic
retaliation
entails,
But our war-weary
European
allies, only a few
hundred
miles
from
Soviet
bases, would suffer even more
grievously than we from atomic counter-attack.
Suspicion
to bomb
China’s cities, we would seem
to be proposing to wipe out
Chinese
men,
wo-
men and children, huddled in
metropolises
which,
unlike
those of the Soviet Union, are
almost
devoid
of
that our new policy incurs unnecessary
world
dampen
legitimate
military or industrial targets.
Are we prepared to exact this
frightful toll of helpless people
in order to punish the rulers
who control them?
Communist propaganda has
already convinced hundreds of
millions
dropped
Japan
cauSe
of
the
and
we
Asians
atomic
not
that
bomb
Germany
considered
inferior people.
unlike
fu
olden
Communist
?
Pvcodcn
question
is:
What
fundamental
effect
will
ists. for.inter-
Mallonal atomic cankiole.
One of the most important
steps we have taken to create
confidence in our goals has
been to press wholeheartedly
be-
Asians
Would not the
and
«
Does his new,
‘with
imagination
for
workable international control
of atomic weapons under the
United Nations.
If we move toward almost
complete dependence on atom
bombs to keep the peace, we
may kill the dream of atomic
disarmament for which most
human
beings have yearned
since the Atomic Age began.
And for this we would bear
the full responsibility before
enemies?
policy fulfill the requirements
for
s
for Asia. What of
bloc.
enthusiasm
1
defense
we
on
Europe?
It is clear from his
sacoch that Mr. Dulles remains
convinced of the necessity of
maintaining the coalition of
European nations which now
range themselves against the
their
of a_ third
may — further
the essential task of European
atomic destruction of defenseless Chinese cities—-while Russian cities remained untouched
—turn all Asia into our bitter
anqd.unrelenting
war
risks
the. world.”
n | Still another
a
which
of this most delicate diplo-‘Y A
lieve sho
soberly
matic problem — keeping the “ considered concerns the basic
coalition intact and vigorous?
structure of our Government,
We have been successful so
nder
the Constitution, Con-
far in keeping the NATO alliance in moderately good working order only because each
nation is still convinced that
gress, and Congress alone, has
the power to declare war.
Of course, the President, as
Commander in Chief, has wide
the military power of commu-
nism poses a direct threat to
its own survival, and, on the
authority to deploy our armed
forces
‘them
THE
NEW
and
even
to
battle,
YORK
TIMES
to
and
commit
this
MAGAZINE
can
Communist
Iranian
the
by
the
from
orders
on
party
In Greece, Burma,
Kremlin.
Malaya, Indo-China, Indonesia,
the
in China
and
Philippines,
itself, the fighting has been
carried on by well-trained and
well-organized local troops or
guerrillas, often supplied with
by
Soviet arms and advised
Soviet experts.
These Communist onslaughts
have been successfully resisted
and defeated in every country
has
government
the
where
earned the allegiance of a clear
of its people. But
majority
where colonial power has persisted, as in Malaya and IndoChina, or where the opposition
to the Communists has been
led by men in whom the people
had ceased to believe, massive
Western military and economic
aid, and even the intervention
of Western troops, have not
|
yet proved decisive.
by: Secretary
sional briefing
Dulles.
create a situation in which
by
war
of
declaration
the
Con-
a_ formality.
becomes
gress
But while this has always been
a possibility, we have never
a policy which, in
turns the possibility
adopted
advance,
new
The
into a likelihood.
policy seems to me to come
perilously close to doing pre-
that.
cisely
invade,
troops
Chinese
a
say, Indo-China, will the Pres-
ident ask the consent of Congress before he launches a re-
attack
atomic
taliatory
China itself? If so, how
retaliation be “instant,”
will
run
not
he
the
on
can
and
risk- that,
while Congress deliberates, the
Russians will deliver their own
on
attacks
atomic
savage
Or, faced
cities?
‘American
with such a possibility, would
he launch the Strategic Air
Force bombers on his own au-
thority,
world
invite
or
start
and
giving
III without
war
to
an opportunity
Congress
exercise its constitutional authority?
Secretary of Defense Charles
-E. Wilson, at a recent Wash-
ington press conference, sdid,
“T wouldn’t think that would
*/
happen.” His words are reassuring, | but are they official?
Another
question:
In
con-
of the situation before
/ “be
almost exclusively in terms
:
one
of military power—and
at
power
of military
type
polic
that—does not the new
‘Seriou
range and scope
munist threa
of
NE
the
of
the
most
striking
things about the “cold war’
is
the
to
the
overt
fact
that
Communists
action
nowhere
resorted
have
Russian
by
armies. Indeed, only in Korea
been
attempt
has even the
made to change the boundary
line of the Iron Curtain by
means of external military ag-
. gression.
Instead, we have been confronted with a wide variety of
effective Soviet techniques. In
Iran, in 1946, the Russians.
lent their support to a rebellion in the northern provinces
which was clearly stimulated
FEBRUARY
28,
1954
cases,
other
i
Czechoslovakia,
in
Soviet
the
the
depended upon
has
Union
notably
subversive efwell-organized
Communist
local
of
forts
parties. In. France and Italy,
the Communist strategy calls
for a combination of subver-
destructive parliathe
Thus
tactics.
sion and
gentary
seeking
Kremlin,
dom-
world
a
used
always
has
ination,
highly flexible strategy.
does the new policy
How
deal with these most frequent
Communist threats, which do
not take the form of external
aggression ? z
Now, in addition to maintaining its great conventional
military power, stepping up its
output of guided missiles and
atom bombs, and pursuing a
of internal subverprogram
sion, Moscow seems to be movfields.
additional
into
ing
There is every evidence, for
instance, that Russia plans to
use her rapidly increasing production to launch an aggressive trade effort designed not
‘only
to
omy,
but
sions
did
to
in the
the
Soviet
create
econ-~
new
Western
the
development
of
‘morning mouth’
world
we ceased, for
hope and work
infor
dynamic,
independent nations in Asia,
willing to fight, not for us, but
for their own right to remain
free?
;
Two-thirds of Asia remains
uncommitted in the “cold war.”
We are right when we say
that the ‘“neutralist’” nations
are simply not facing the facts
of world communism.
But we
ourselves are not facing the
facts-of modern Asia when we
ignore the deeply rooted attitudes of anti-colonialism: and
Asian nationalism which motivate these 600,000,000 people.
products can mask the odor of “morning mouth”— for a while.
But Chlorodent Toothpaste really gets rid of it
Smart girls dont mask—
divi-
and to establish close ties with
the new governments in Asia.
There are even signs of a Russian Point IV program.
In
the face of Russia’s diversified
attack, can we afford to put
all our eggs into a single military basket--and
an atomic
basket at that?
Have
stance, to
Many
—they get tid of it with Chlorodent
Don't get us wrong, please.
None of us would really use a diver’s
helmet to mask ‘‘morning mouth,”’
would we?
Yet: we all know ‘ ‘morning mouth,”
that disagreeable taste that most of us
wake up with is a sure sign of objectionable mouth odor. And nobody wants to
offend others with it during the day.
The best way to get rid of “morning
mouth’is to use Chlorodent. There’s not
just a pinch of chlorophyll in this toothpaste, but enough
mouth” cold.
to
stop
“morning
Your own proof is that wonderful, clean
fresh feeling Chlorodent Toothpaste
leaves in your mouth!
But that’s not all. Chlorodent’s formula has a polishing agent that really
cleans and brightens your teeth. It’s so
different the U. S. Government issued us
a patent on it. Nobody else can use it.
Why not use Chlorodent at our risk?
We're so confident that you'll love the
wonderful, _clean, fresh feeling Chlorodent leaves in your mouth that we’ll
send you your money back if you don’t
find it passes your test. Fair enough?
Stop morning mouthenjoy that wonderful, clean, fresh
Chlorodent feeling!
What
about
Point
Four,
which received only half a sen-
tence
in
Mr.
(In his next
Dulles’
sentence
(Continued on Following
speech?
he
add-
Contains water-soluble
chiorophylins
Page)
25
(Continued from Preceding Page)
ed, “But broadly speaking, foreign budgetary aid is being
gives you more for your vacation.
limited to situations where it
clearly contributes to military
strength.’’)
It may
be said that
Mr.
Dulles’ speech dealt primarily
with military policy, and that
it did not presume to lay down
a foreign policy.
Why, then,
was it delivered by the Secretary of State and not by the
,
dollarto and through = Ji
Secretary
of
Defense?
And
why has it not been followed
up and amplified?
Finally, what of the pessimistic estimate of American
capacities on which the new
policy seems to be based? Mr.
Dulles has said we must bring
our commitments within limits
that we can sustain “over the
long haul.” This suggests that,
unconsciously
or not, we
have
started with a budget decision
and attempted to fit our for-
eign
A
wks
i
ANS
wat
s
%
WS
EUROPE
EXTRA CITinIES
at no additional fare . . .
How to visit 12 or more European cities
for the round trip fare to only one. See
London,
Paris,
Copenhagen
and
eight
other cities on a trip to Geneva, for
example, for just the Switzerland fare.
Your choice of 54 extra-city trips to
Europe and Near East. No fixed tours;
.
‘nr you may visit any or all of the extra
‘an cities, just as you wish and for as long
as you like. London and Paris included
‘ae'no added fare in all Continental trips.
trip by air, hotels and
meals, local travel and sightseeing all included in one low-cost ticket. Your choice
of Europe from Norway to Naples . . . for
DENMARK
ENGLAND
France
switzertanp
¢gpmany
HOLLAND
SCOTLAND
eto
Pe
the clock, with fjords and mountains, fabulous
food and hospitality. Visit all three Scandinavian
with
flight
to London,
Paris
and
six
other cities for just the Stockholm fare alone.
-.-
Europe’s best shopping is in lands that set pace
‘(, for modern design. Fly S-A-S to Stockholm
+/ and visit any or all of these cities at no addin~
tional fare...
z Be
3
«J
ae
po
5
es
3
Mageete
ES
Oe a
Ties
ee
’
ok
4
'
7
a
ae W
ys
;
.
ts <8
Be
¢
e
e
serves MORE CITIES
in EUROPE than any
transatlantic
ee
iy
MIRMIWES
638 Fifth Avenue, New
SYSTEM
York, New
Please send me items checked
i
a
York
2-28
[J
ee Cj
ee
i
a
26
airline
Pian with Your S-A-S Travel Agent.
He can give you these folders today or send coupon below.
Bes
world.
ee
If
a
broader.
more
fully
rounded
foreign
and
military
policy
would
really bankrupt
us-—in
the
sense
of
imposing
such 4
strain upon the economy
as
would lead to collapse—then,
of
course,
it’ would
be
unten-
able.
But it does not make sense
to talk about wrecking our
economy. when our steel mills
are running at
capacity, when
75 per cent of
We have agri-
surpluses
that
is increasing
seen,
we
our
and
by
$15
Extra-City:
Trips
Pennywise
Tours
Scandinavian
Trips
a foreign
and
mili-
tary policy far more broadly
conceived. than
that
which
Mr. Dulles now proposes. We
should not be talking of bankruptcy, even “over the long
haul,” in the face of hard facts
such as these.
=
GREAT
‘instant
*
*
DEBATE
on
retaliation’’
would serve not only to air the
issues raised above, but to produce something in the way of
positive
alternatives
to
the
new policy. This article is designed to raise questions and
to invite better questions. But
it may be
5
¥
LONDON
PARIS
BRUSSELS
AMSTERDAM
GOTHENBURG
OsLo
“STAVANGER
COPENHAGEN
MALMO
GLASGOW
EDINBURGH
-
e
1i¥%
od
Pe |
oe
ORT
eee
free
have
Skoal to a real vacation: With sunlight round
capitals,
the
able to afford: to underwrite
its own security and the continued existence of the ideas
by which it lives.
The Russians, with a gross
national income one-third our
own,
are supporting,
as we
with side trips to London-Paris
AX,
must agree that the strength
ang vitality of our American
economy is the kingpin of all
our plans for the defense of
billions annually.
The richest
nation in the world should be
SCANDINAVIA
<M)
thoughtful person
services
practically pennies. All trips and tours available year-round.
‘2
cuy
can’t dispose of, and when
ability to produce goods
BELGIUM
Six tours, for two or three-week vacations.
Fly S-A-S overnight to Scotland ... travel
by steamer, coach or train through Europe.
Wonderful hotels: little places around the
corner with real European atmosphere. Superb meals, in spots Europeans pick for
Round
to it.
cultural
to 11 countries
fine food.
LONDON
PARIS
COPENHAGEN
ZURICH
GENEVA
GLASGOW
EDINBURGH
STUTTGART
FRANKEURT
DUSSELDORF
/ COLOGNE
BREMEN
HAMBURG
FE
policy
useful
to
certain fundamentals
conduct of American
policy in this Atomic
suggest
for the
foreign
Age.
Any substantial reduction in
our burden of defense effort
and expenditure is dependent
upon the development of indigenous strength in the areas
of the globe which may
be
threatened by Communist aggression or subversion.
This
indigenous. strength can only
arise with the growth of truly
independent governments and
healthy, expanding economies.
Although we may hope that
such governments will support
our views, day-to-day agreement with us is far less impor-
success
their
than
tant
:
in
faith of
creating a dynamic
their own for which, if necesto
prepared
are
they
sary,
fight against all comers.
Bree
govern-
effective’
Stable,
re
ments will not mature everyDuring the
where overnight.
maturing period we carry an
extra responsibility which cannot be wished out of existence.
-
pec
atomic
ki
S
:
2a
=
tinuing function, it will be folly
that it. offers a
to assume
guarantee against Communist
aggression, much less subversion and internal revolutions,
in the tempting
vacuums
of
Asia.
When we announce to
the world that under no cir-
cumstances
will
we
retaliation
&
unlikely
to
world
which
are
eS
eh
3
the actions
negation
QUIPPED
na-
turn
=}
-
'
aie
aa
x
—
Sas
octal
i
a
Hi
3
%
ie
;
Hq
x
4
3
"
{
© RIDS YOU OF THE HARDSHIP
RS
OF STAIR CLIMBING =
© EL
IMINATES HEART-TAXING —
.
_ STRAIN AND FATIGUE
SIMPLICITY
So
Sopa
a
Pe
wan
eS
;
a
&
~
‘
.
,
8)
ASA
ow
*
:
VY
Ve
AY
“4
,
é
Bee
Se
s
2
‘
é
OF
Se
-
y
.
7
mn
2
ete eat amr ONG
é
ak
<
eee
sree
eee
a
ae
i
abies
i
=
=
o
SS
:
©
ye
‘di
x
earnest
“TRON-ON™
J
&
lsat
}
A RUG BI
"
"
ray
F, e
Sy
Fe
c
e
ey
:
«
with broad,
pa-
may look forward to the gradual development of a free and
economically
healthy
worldwide
community,
sufficiently
to
:
i
of all,
tient, positive policies we
strong
3
ara
is
i
oSod
;.
:
by
it must maintain an attitude
which our forefathers in the
Declaration
of Independence
_
described as “a decent respect
for the opinions of mankind.”
Ed
.
a}
y
oe
shaping
important
*
‘ ad
a
ie
out.
of Communist
Most
g
every
tions. It must support, to the
absolute limit of practicability,
the aspirations of all people to
be free.
ae
:
avoid the danger of becoming
into
ae
-
the future.
It must be alert
to seize and exploit internal
contradictions in the far-flung
Communist
world.
It must
hypnotized
z
*
oe
“a
Our diplomacy must be resolute and yet profoundly alive
to the revolutionary forces in
the
‘
become
which
carry
F
.
=
ws
ES
informed person on both sides
of the Iron Curtain knows we
are
a
2
i
ag
4
r
*
a
directly
involved
in _ IndoChina,
for example,
we are
hanging out the welcome mat
for the Communists to a far
greater
extent
than
it was
ever
hung
out
in
Korea.
Mobile
defense
units
armed
with tactical atomic weapons,
which the world knows we are
prepared to use in a crisis,
will do far more to discourage
aggression in such situations
than
threats
of
wholesale
atomic
Si One
Bares
strik-
ing power has a vital and con-
a
4
be
EN
e
=
the
balance
of
power eventually against the
Soviet Union and thus induce
a settlement which will allow
all nations to develep in their
own way without fear of inter-
“Just
fron
it on"
Save your rugs this easy way...bind
worn and raveled edges of rugs, rug
cushions, stair and hall runners with
Smith's “iron-on” rug binding. It's
the original — it’s the heavy herringbone tape with the brown gum ad-
hesive back—it’s guaranteed to stick
—it takes less heat and less pressure, is easier and quicker to put on.
Be sure it’s Smith's.
AT DIME, VARIETY & DEPT. STORES
j
(NOTION
COUNTERS)
1%” width 15¢ yd.° 2%” width 25¢ yd.
Ask fer instrection sheet with each purchase.
ference.
Such
policies
are
not
to be
found in a budgetary bargain
basement. The continuing ex-
istence of the ideals by which
we
live
involve’
substantial
claims, not only on our mate-~
rlal -resources,
but. on
our
resources of will and courage
and purpose as well.
Out of
the
Great
Debate
on
these
issues we
can
hope
to find
the solutions that will enable
us to meet the challenge.
In
any case, such debate in which
the Congress and the people
participate is the only enduring and proper way to develop
foreign policy in a democracy.
For
the store necrest
Jade Hosiery
you write:
¢ 6 East 36th St. ¢ N.Y.16
THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
ng
gi
ur
by
m
iu
os
mp
sy
"
er
ad
Le
ew
'N
A distinguished humanist opens a special
By LEWIS
MUMFORD
Alternatives
HE EXPLOSION of the Soviet and American hydrogen
bombs has brought to a head the grave issues originally raised by the use of instruments of random extermination (genocide). Though our country is still
drugged by official secrecy, a policy that spells eventual
death to our democratic institutions, no small minority
s
pon
wea
mic
ato
of
nt
pme
elo
dev
the
that
ds
tan
ers
und
now
the
with
ty
curi
inse
of
m
imu
max
the
ed
duc
pro
has
ng
pili
on
go
we
If
rol.
cont
an
hum
of
unt
amo
m
imu
min
iorig
our
with
an
beg
that
nt
gme
jud
in
rs
nde
blu
the
up
ndow
the
only
not
b,
bom
m
ato
the
of
tion
oita
expl
nal
fall of civilization but the possible extermination of the
human race is in sight.
With
the
invention
of
the
atom
bomb,
the
United
not
e
stag
l
iona
rnat
inte
the
on
role
a
into
ped
step
es
Stat
s
ill’
O’Ne
ene
Eug
in
s
Jone
r
ero
Emp
the
of
that
unlike
play. We believed, officially, that the atom bomb made us
invulnerable; but as we stumbled through the jungle of
,
sion
delu
sed
mpo
f-i
sel
this
in
re
secu
d,
worl
r
twa
pos
the
we gradually lost our own sense of direction; presently,
as night overtook us, menacing fears and specters arose
beat
s
nou
omi
the
er
loud
ever
ing
mak
s,
mind
own
in our
wild
our
of
e
Non
.
ums
-dr
war
n
sia
Rus
ant
dist
the
of
to
ges
ima
ng
eni
ght
fri
e
thes
sed
cau
has
s
shot
dom
ran
g
in
th
no
ve
ha
we
t
tha
d
fin
we
,
end
the
at
,
and
disappear;
the
pt
ce
ex
rs
fea
our
to
er
sw
an
ive
ect
eff
an
of
y
left by wa
en
og
dr
hy
the
w
no
,
om
at
the
st
fir
:
let
bul
er
lv
si
a
magic of
te
ra
cu
ac
re
mo
tle
lit
a
be
d
ul
wo
ure
fig
the
s
ap
rh
bomb. Pe
ver
sil
of
t
bel
e
dg
ri
rt
ca
e
ol
wh
a
ve
ha
we
t
tha
d
sai
if one
t
en
ci
an
in
ts
gif
c
gi
ma
the
of
ny
ma
so
bullets, but, like
to
ed
ch
ta
at
y
lt
na
pe
ed
ct
pe
ex
un
an
is
re
fairy stories, the
to
be
t
gh
mi
em
th
of
all
g
in
us
of
ult
their use: The res
In
y.
em
en
our
as
l
wel
as
ies
all
d
an
s
wipe out our friend
led
kil
s
let
bul
ver
sil
,
er
mb
me
re
l
wil
u
yo
O’Neill’s play,
d
ha
o
wh
s
ge
va
sa
by
ed
fir
re
we
ey
Th
es.
Jon
the Emperor
copied his magic.
uasit
t
en
es
pr
the
g
in
er
st
ma
rd
wa
to
As the first step
r:
we
po
ic
om
at
of
x
do
ra
pa
the
nd
ta
tion, we must unders
the
d,
an
mm
co
we
r
we
po
ic
om
at
of
The greater amount
a
not
is
s
Thi
it.
use
o
wh
se
tho
to
is
more danger there
the
in
s
lie
app
it
d
an
m,
le
ob
pr
al
moral but a physic
iorad
ch
mu
As
t.
ges
lar
the
as
l
wel
as
smallest instance
ted
era
tol
be
can
l
dia
h
tc
wa
a
on
ed
us
is
as
active material
g
lin
cei
d
an
ls
wal
the
if
but
h;
tc
wa
by the wearer of the
fur
of
ect
obj
ry
eve
d
an
ed
rk
wo
of the room where he
e
iv
ct
oa
di
ra
me
sa
the
h
wit
ed
at
co
niture and dress were
we
gh
ou
Th
e.
lif
his
to
al
ic
im
in
material, it would be
r
we
po
ic
om
at
of
on
ti
ta
oi
pl
ex
have begun the headlong
i
at
cr
mo
de
g
on
-l
fe
li
a
en
be
s
ha
,
st
ni
ma
Lewis Mumford, writer, educator and hu
e
re
th
of
od
ri
pe
a
er
ov
on
ti
za
li
vi
ci
al
and a profound critic of our industri
e
th
on
es
cl
ti
ar
t
en
ci
es
pr
s
hi
ll
ca
re
y
dl
te
ub
de
un
ll
wi
s
er
ad
re
ny
Ma
s.
decade
ic
om
at
of
on
si
lu
il
e
th
on
d
an
e,
er
wh
se
el
d
an
er
av
Le
w
Ne
E
TH
in
,
ce
na
me
Nazi
n
ee
tw
be
s
ne
zi
ga
ma
l
ra
ve
se
of
or
it
ed
An
s.
ir
fa
Af
r
Ai
in
y
il
ar
im
pr
e,
nc
te
po
ni
om
d
an
ks
ic
St
,
2)
92
(1
s
ia
op
Ut
of
y
or
St
e
Th
of
or
th
au
e
th
s
vi
he
,
36
19
d
an
19
19
n
Me
,
8)
93
(1
es
ti
Ci
of
e
ur
lt
Cu
e
Th
,
1)
93
(1
s
de
ca
De
n
ow
Br
e
Th
,
4)
Stones (192
,
1)
94
(1
re
tu
ec
it
ch
Ar
in
h
ut
So
e
Th
,
0)
94
(1
ng
vi
Li
r
fo
h
it
Fa
,
9)
93
(1
t
Ac
Must
cs
ni
ch
Te
d
an
t
Ar
d
an
,
7)
94
(1
es
ri
Values for Survival (1946), Green Memo
nCo
e
Th
,
4)
93
(1
on
ti
za
li
vi
Ci
d
an
cs
ni
ch
Te
,
cs
si
as
cl
e
th
to
on
ti
di
ad
in
,
1)
(195
ed
tl
ti
en
,
ok
bo
w
ne
A
.
1)
95
(1
fe
Li
of
t
uc
nd
Co
e
Th
d
an
4)
94
(1
n
Ma
of
on
diti
.
Mr
l.
fal
is
th
e
ac
Br
,
rt
ou
rc
Ha
by
d
he
is
bl
pu
be
ll
wi
,
ty
ni
Sa
of
me
Na
In the
ty
si
er
iv
Un
e
th
d
an
ty
si
er
iv
Un
rd
fo
an
St
at
r
so
es
of
pr
as
ed
rv
se
s
ha
d
or
mf
Mu
e
th
as
ll
we
as
n
ai
it
Br
t
ea
Gr
in
ly
de
wi
ed
ur
ct
le
s
ha
d
an
ia
an
lv
of Pennsy
w
NE
E
TH
h
ic
wh
to
e
em
th
is
th
on
es
ri
se
a
es
ch
un
la
e
cl
ti
ar
s
Hi
.
es
at
St
United
ic
if
nt
ie
sc
d
an
al
ur
lt
cu
l,
ca
ti
li
po
t
en
in
om
pr
50
an
th
re
mo
d
te
vi
in
s
ha
LEADER
,
an
im
rr
Ha
l
el
er
Av
W.
e
ar
on
ti
ta
vi
in
r
ou
ed
pt
ce
ac
ve
ha
o
wh
e
os
th
g
on
Am
leaders.
eNi
ld
ho
in
Re
,
es
wl
Bo
r
te
es
Ch
,
MP
,
ey
al
He
s
ni
De
y,
ed
nn
Ke
F.
hn
Jo
r
Senato
.
as
om
Th
an
rm
No
d
an
w
ha
ks
an
Cr
buhr, Hans Kohn, Edward
A
4
ae Are ne es enn
ee
The
New
Leader
a
radical
revision
of both
the
ends
and
the
means
of present U.S. policy
HIROSHIMA
VICTIMS:
GENOCIDE,
(prompted partly perhaps by the hope that the positive
uses would nullify the negative ones), the fact is that we
have not yet found a practicable way of disposing of the
fissionable by-products of atomic energy, even in small
power to ignite but not to put out.
Not understanding the paradox of atomic power, our
leaders have sought to achieve security for the United
States by vastly increasing the production of nuclear
energy and multiplying the number of atom bombs at
our command. Yet, even if they established a ratio of a
thousand bombs to one against Russia, their very success
might defeat their ends; for the fact is that the use of
enough atomic energy to lay Soviet Russia low could
likewise contaminate the living spaces of the planet and,
as Professor Herbert J. Muller has pointed out, might
radically alter the genes in many lower organisms, even
if it did not immediately destroy human life. The cobalt
bomb, we are told, could achieve this goal even more
directly. If we had enough instruments of genocide to
make
continental
Russia
uninhabitable,
we
should
also
automatically bring disaster to the rest of the human race,
including ourselves. The childish belief that a few atom
bombs dropped on the Kremlin would enable the democratic world to live happily ever after is a fairy story
that should never for an instant have been seriously
entertained by grown men.
a
The clear fact is that the increase of atomic power
has brought about a decrease of real security. Used in
limited quantities, the atom bomb brings no guarantee of
swift, easy and certain victory; quite the contrary. Used
in unlimited quantities, augmented by the hydrogen
bomb, our new weapons offer as great a threat to the rest
of mankind, including ourselves, as they do to our enemy.
It is not the atom bomb, but our willingness to use
any instruments of genocide, that constitutes the allenveloping danger. And it is a relatively new danger.
Although throughout history mass extermination had indeed been practiced on a limited scale, it remained for
NOT
‘TOTAL
the Second World War to replace the ancient art of warfare with the general practice of random and unrestricted extermination. Following the theory and
practice of our fascist enemies, whose moral nihilism destroyed the very principle of restraint, the democratic
powers took over genocide.
The hypocrisy of our age, which has sought to make
barbarism
palatable
by
applying
traditional
and
honorable names to its practices (the Russians call their
savage despotism “democracy”), has led us to call mass
extermination by a false name: total war. As was early
set forth by the Italian General Douhet, “total war,”
seeking to make the fullest employment of air power,
promised to bring about the results of military victory
at the smallest possible risk to the ageressor—not primarily by engaging the enemy’s armies, but by terror-
Coventry, almost every American regarded genocide as
the monstrosity it actually is. Up to 1942, the American
CONTINUED
June 28, 1954
WAR'
ON
NEXT
PAGE
H-BOMB
CONTINUED
in
“p
ly
on
d
ce
ti
ac
pr
it
at
th
ct
fa
e
th
of
Army even boasted
re
fo
be
t,
Bu
s.
et
rg
ta
ry
ta
li
mi
ed
ct
le
point” bombing of se
es
at
St
ed
it
Un
e
th
of
es
rc
fo
ry
ta
li
mi
the war ended, the
ain
rm
te
ex
ss
ma
of
s
on
ap
we
l
ca
ni
ch
te
had multiplied the
g
in
at
st
va
de
re
mo
en
ev
an
on
em
th
tion and had employed
e
th
t
ou
es
av
le
e
on
f
—i
ne
do
d
ha
ts
is
sc
Fa
e
scale than th
e
On
.
ia
or
at
em
cr
zi
Na
e
th
of
cs
ti
is
at
st
n
io
mass-product
0
00
0,
18
ed
us
ca
o
ky
To
on
id
ordinary bombing ra
d
pe
ap
wr
ly
on
mb
bo
om
at
e
Th
t.
gh
casualties in a single ni
ap
d
an
,
er
at
ne
a
in
n
io
at
in
rm
te
ex
up this method of
parently cheaper, package.
r
wa
st
po
e
th
t
ou
ab
ct
fa
y
ar
in
rd
ao
Not the least extr
tle
lit
so
ed
en
ak
aw
s
ha
n
io
at
in
rm
te
period is that mass ex
d
ha
e
ur
lt
cu
ri
Ag
of
y
ar
et
cr
Se
e
th
if
moral protest. It is as
tor
sh
at
me
a
ng
ri
du
at
me
n
ma
hu
of
authorized the sale
y
il
da
in
m
is
al
ib
nn
ca
ed
pt
ce
ac
d
ha
age, and everyone
.
ng
vi
li
of
st
co
e
th
ng
ci
du
re
r
fo
e
dg
do
er
practice as a clev
rpu
d
an
od
th
me
in
ge
an
ch
e
th
nd
ta
rs
de
un
The failure to
of
on
ti
ma
or
sf
an
tr
e
th
h
ug
ro
th
e
ac
pl
n
ke
pose that has ta
un
us
io
ec
sp
of
air
an
n
ve
gi
s
ha
de
ci
warfare into geno
of
on
ti
uc
od
pr
e
th
g
in
ll
ro
nt
co
r
fo
s
an
pl
reality to all our
e
th
to
ce
an
rt
po
im
st
mo
ut
of
s
on
si
ci
De
atomic energy.
ly
on
gh
ou
th
as
de
ma
en
be
ve
ha
e
ol
wh
a
human race as
to
in
n
ke
ta
be
ed
ne
y
tr
un
co
le
ng
si
a
of
s
the interest
account;
matters that affect the balance
of life on this
e
th
by
t
se
up
y
dl
ba
y
ad
re
al
e
nc
la
ba
te
ca
planet, a deli
on
g
in
go
en
be
s
ha
at
th
re
tu
na
of
on
ti
needless exploita
ey
th
if
as
ly
le
so
d
te
ea
tr
en
be
ve
ha
,
ce
pa
d
te
ra
le
ce
ac
at an
kin
th
of
nd
ki
at
Th
.
ms
le
ob
pr
ic
om
on
ec
or
ry
ta
li
were mi
ks
in
th
o
wh
ne
yo
an
t,
in
po
is
th
At
.
gh
ou
ing is not good en
s
hi
of
te
fa
e
th
of
s
rm
te
in
gy
er
en
ic
om
at
of the future of
is
It
y.
tr
un
co
s
hi
ed
ay
tr
be
y
ad
re
al
s
country alone ha
we
at
th
ce
ra
n
ma
hu
e
th
of
re
tu
fu
e
th
d
about mankind an
rna
in
d
ve
ei
nc
co
cy
li
po
No
d.
ne
er
must now be conc
rower terms promises better than catastrophe.
e”
af
“s
a
d
ha
d
rl
wo
the
of
s
le
op
pe
After 1945, the
exd,
te
vo
de
en
be
ve
ha
ld
ou
sh
at
th
s
ar
ye
e
period of thre
an
to
in
s
on
ti
Na
ed
it
Un
e
th
ng
mi
or
sf
an
tr
clusively, to
nma
ng
di
ar
gu
fe
sa
of
e
bl
pa
ca
n
io
at
er
op
co
d
rl
organ of wo
e.
ic
st
ju
g
in
ot
om
pr
by
de
ci
no
ge
ic
om
kind from war and at
s
wa
y
tr
un
co
y
er
ev
at
th
ct
fa
e
th
om
fr
d
ve
ri
de
This safety
a
ng
mi
su
re
of
k
in
th
to
d
te
us
ha
ex
d
an
too harrowed
ia
ss
Ru
at
th
ct
fa
r
he
rt
fu
e
th
om
fr
d
an
e,
iv
ns
fe
military of
of
d
ai
e
th
th
wi
en
ev
,
od
ri
pe
d
te
mi
li
could not in this
an
e
uc
od
pr
s,
ie
sp
ed
nt
la
-p
ll
we
d
an
n
io
public informat
y
dl
te
ar
he
lf
ha
ly
on
s
wa
al
rv
te
in
le
ab
lu
va
atom bomb. This
e
th
r
fo
se
cu
ex
an
us
ve
ga
it
;
es
at
St
ed
it
used by the Un
vy
na
d
an
my
ar
r
ou
g
in
tl
an
sm
di
of
cy
shortsighted poli
in
ad
le
e
th
ke
ta
to
e
iv
nt
ce
in
e
th
g
instead of providin
establishing an effective world government.
s
mb
bo
om
at
re
mo
d
ha
we
,
od
ri
pe
fe
sa
e
th
At the end of
y
it
il
st
ho
n
ia
ss
Ru
To
.
re
fo
be
er
ev
an
th
and less security
of
cy
li
po
e
iv
ss
pa
e
th
d
se
po
op
we
ss
ne
and aggressive
be
d
ul
co
ea
id
l
ca
ti
li
po
a
if
as
t—
en
nm
ai
military cont
re
mo
d
an
r
te
ea
gr
r
he
ot
an
t
bu
ng
hi
yt
an
contained by
an
ch
su
d
ha
we
s,
me
ti
e
re
Th
.
ea
id
l
universal politica
opr
se
ea
-L
nd
Le
e
th
th
wi
t,
idea within our grasp: firs
Re
d
an
ef
li
Re
s
on
ti
Na
ed
eram; second, with the Unit
e
th
th
wi
y,
ll
na
fi
d,
an
;
habilitation Administration
d
an
e
ag
ur
co
of
ck
la
r
fo
,
me
Marshall Plan. But each ti
conviction,
we
restricted
the content
of what
we
were
its
p
as
gr
to
ed
il
fa
d
an
or
cc
doing to an act of material su
ry
ve
e
th
at
t
or
sh
d
ai
r
ou
t
cu
we
ideal goal; each time,
r
fo
nt
me
ru
st
in
an
to
in
de
moment it was ready to be ma
lf
se
of
t
ac
re
me
y
an
nd
yo
be
n,
io
worldwide cooperat
t,
in
po
al
ic
it
cr
ch
ea
At
.
st
re
preservative national inte
t
ea
gr
a
ng
ti
ia
it
in
of
e
bl
pa
ca
our statesmanship, though
idea, was unable, because
of contradictory
reservations,
gi
lo
eo
id
e
th
ve
ga
ly
nt
te
is
rs
pe
to follow it up. Thus, we
ss
le
th
ru
its
te
pi
es
—d
ia
ss
Ru
et
cal advantage back to Sovi
.
ip
sh
or
at
ct
di
d
rl
wo
d
an
st
ue
nq
co
d
schemes for worl
en
be
s
ha
,
me
to
s
em
se
it
,
ia
Our policy toward Russ
of
on
si
lu
il
an
)
(1
:
gs
in
th
o
tw
undermined mainly by
d
n
a
m
m
o
c
al
in
ig
or
r
ou
on
d
se
ba
power and superiority
of the atom
bomb,
and
(2)
a commitment
to the cold
s
ha
h
ic
wh
,
ia
ss
Ru
t
ns
ai
ag
le
ab
us
war as the only weapon
ge
sa
vi
en
to
en
ev
nt
me
rn
ve
go
r
made it impossible for ou
e
uc
od
pr
ss
le
st
mu
e,
ac
pe
r
fo
the conditions necessary
e
th
to
al
pe
ap
e
ns
me
im
an
ia
ss
Ru
them. This has given
mor
rf
pe
of
s
si
ba
e
th
on
t
no
d,
rl
wo
other nations of the
It
e.
ac
pe
of
s
on
si
es
of
pr
al
rb
ve
of
s
ance but on the basi
be
on
e
ac
pe
d
ge
wa
ve
ha
ld
ou
sh
o
wh
was we, not Russia,
o
wh
e
w
—
s
e
i
m
e
n
e
ve
ti
ac
its
t
ns
ai
half of mankind ag
od
th
me
e
th
t
ns
ai
ag
or
rr
ho
st
ne
ho
should have registered
n
li
em
Kr
e
th
ed
it
ba
ve
ha
ld
ou
sh
o
wh
of extermination; we
ic
om
at
rd
wa
to
s
ep
st
t
rs
fi
e
th
ke
ta
to
with being unwilling
opr
e
iv
at
rn
te
al
th
wi
up
me
co
ve
ha
control and should
;
an
Pl
ch
ru
Ba
e
th
ed
ct
je
re
posals when Russia flatly
de
ci
no
ge
a
r
fo
t
gh
fi
e
th
we who should have led
e
dg
le
ow
kn
ic
if
nt
ie
sc
of
ze
si
as
pact and asked for a world
in
gy
er
en
ic
om
at
g
in
us
om
fr
on the dangers to the planet
fy
ti
en
id
ia
ss
Ru
t
le
ve
ha
peace and war. Instead, we
,
de
ci
no
ge
d
an
r
wa
of
t
en
on
op
the United States as the pr
ve
ha
we
ns
io
at
ar
ep
pr
d
an
s
on
ti
and by our one-sided ac
d
an
y
et
xi
an
ty
il
eu
of
e
ur
xt
mi
a
accepted that role, with
self-righteous bravado.
on
s
nd
mi
en
oz
fr
ed
uc
od
pr
s
ha
r
By now, the cold wa
at
th
ed
mb
nu
so
s
nd
mi
n—
ai
rt
both sides of the Iron Cu
e
th
to
s
an
pl
e
iv
at
rn
te
al
g
in
nt
ve
they are incapable of in
e
Th
d.
de
ee
cc
su
ly
rt
pa
ly
on
or
ones that have failed,
e
th
at
th
ct
fa
e
th
in
es
li
n
great danger from this situatio
d
an
an
ic
er
Am
e
th
th
bo
of
present stereotyped attitudes
ly
on
to
d,
en
e
th
in
,
ad
le
n
the Russian Governments ca
is
it
n,
io
at
tu
si
is
th
In
e.
one outcome: total catastroph
a
gm
do
in
d
se
ca
en
s,
er
ad
le
useless to blame the Soviet
re
mo
rs
ie
rr
ba
l
ca
gi
lo
eo
id
by
y
it
al
and cut off from re
ra
pa
r
ei
Th
.
le
ac
st
ob
al
ic
impenetrable than any phys
r
fo
s
an
pl
ed
ow
av
r
ei
th
n,
io
noid hostility and suspic
m
is
or
rr
te
on
up
ce
en
nd
pe
de
r
ei
th
ultimate world conquest,
y
it
or
ri
fe
in
of
e
ns
se
n
ow
r
ei
th
me
and isolation to overco
re
tu
fu
r
fo
ta
da
d
xe
fi
as
n
ke
ta
be
and insecurity, must all
ta
da
e
es
th
of
ne
No
s,
nt
me
rn
ve
action by democratic go
The
New
Leader
can be teased out of existence by a mere show of good
will or circumvented by any diplomatic overtures.
But
the fact that they exist is no excuse for American inertia
and inaction.
On the present terms, the United States
has no other course than appeasement or intensified preparation for war—a war in which there will be no victor.
When intelligent people find themselves in the situa-
tion [ have described, they do not, like an electronic cal-
culator that has broken down, go on repeating the same
frustrated operation automatically, without being able
to correct it. Instead, they retrace their course and look
for new openings and new approaches.
The first step
out of the present impasse, it seems to me, is to admit
the existence of a whole series of alternatives that have
not yet been explored. Instead of proceeding on the
morbid assumption that we are the victims of processes
we cannot control, we must produce sufficient flexibility
of mind not to be irrevocably bound to old errors, and
sufficient imagination to work out a fresh plan of campaign on a radically different series of premises.
Two current habits of mind stand in the way of exploring new alternatives.
The first is the notion that, if only the present showdown can be postponed, some yet undetected agent will
save us from the final catastrophe.
So people kept on
hoping during the period when the Nazis, like the Communists today, moved triumphantly on the path of
“peaceful” aggression and domination; and, despite the
fact that history has completely discredited the Chamberlains and the Borahs, their ghosts go marching on. In
view of the fact that the instruments of genocide will become more universal and more devastating, the sooner a
showdown takes place the better—provided that we bring
to the occasion positive plans and blueprints which will
bring about a constructive resolution of our difficulties.
Almost as paralyzing is a kind of mental block which
takes the form of saying: Politics is the “science of the
possible.”
By this, those who take this position mean
that any proposal which involves difficulties and sacrifices
of a greater order than people normally accept must be
carefully kept from view in order to spare the feelings of
all concerned. But if the experience of the last fifteen
years proves anything, this platitude is as empty as it is
mealy-mouthed.
In terms of the “science of the possible,” England should have surrendered to Germany between July 1940 and June 1941. Actually, England was
saved
(and the world was saved, too)
because Churchill
told the English not what they would have liked to hear,
but what they needed to hear in order to bear the day’s
burden.
He told them that their lot would be all but
insupportable and that he could promise them nothing
in the way of immediate victory—nothing, indeed, except
that they were about to live through their finest hour.
If politics means anything today, it must become the
“art of the impossible.” The people who sacrifice every
principle
to
expediency,
every
long-range
plan
to
im-
mediate profit, are the people who live in a world of
slippery fantasies and self-deceptions.
In terms of the
“possible,” we have only two courses open: suicide by
appeasement or suicide by “war.” Once we are ready
seriously to canvass alternatives, we shall perhaps be
surprised to find how wide a field is still open to exploration and action.
From 1941 onward, the United States fought a global
war without identifying the real enemy and therefore
without taking precautions against him when, under
BEGGAR ON A
IS HOSTILE TO
MOSCOW SIDEWALK: 'SOVIET FASCISM
THE MAJORITY OF ITS OWN CITIZENS’
temporary pressure from the outside, he appeared in the
guise of an ally. This enemy was and continues to be
fascism. Because we failed to single him out, we made
a series of shoddy deals with the enemy, disguised as
Darlan, as Stalin, as Chiang Kai-shek, which culminated
in the postwar period with our massive folly in rebuilding German power. We have achieved nothing, because
of our persistent failure to identify the system that seeks
to degrade and enslave mankind, and because instead we
have centered our attack on the one element in Russia
that is humanly defensible, whether or not it is desirable
—its
communism.
Now fascism can be identified under all its guises by
CONTINUED
June
28, 1954
ON
NEXT
PAGE
7
CONTINUED
H-BOMB
t
en
es
pr
be
st
mu
h
ic
wh
of
all
s,
ic
st
ri
te
three main charac
of
s
nd
ki
s
ou
on
is
po
ss
le
ly
ht
ig
to differentiate it from sl
an
ri
ta
li
ta
to
a
t:
rs
Fi
.
sm
ti
lu
so
authoritarianism and ab
y,
rt
pa
le
ng
si
t
en
an
rm
pe
a
by
ed
political structure, govern
l
ca
ti
li
po
of
od
th
me
a
as
t
en
em
av
using terrorism and ensl
e,
ur
ct
ru
st
l
ca
gi
lo
eo
id
n
ia
ar
it
or
th
au
an
:
control. Second
al
ch
to
en
op
t
no
,
hs
ut
tr
of
em
st
sy
le
ng
si
committed to a
a
d:
ir
Th
t.
ou
th
wi
om
fr
on
ti
ec
rr
co
or
lenge from within
r
fo
y
il
ar
im
pr
d
ze
ni
ga
or
e
ur
ct
ru
st
ic
om
on
monolithic ec
of
cy
li
po
a
th
wi
,
cy
an
nd
ce
as
ry
the purpose of milita
to
ly
le
so
ed
am
fr
st
ue
nq
co
ry
economic and milita
r
fo
ed
ne
e
th
th
wi
ay
aw
do
d
an
cy
euarantee self-sufficien
e
ak
-t
nd
-a
ve
gi
a
on
n
io
at
er
op
co
friendly international
basis.
sRu
et
vi
So
,
on
ti
ni
fi
de
d
be
ri
sc
um
rc
ci
y
ll
fu
re
ca
On this
e
th
is
is
Th
e.
at
st
t
is
sc
fa
ed
dg
le
-f
ll
fu
sia has long been a
col
to
in
al
St
r
fo
sy
ea
so
it
de
ma
at
th
fundamental fact
ne
Ju
to
39
19
st
gu
Au
om
fr
er
tl
Hi
th
wi
laborate actively
r
ou
r,
wa
e
th
of
s
ie
et
xi
an
d
an
s
re
su
es
pr
e
th
1941. Under
et
vi
So
t
ou
ab
ct
fa
al
ic
it
cr
is
th
ed
ok
lo
government over
ld
ou
sh
we
s
et
vi
So
e
th
of
em
st
sy
the monolithic economic
in
y
om
on
ec
n
ow
r
ou
of
n
io
oppose, not a fictitious vers
c
ti
is
al
ur
pl
al
tu
ac
e
th
t
bu
,
rm
fo
ic
an equally monolith
to
ay
pl
d
an
y
et
ri
va
st
te
ea
gr
system which allows the
or
e
at
iv
pr
,
ns
io
ut
it
st
in
d
an
whatever economic forces
as
st
Ju
.
od
go
on
mm
co
e
th
r
he
rt
fu
y
public, will efficientl
of
em
st
sy
d
xe
mi
a
r
fo
es
id
ov
pr
our Constitution wisely
c
hi
rc
na
mo
d
an
ic
ch
ar
ig
ol
,
ic
at
cr
mo
government, with de
an
th
er
th
ra
m
is
un
mm
Co
as
y
em
en
r
ou
take of identifying
me
na
t
en
ci
an
e
th
of
e
us
d
ue
in
nt
co
e
th
fascism. For even
n
li
em
Kr
e
th
of
rt
pa
e
th
on
d
au
fr
a
is
”
st
ni
of “Commu
fascists.
s
le
op
pe
e
th
g
in
st
li
en
of
n
io
nt
te
in
s
ou
ri
se
y
an
ve
If we ha
,
nt
me
rn
ve
go
d
rl
wo
e
iv
ct
fe
ef
of
e
us
ca
e
th
in
d
of the worl
e
th
t
ec
rr
co
st
mu
we
e,
ac
pe
d
an
e
ic
st
ju
r
fo
n
the conditio
of
m
is
un
mm
co
e
th
t
no
is
It
.
de
ma
ve
ha
we
r
naive erro
e
th
at
mb
co
To
.
rs
to
Mo
l
ra
ne
economy as du Pont or Ge
y
ll
ua
eq
g
in
th
me
so
ve
ha
st
mu
we
,
Kremlin’s false ideology
ly
on
en
ak
aw
ll
wi
we
d
an
d;
rl
wo
e
dynamic to give to th
rte
in
r
ou
e
at
ci
so
as
we
if
nt
me
nt
se
re
jealousy, envy and
sm
li
ta
pi
ca
ic
st
li
po
no
mo
of
es
rc
fo
e
th
national policy with
tu
en
Ev
.
ad
ro
ab
s
st
re
te
in
s
as
cl
y
ar
on
at home and reacti
opr
s
on
ti
Na
ed
it
Un
e
th
in
th
wi
h
rt
fo
ally, we must bring
e
ol
wh
a
as
ty
ni
ma
hu
of
e
ar
lf
we
e
th
posals for promoting
rou
to
as
ns
ia
ss
Ru
e
th
to
e
ns
se
ch
mu
which will make as
Russia;
the
and, in the postwar revulsion, we made the mis-
Soviet
Constitution,
but
the fascism
of the
Soviet
d
rl
wo
to
le
ac
st
ob
st
te
ea
gr
e
th
ts
en
es
pr
at
th
,
nt
me
rn
Gove
t
ye
t
no
ve
ha
s
nd
mi
al
ci
fi
of
en
oz
fr
r
Ou
n.
io
at
er
op
co
to
pe
ho
ot
nn
ca
we
at
th
e
iz
al
re
to
ly
nt
ie
ic
ff
su
ed
aw
th
transform official Soviet
quest without the active
now loyally subscribe to
Welfare State writ large.
people live in China, and
in
the
satellite
hostility and curb Soviet
aid of millions of people
the ideal of communism:
Hundreds of millions of
India, and other parts of
countries,
above
all—one
should
conwho
the
these
Asia,
em-
into
gh
ou
en
d
oa
br
icy
pol
a
ly
On
.
sia
Rus
in
e—
iz
phas
d
se
es
pr
op
d
an
ed
sh
ri
ve
po
im
of
es
ss
ma
at
gre
se
clude the
by
but
s
sop
d
an
ts
gif
y
ar
or
mp
te
ng
eri
off
by
not
people,
the
us
e
giv
can
n,
io
at
er
op
co
d
rl
wo
of
ns
pla
m
er
long-t
the
of
s
er
st
ma
t
en
es
pr
the
ge
od
sl
di
to
y
ar
ss
ce
ne
lever
l
ica
rad
a
t
ou
ab
g
in
br
st,
lea
y
ver
the
at
or,
n
li
em
Kr
alteration of their long-established policy.
a
of
ts
sis
con
m
is
un
mm
Co
iet
Sov
of
t
par
The dynamic
imn
ma
hu
of
a
ide
an
by
ed
sk
ma
m
is
or
rr
te
of
e
qu
ni
tech
t
tha
is
m
is
un
mm
Co
nd
hi
be
al
pe
ap
p
dee
e
Th
t.
en
provem
h
ug
ro
th
gs
in
be
n
ma
hu
of
on
ti
ta
oi
pl
ex
of abolishing the
y
An
.
on
ti
uc
od
pr
of
s
an
me
the
of
l
the private contro
d
an
r
we
po
e
ev
hi
ac
to
s
pe
ho
t
tha
p
ou
gr
nation or political
ng
rti
sta
its
as.
al
pe
ap
s
thi
e
tak
st
mu
y
da
influence to
it
g
in
in
ta
at
of
s
an
me
ter
bet
are
re
the
t
tha
ow
point and sh
and
n
io
ss
re
pp
su
m,
is
or
rr
te
of
e
qu
ni
ch
te
the
than through
To
.
ted
fec
per
ly
ent
ici
eff
so
has
ia
ss
Ru
t
party control tha
re
mo
by
s,
ha
on
ti
uc
od
pr
of
em
st
sy
features, so our own
to
y
it
il
ab
e
th
d
an
d;
xe
mi
empirical methods, become
ic
bl
pu
d
an
e
iv
at
er
op
co
e,
at
iv
pr
change the proportions of
at
th
ns
io
at
tu
si
g
in
et
me
of
e
bl
enterprise has made it capa
.
em
st
sy
st
li
ta
pi
ca
ht
ig
rt
te
wa
would have ruined a more
as
is
em
st
sy
l
na
io
at
uc
ed
s
y’
tr
un
Though our co
communistic
in
the
Platonic
sense
as
Russia’s,
we
at
th
ng
di
en
et
pr
by
s
nd
la
r
he
ot
in
reduce our influence
if
;
it
of
pr
e
at
iv
pr
in
ef
li
be
e
th
we are governed only by
as
y,
el
at
iv
pr
n
ru
be
d
ul
wo
s
ol
that were so, all our scho
y,
ur
nt
ce
th
en
te
ne
ni
e
th
in
y
rl
ea
they were in England
n.
io
at
uc
ed
an
rd
fo
af
d
ul
co
and only the wealthy
Similarly, the TVA
an
ic
er
Am
r
ou
of
ic
st
ri
te
ac
ar
ch
is as
r.
he
e
ud
cl
in
st
mu
we
,
ia
ss
Ru
et
vi
So
selves. To contain
to
e
il
st
ho
ly
re
me
t
no
is
m
is
sc
fa
et
vi
So
Fortunately,
sce
ne
by
is,
it
n;
ai
rt
Cu
on
Ir
e
every country outside th
,
ns
ze
ti
ci
n
ow
its
of
ty
ri
jo
ma
e
sity, equally hostile to th
as
t
ac
to
cy
en
nd
te
y
an
ve
ha
ey
th
at
th
ee
just to the degr
is
th
In
s.
on
rs
pe
ng
ti
ec
ir
-d
lf
se
autonomous groups or as
n
ca
we
at
Wh
y.
it
un
rt
po
op
c
gi
te
situation lies our stra
e,
ac
pe
d
an
nt
me
rn
ve
go
d
rl
wo
h
ug
ro
offer these people, th
n,
io
at
ci
so
as
of
m
do
ee
fr
m—
do
ee
fr
t
bu
is not capitalism
,
el
av
tr
of
m
do
ee
fr
e,
rs
ou
rc
te
in
d
an
ch
freedom of spee
.
ce
oi
ch
of
m
do
ee
fr
,
nt
me
ve
mo
of
m
do
free
That freedom
,
sm
li
ta
pi
ca
ct
je
re
or
pt
ce
ac
to
y
it
il
ab
e
th
es
of choice involv
e
in
rm
te
de
to
or
se
ri
rp
te
en
ee
fr
or
n
io
socialism, cooperat
y
an
to
en
op
t
no
m
do
ee
fr
ly
on
e
th
n;
their combinatio
on
as
re
le
so
e
th
r
fo
m,
is
sc
fa
ng
si
oo
ch
of
people is that
e
th
ts
up
rr
co
d
an
es
in
rm
de
un
it
re
tu
na
ry
that by its ve
is
th
d
ie
if
ar
cl
we
ce
On
n.
io
at
er
op
co
n
ma
hu
of
possibility
of
on
ti
za
li
bi
mo
a
t
ou
ab
g
in
br
d
ul
co
we
,
issue honestly
on
ti
za
li
bi
mo
a
ch
su
r;
de
or
d
rl
wo
of
lf
ha
be
humanity on
If
.
ke
ua
hq
rt
ea
an
an
th
e
rs
wo
n
li
em
Kr
e
th
would shake
ad
le
to
it
ir
sp
d
an
ce
en
ig
ll
te
in
e
th
d
ha
es
at
St
the United
a
to
in
r
wa
ld
co
e
th
rn
tu
d
ul
co
it
such a campaign,
t
ea
gr
e
th
be
d
ul
wo
cy
li
po
a
ch
su
nd
hi
genuine peace. Be
as
es
ur
as
me
ch
su
of
ed
ov
pr
ap
o
wh
s
an
body of Americ
ew
vi
in
o,
wh
e
pl
eo
—p
an
Pl
ll
ha
rs
Ma
e
th
Lend-Lease and
r
fo
y
ad
re
w
no
e
ar
e,
ar
sh
we
er
ng
da
of the universal
The
New
Leader
far bolder measures, entailing even heavier immediate
sacrifices.
Numbed by years of cold war, official Washington has
not yet caught up sufficiently with the new demands of
the world situation. They would doubtless excuse their
backwardness by saying that they see no way of overcoming the deep Soviet hostility to international cooperation. In holding to this view, the State Department
does the Russian Government the diplomatic courtesy of
assuming that its present leadership is permanent and
its present policy final. That view is possibly correct—
but only provided the United States remains equally set
muffled,
with
the
enemies.
To
achieve
Acts
of
America—acts
so
broadly
conceived that they will make allies and co-partners of
those who under present fascist (alias Communist)
leadership have regarded themselves as_ inevitable
this
state,
we
must
cleanse
our-
selves of the counter-fascism we have developed in responding to Soviet Russia’s challenge. Above all, we
must rid ourselves of fascism’s secret weapon—the cult
of official secrecy, with its menacing immunity to intelligent scrutiny and moral appraisal.
Any effective alternatives to catastrophe must be
generously conceived: They. must lead our one-time
enemies, the Russians; no less than ourselves, to a com-
RANGE
OF
1952
H-BOMB:
COBALT
IS
MORE
DEADLY
in all its present attitudes, including its opposition, more
discreet but no less rigid than Russia’s, toward surrendering a sufficient amount of American “sovereignty”
to make world government possible. We cannot change
the minds and methods of the Kremlin until we first
change our own. Unless the American people brings into
this situation leaders capable of halting our present fatal
automatisms and making a fresh start, the outlook will
grow increasingly darker.
We must replace the appeasers who have never under-
stood fascism, in either its Nazi or its Communist forms,
with militant leaders who know that we shall not prevail
against the fascists of the “Left” with the aid of fascists
of the Right, such as Franco, Chiang Kai-shek and the
authoritarian leaders of a “united Germany.” We must
replace the hopeful romanticists, both military and political, who so consistently underrated Soviet Russia’s and
Communist China’s present military strength by more
able realists who
do not make this error, but who
also
understand the nature of the Kremlin’s potential politi-
cal weakness.
We
of domination
and the true alternative, active world co-
ourselves must
offer the choice,
not
between fascist domination by the Kremlin or capitalist
domination by the United States, but between all forms
operation,
sources,
with the advanced
their wealth,
and
nations lending
above
all their more
their
re-
mature
political and technical leadership toward the uplift of
the depressed and impoverished masses of mankind. We
must reinforce the Voice of America, which can be easily
June
28,
1954
mon freedom and an open world. Such alternatives cannot be conceived in terms of furthering capitalist enterprise or national interest; but if we require a reminder
of the imperative need for a more disinterested approach,
we need only ask ourselves how much free enterprise
would be left after a total war between Soviet Russia and
the United States, or how much of the “American way of
life’ would remain operative in a world left totally in
cindery, radioactive ruins?
Between our present negative policy and one more generously conceived there is
the difference that there is between fighting a disease and
promoting health. Once the American people realize that
there are active alternatives to our present policy, and a
better strategy than containment and watchful waiting,
they may turn the heat upon the frozen minds that have,
in all good conscience, helped to create the present im-
passe.
|
In the utter hopelessness and panic of the depression
in 1933, the audacious measures undertaken by the
Roosevelt Administration, often in contradiction to preelection commitments, restored public confidence, encouraged enterprise and brought about production
through hitherto unthinkable uses of public credit and
' public aid to the unemployed. That, in its way, was a
miracle—comparable to the one needed today.
So, too,
the transformation of the skeptical, cynical, debunked,
mainly pacifist younger generation of Americans into
tough fighters who beat the Nazis at their own game;
what was that, whether viewed as a technical or as a
moral achievement, if not a gigantic miracle? No change
that these young men underwent to prepare themselves
for combat is harder than that which we must now collectively make under equally dire compulsion in order to
lay the foundations for peace.
Countries that possess our present instruments of unlimited genocide must either bring about an open world
or perish within a closed world. The miracle of stopping
our present war with Russia and averting total catastrophe is still within human scope. It will require intelligence, imagination and audacity, all on a heroic scale
but by no means of a superhuman order. These qualities
exist in every country. Let us put them to work before
it is too late.
[Reprint January, 1954]
DECLARATION
OF
THE
DUBLIN
Dublin, N.-H., October
OweEN J. Rozperts, Chairman
saees
Philadelphia
2, Pa.
Rosert P. Bass,
Peterborough, N. H.
GRENVILLE CLARK, Secretary,
Dublin, N. H.
Tuomas
H. Manony,
70 State St.,
Boston,
Mass.
Sponsors of the Conference.
16,
ALAN
CONFERENCE
1945.
CRANSTON,
Chairman of
in.
,
PP
120 -C St, N.E.
Washington, D. C.
OF
DECLARATION
THE
DUBLIN
CONFERENCE
Dublin, N. H., October 16, 1945
,
ion
zat
ani
org
ld
wor
and
ce
pea
ld
wor
in
d
ste
ere
int
n,
me
wo
A conference of some 50 men and
edy
rem
to
t
bes
how
of
on
sti
que
the
er
sid
con
to
5,
194
16,
to
11
r
met at Dublin, N. H., from Octobe
n
tio
ita
inv
the
on
led
cal
was
e
enc
fer
con
The
.
ion
zat
ani
Org
s
ion
the weaknesses of the United Nat
ted
Uni
the
of
rt
Cou
e
em
pr
Su
the
of
e
tic
Jus
as
ed
ign
res
ly
ent
of Hon. Owen J. Roberts, who rec
of
,
yer
law
rk,
Cla
lle
nvi
Gre
e,
ir
sh
mp
Ha
w
Ne
of
or
ern
States, Hon. Robert P. Bass, former Gov
Com
s
ett
hus
sac
Mas
the
of
an
rm
ai
Ch
and
,
ton
Bos
of
,
New York, and Thomas H. Mahony, lawyer
e.
enc
fer
con
the
at
ed
sid
pre
s
ert
Rob
ge
Jud
n.
tio
era
mittee for World Fed
ce
nan
nte
mai
the
for
ion
zat
ani
Org
s
ion
Nat
ted
Uni
the
of
cy
ica
Whatever may have been the eff
deina
the
ed
eal
rev
y
all
gic
tra
day
t
tha
of
nts
eve
the
5,
194
6,
of international peace before August
quacy of that Organization thereafter so to do.
secon
the
to
as
ce
den
evi
ic
ntif
scie
e
siv
res
imp
and
e
far
war
to
rgy
ene
The application of atomic
s
ion
nat
ng
amo
war
of
on
uti
tit
ins
the
t
tha
e
liz
rea
ld
wor
the
of
ple
quences thereof have made the peo
must be abolished if civilization is to continue.
is not a moment to lose.
The necessity of immediate action is urgent.
There
and
t
sen
pre
the
of
w
vie
in
rly
ula
tic
par
ns,
tio
por
pro
ide
ldw
wor
of
is
The menace of total war
l
tro
con
of
and
it
t
ins
aga
n
tio
tec
pro
of
,
war
g
tin
ven
pre
of
ns
mea
The
future international tensions.
ven
-gi
God
our
if
pe
sco
ide
ldw
wor
of
be
also
t
mus
ed
wag
be
of the major weapons by which it will
ed.
mot
pro
be
to
and
ved
ser
pre
be
to
are
ies
ert
lib
l
dua
ivi
ind
and
m
human freedo
law.
t
hou
wit
r
orde
no
and
r
orde
t
hou
wit
e
peac
no
be
can
e
ther
that
tic
oma
axi
It is almost
and
on
tati
limi
the
of
es
cipl
prin
n
upo
d
base
r
orde
ld
wor
is
e
ther
l
unti
e
peac
ld
wor
There can be no
The
d.
kin
man
of
good
mon
com
the
for
ons
nati
all
by
ty
ign
ere
sov
rnal
exte
onal
the pooling of nati
gate
dele
to
and
t
men
ern
gov
ld
wor
a
h
blis
esta
to
is
r
orde
ld
wor
a
such
te
crea
to
ns
only effective mea
ld
shou
t
men
ern
Gov
a
h
Suc
e.
peac
ve
ser
pre
to
and
war
t
ven
pre
to
ity
hor
aut
nite
to it limited but defi
s
basi
a
n
upo
ate
icip
part
will
ons
nati
and
les
peop
all
ch
whi
er
und
tion
titu
cons
be based upon a
r
othe
and
s
urce
reso
al
stri
indu
and
ral
natu
of
t
oun
acc
take
will
ch
whi
on
ati
ent
of balanced repres
ign
ere
sov
of
ues
leag
hing
blis
esta
ties
trea
n
upo
d
base
be
not
can
It
on.
lati
popu
as
factors as well
ted
Uni
the
in
—as
tes
sta
as
vote
and
act
and
ty
ign
ere
sov
ted
imi
unl
in
reta
es
stat
states in which the
Nations Organization.
of
y
ssit
nece
the
ates
dict
ce
justi
and
men
to
as
well
as
ons
nati
to
ies
appl
law
l
mora
the
e
Sinc
d
Worl
a
be
must
nt
rnme
gove
d
worl
a
such
er,
numb
test
grea
the
for
good
test
grea
seeking the
a
and
nt
rnme
Gove
d
Worl
the
in
rol
cont
zed
rali
cent
of
m
imu
min
a
g
idin
Federal Government prov
This means unity of action in those things
maximum of self government in the separate nations.
ers.
matt
r
othe
all
in
ons
nati
rate
sepa
the
to
on
acti
of
dom
free
and
necessary to survival
Believing that the mounting waves of distrust and fear that threaten mankind
in this
atomic
in a war
which,
majority
of the conference
age,
would
destroy
civilization
and
possibly
may engulf us
mankind
itself;
and
being convinced that the United Nations Organization is wholly inadequate to prevent war, a large
proposes:
That a World Federal Government be created, with closely defined and limited power adequate
to prevent war and designed to restore and strengthen the freedoms that are inalienable Rights
of Man.
The specific measures proposed to attain this goal were embodied in the following resolutions:
FIRST:
That the implications
of the atomic bomb
are appalling; that upon
the basis of
evidence before this conference there is no presently known adequate defense
against the bomb and that there is no time to lose in creating effective international institutions to prevent war by exclusive control of the bomb and other
major
weapons.
SECOND:
That the United Nations Charter, despite the hopes millions of people placed in it,
is inadequate and behind the times as a means to promote peace and world order.
THIRD:
That in place of the present United Nations Organization there must be substituted
a World Federal Government with limited but definite and adequate powers to
prevent war, including power to control the atomic bomb and other major weapons
and to maintain world inspection and police forces.
FOURTH:
That a principal instrument of the World Federal Government must be a World
Legislative Assembly, whose members shall be chosen on the principle of weighted
representation, taking account of natural and industrial resources and other relevant factors as well as population.
FIFTH:
That the World Federal Government
should have an executive body which
be responsible to the World Legislative Assembly.
should
|
SIXTH:
That the Legislative Assembly should be empowered to enact laws within the
scope of the limited powers conferred upon the World Federal Government, to
establish adequate tribunals and to provide means to enforce the judgments of
such tribunals.
SEVENTH:
That in order to make certain the constitutional capacity of the United States to
join such a World Federal Government steps should be taken promptly to obtain
a Constitutional Amendment definitely permitting such action.
EIGHTH:
That the American people should urge their Government to promote the formation
of the World Federal Government, after consultation with the other members of
the United Nations, either by proposing drastic amendments of the present United
Nations Charter or by calling a new World Constitutional Convention.
The signers were:
ACM
Pat
iis se
Banker, director Council
on
a
Foreign
ne
44 Wall St., New York, N. Y.
Relations, author “Let No Wave Engulf
ROUTE AG OE
i
2100 Comer
Lawyer, formerly Pres. of Ala. Bar Assn. and Chairman
of Am. Bar Assn.
SLOW. BROMINE
Former
BEMIS
aii
Governor of New Hampshire,
TE SA
ic
Lawyer, Chairman
Miss Marie
Bldg., Birmingham, Alabama.
of Committee on Bill of Rights
Peterborough, N. H.
farmer, student of international
relations.
on ee
140 Federal St., Boston, Mass.
of “Committee of 1000” on international organization.
J. CARROLL...
Research,
Us.”
Director World
Peace
Foundation.
GRENVILLE CLARK, Secretary__......._
Lawyer, author of pamphlets and articles
40
Mt.
Vernon
St., Boston,
Mass.
31 Nassau St., New York,
on world organization.
REV. EDWARD A. Conway, S. J...
1312
Clergyman, authority on international relations.
Massachusetts
Ave.,
N.
Y.
Washington,
D.
C.
PUCURIADE OR
ns
25 West 45th St., New York, N. Y.
Editor of Saturday Review of Literature, writer on world organization.
EDWARD W. EAMES...
Pres. New England
Headmaster,
Assn. of Colleges & Schools.
THOMAS K. FINLETTER..Lawyer, author, director Americans
Mua.
Ricnanp T. Fisume..
Director, Mass. Com. for World
10M
©. GRINGBEMPR
Exec. Secy. of Federal
World
Gov. Dummer
Academy,
2 Rector St., New York, N. Y.
United for World Organization.
Federation.
9 Park
St.,
Boston
9, Mass.
29 East 28th St., New
Government, Inc.
York,
N. Y.
So. Byfield, Mass.
ne
Mass. Committee
CREAT FIG
Director,
Pats TRUTCHREOON
Lawyer, member
Am.
World
for
Bar Assn.
Mass.
Boston,
162 Riverway,
Federation.
2, Texas.
Esperson Bldg., Houston
Committee on world organization.
70 State St., Boston, Mass.
THOMAS H. MAnONY 8
Lawyer, consultant at San Francisco, Chairman of Mass. Committee for World
ee
Oe
EDGAR
Federation.
24 West 40th St., New York 18, N. Y.
ee ee eee
TRE la
Merchant, Treas. and director of Americans United for World Organization.
ANSEL
War
3301
MOWRER.______._--------------------------------
D. C.
Washington,
Garfield St., N.W.,
correspondent and author, Pulitzer prize 1932.
Durham, N. H.
Heemvert F. R0pG oe aan
Prof. of philosophy, Univ. of N. H.; writer on world organization.
RICHARD B. SCANDRETT, JR.
Lawyer, writer and editor, mem.
30-Pine St., New York, N. Y.
American mission on German reparations,
Harvard
ae
Laurs Fo, St
Student of international organization, writer.
Hon.
Foster
Former
STSARNS
member of Congress,
Rosert WHestwhicat :
Landscape architect, mem.
former
Exec.
service.
262 Delaware Trust Bldg., Wilmington,
of Federal World Government, Inc.
Del.
H.
N.
Peterborough,
Bass, AAF_
Masgor PERKINS
Lawyer.
Mass.
School, Cambridge,
Law
Hancock, N. H.
member of U. S. diplomatic
Board
1945.
554 Madison Ave., New York, N. Y.
Lr. Coase G. Bo.
Writer, veteran of British Army, Chairman of American Veterans Committee.
Lt. KINGMAN
Set.
LT.
Washington,
120 C St., N.E.,
ALAN CRANSTON, AUS____--------------------Foreign correspondent, author, “The Killing of the Peace”.
N.
Peterborough,
FIELD, JR., USNR___--------
MARSHALL
Lawyer.
Mass.
Cambridge,
Place,
11 Berkeley
BREWSTER, JR., USNR___-----------
D. C.
H.
11 Berkeley St., Cambridge, Mass.
La. Comp Meyers, Jn, USMC...
Aide to Commander Stassen at San Francisco, writer on World Organization.
Lr.
MicHarE.
Writer.
STRAIGHT,
‘Tuoron,
L7.' nay
Lawyer.
AUS.
St., New
AAFP
162 East 92nd
2
48 Wall St., New
York,
N. Y.
York, N. Y.
(There were also present conferees in the uniform of the United States who, by reason
of that fact alone, did not participate in the conclusions of the conference.)
These
Cabinet,
members
resolutions
all members
of the United
and
of
a full report
Congress,
Nations
the
of the
Conference
Governors
Assembly.
of
the
are
48
to be
States
sent
and
President,
to the
the
to
officials
and
the
the
While there was complete agreement upon the necessity for world government, there was a
small minority which differed from the majority upon the matter of procedure and the timing of
They reported as follows:
any steps to be taken.
We do not join in the statement for these reasons: We agree with the object and, with some
We think,
reservations, with the structure of the organization envisaged in the resolutions.
however, that simultaneously with efforts to attain a world federal government, the United
States should explore the possibilities of forming a nuclear union with nations where individual liberty exists, as a step toward the projected world government.
OWEN
A.
J. ROBERTS,
J. G.
MICHAEL
PRIEST,
WILLIAMS,
STRINGFELLOW
CLARENCE
K.
BARR,
STREIT.
In addition to those signing the majority
some of the sessions:
—
oo
AVRO
VRAnk
United
Srtiee Chee
Senator from
Princeton,
New
N.
Hampshire,
member
of Foreign
Relations
Reader’s
Editor,
JOHN
N.
Pleasantville,
SeeCsOn
WW.
at
College, author.
Washington,
Senate,
States
C.
D.
Committee.
Hotel Duane, 237 Madison
aa
a ee
he Fe
Writer and lecturer, author of “The Soviets in World Affairs’, etc.
Cuskeiea
present
J.
Study and formerly President of Swarthmore
Pres. Institute for Advanced
BON.
reports, the following were
and minority
New
Ave.,
York,
N. Y.
Y.
Digest.
9 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N. Y.
3, Ee
Editor of “Life” and “Fortune”, joint author of “Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco”.
F. Manony,
Lt. Enwaty
HICHARBUON
DONOVAN
Boston,
2.
Managing
Editor, Christian
Tee
ee
ee
170 Beacon
AUS...
Rare ee
Economist, Prof. at Institute for Advanced
2M
Chairman,
_
Se
Fed. Reserve
Bank
Prof. of physics,
Purposes”, 1945.
Princeton,
Univ.;
Capt. WAYNE D. WILLIAMS, AUS_
Lawyer, winner of 1944 Ross medal
©
ee
a
N. Y.
J.
N.
R.H.
& Co., New
Macy
author
N.
York, N. Y.
J.
of official report
“Atomic
Energy
for
Military
8811 39th St., N.W., Washington, D. C.
of Am. Bar Assn. for essay on world organization.
_
F St., N.W.,
Publisher and author “The Coming Battle of Germany’’, etc.
Write.
York,
Study, author.
Princeton,
Princeton
New
of N. Y., author.
Db: Seer
ewer
Plaza,
30 Rockefeller
of Peace’’, etc.
WW.
Pees?
Mass.
Science Monitor.
Publisher and author “The Anatomy
Wines
St., Boston, Mass.
1319
Washington,
D. C.
ere
adh
will
ent,
pres
be
to
le
unab
but
e,
enc
fer
con
the
to
ted
invi
rs
othe
It is expected that many
to the majority report.
THE ATOM:
Golden Windfall for Big Business
Pamphlet No. 259—Reprinted from October, 1954, Economic Outlook
The United States has spent $12 billion creating
a great new public domain: our basic knowledge,
technical know-how, and materials in the field of
atomic energy, or nuclear fission.
Nuclear fission has demonstrated that it holds
potential values in peacetime comenormous
mercial fields, including electric power production. Benefits are ready to be harvested in many
There is evidence that
peacetime civilian fields.
electric power can now be produced, on a basis
of government capital costs, at a saving in half or
more of the United States.
Therefore there is a great drive underway to
let private interests (composed almost entirely
of the nation’s biggest corporate giants) take over
the commercial development of the atom, leaving
the nation only the field of war uses.
The big private interests will not be satisfied
with the right to own and/or use nuclear materials and patent the processes for their comThey also want Uncle Sam to give
mercial use.
them subsidies as well as the nation’s multi-billion dollar assets, which include access to government-developed knowledge, discoveries and processes,
a government
government
market
for by-products,
and
underwriting of experimental work.
JUST GIVE US
EXCLUSIVE
)
OWNERSHIP
OF THE PATENTS iM
The drive to take over the atom was partly rethe
of
ult
res
a
as
,
ss
re
ng
Co
d
83r
the
by
fed
buf
ll
sma
a
and
n
me
ss
re
ng
Co
few
a
of
ht
heroic fig
band of liberal Senators, later joined by most of
tly
par
o
als
s
wa
it
But
s.
at
cr
mo
De
te
na
Se
the
as
g
lon
as
on
go
to
n
tai
cer
is
it
and
l,
sfu
ces
suc
of
end
the
at
d
gol
of
in
ta
un
mo
ial
ent
pot
there is a
iny
or
at
ed
pr
er
ev
at
wh
for
w
bo
in
ra
ic
the atom
terests manage to capture it.
$12,000,000,000
Stake
at
The stake is far more than $12 billion. Private
interest spokesmen try to picture it as less. They
deduct the value of the A-bombs and H-bombs
the government has built from the $12 billion
Actually, however, trillions of dollars
spent.
(thousands of billions) are involved in the energy
field. Recoverable uranium is presently estimated
to hold up to twenty-three times more energy
than all the coal, petroleum, gas and other conventional fuels on and in the crust of the earth.
This means thousands of billions of dollars in value
in uranium for fuel alone.
Energy is but one field of atomic values. Revolutionary new chemical, metal, transportation,
food production and preservation, medical and
<= OF COURSE, WE'D
WANT GOVERNMENT
SUBSIDIES, RESEARCH
=\ AND MARKETS
Mm
1
GOVERNMENT >}
"YARDSTICK
~
_ REACTORS “SS
meas
~
.
.
“
+
by,
T¢ OMMISSION ~
<
~~
x
;
ye
ik
ce
wy
s
Ne
ies
Ce
Sey
SATS
~
i
NOs
-
Guernsey-Montgomery for the Economic Outlook, ClO.
~
‘Tremendous
other discoveries are being made.
new industries appear certain to evolve from this
great new domain, now owned by all the people of
the United States.
New metals have been produced, and new uses
created for old ones, such as uranium itself, thorExium, beryllium, zirconium and some others.
posure of certain plastics to irradiation is reported to double the tensile strength. Radioactive
materials are used to treat disease, to peer
through metals and determine their structural
soundness, to follow the use of fertilizer elements
by plants, and of food and chemicals by living
Plant experts now talk confidently of
creatures.
uncovering secrets of photosynthesis itself, the
process by which plants turn the radiant energy
of the sun into the chemical energy contained in
The processes of breeding sturfood and fuels.
dier, more productive plants and animals have
been speeded; the storability of some foods without refrigeration has been lengthened.
reic
om
at
w
ne
at
gre
s
thi
w
ho
is
m
le
ob
pr
r
Ou
source—and the atomic era—shall be permitted
It can loose social, economic
to come into being.
al
sic
phy
the
as
ul
rf
we
po
as
ces
for
cal
iti
pol
and
force of the bombs themselves.
Shall the nuclear field be a government monopoly, giving government vastly extended new
power over private enterprise?
Shall it be allowed to become a big business
monopoly, further swelling the power of giant
corporations, several of which already hold more
assets and wield more economic power than entire
The
Dixon-Yates
Deal
The proposal for two private utilities to supply
is not
on a contract with AEC,
power to TVA,
directly involved in basic problem of how nuclear
It’s
energy is to be introduced into our economy.
By the Dixon-Yates deal, President
a side-issue.
Eisenhower proposes to have AEC pay two giant
utility companies (Southern Company and Middle
South) more than $5,000,000 more per year to supply
600,000 kilowatts of power to TVA than it would
cost TVA to build a plant and generate the power
itself.
Even
the
$3,685,000
Administration
per year more.
admits
the
cost
will
be
The Dixon-Yates deal to favor private power and
stop the growth of TVA, is pertinent to the basic
policy issues involved in atomic energy only as it
shows how far the present Administration is willing
to go—with public assets—to “take care of” its big
business friends.
Even with the 25-year contract, it will take from
$100 to $140 million more of tax money to pay the
Dixon-Yates power bill than it would cost if produced by TVA.
states of the Union?
A few colossal corporations
already have a big head start into the atomic
domain through familiarity and experience with
nuclear affairs gained on Atomic Energy Com-
mission projects at government expense.
Shall the atomic domain be opened fairly to all
big and small businesses alike, through compulsory licensing of all patents for an extended
period, or permanently?
Shall there be government yardsticks, as the
Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power
Administration have been yardsticks in the electric power field?
Shall private interests be given the power to bar
competition and say who may or may not use key
discoveries and inventions through monopoly patents?
Shall suppression of atomic processes by taking
out patents and refusing to develop them be tolerated?
We may yet supply the answer to some of these
questions through Congressional action because
Congress halted an outright Atomic Give-Away in
1954. Congress provided a preference in the electric field for public and cooperative agencies, and,
further, that any patents in the nuclear field
issued in the next five years shall be subject to
compulsory licensing.!
Except for these provisions, unquestionably the
relatively few giant corporations who have been
“insiders” in the atomic energy program would
be busily taking over the atomic domain today.
How
Big
Business
Got
Inside
The effort in the 1954 Congress was to give the
Power Trust and corporate giants already on the
inside a quickie, quit-claim deed to the nuclear
domain, except for war uses.
Highlights of the history of our atomic discoveries are needed to understand how these
private power companies and a few big businesses,
many with violations of anti-trust laws in their
background, got in a pot to try to grab unchallenged control over peacetime uses of the atom.
Development of the atomic bomb for the United
States government during World War II was under direction of the so-called ‘‘Manhattan District”? commanded by General Leslie R. Groves.
1 Efforts to determine the number of patent applications made on atomic discoveries or processes since Sept.
1, 1954, when the new Act became effective have been
futile. The Patent Office, U. S. Department of Commerce,
will not even reveal the number filed to the writer.
It
would be extremely revealing to know whether private
interests are filing for patents under the compulsory
licensing provision of the new Act, or holding off hoping
another Congress will give them exclusive, unrestricted
patent rights.
[74]
WITH
equals
DEALING
BUSINESS
AEC
has
Commission
the
and
chosen the former. With this
limitation, there are only a
few companies in group Five
RUN ALONG, YOU GUYS.
WE CAN PRODUCE
E
C
N
A
H
C
A
S
U
E
GIV
TO WORK HERE AND
ENOUGH — witHhour
"
YOUR HELP
WELL DEVELOP ALL
OF ITS USES
WITH
BIG
BUSINESS
equals
.”
have.
Fortune
companies:
listed
E. I. duPont
the
among
deNemours,
plutonium-producing
huge
which
participating
built
the Hanford
plant.
General Electric Co., which operates the Hanford
plant for AEC—the first nuclear chemical factory in
(GE gets $1 profit, but has an interestthe world.
ing $2,400,000 annual ‘‘overhead” allowance in its
General Electric operates also the Knolls
contract.)
Atomic Power Laboratory at Schenectady and West
Milton, N. Y.
Carbide and Chemical Corp. a subsidiary of Union
Carbide, prime contractor running the gaseous diffusion and electromagnetic operation plants at Oak
Ridge, as well as the Oak Ridge National Labora-
mag“The
have
and
com-
SMALL
..
and both knowledge and experience in the nuclear
field which other American businesses do not
Said
“The Atomic Energy Commission today, like the
Manhattan District before it, deals largely with the
biggest of big industry.
“This policy leaves
it politically vulnerable
to
charges of favoritism, of fostering and compounding
monopoly, but it solves another problem that could
plague the Commission even worse.
The equations
work
its private contractors access to all atomic secrets
was signed by President
(AEC)
Commission
Harry S. Truman and became effective on AuDavid E. Lilienthal, for years head
gust 1, 1946.
of the world-renowned and successful public agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, was inMost liberals, therefore, asstalled as its head.
sumed that the new Commission would speed
atomic development and use it, as TVA had used
electric power, to stimulate a vast expansion of
private enterprise and improvement of our standards of living.
But in January, 1949, the great business
azine, Fortune, published an article on
Atom and the Businessman” which should
destroyed the complacency of every liberal
even conservatives who still believe in real
petitive enterprise.
Fortune said:
Commission’s
Valley
Tennessee
The
Authority built its dams itself and has operated its
large generation and transasIt
system.
mission
sembled a crew of experienced power dam builders
(men who had built several
ng
uci
red
y
reb
the
s),
dam
Economic Outlook, ClO.
costs through direct construction by experienced men.
In contrast, the Atomic Energy Commission
has contracted out engineering, construction, and
operation of its projects, large and small, giving
plants that were required.
At the end of the war, Congress determined to
turn nuclear development over to a civilian comThe law creating the Atomic Energy
mission.
are:
DEALING
AEC
that
industries)
electrical
can even be considered as a
of directly fostering
means
Nuclear physicists, most of them educators, supplied the ideas.
General Groves, following the
military pattern, turned to huge corporations in
the war period to build and operate the gigantic
‘‘Fortune’’
and
chemical
(e.g., the great
the
What
SMALL
HUGE
tory.
Monsanto
Chemical Co., a prime contractor at
Clinton National Laboratory (Oak Ridge) now running the Mound Laboratory at Miamisburg, Ohio,
for AEC.
Westinghouse Electric Co. operating
tis Plant near Pittsburgh, Pa.
Sandia
Corporation,
tric, which operates
Albuquerque, N. M.
a subsidiary
the
AEC
the AEC
of Western
Sandia
BetElec-
Laboratory
at
Discussing the benefits which the great corporations receive from their contracts with the
AEC, Fortune went into such items as “overhead” in their “$1-a-year’’ contracts, then it adds
[75]
an example of the biggest benefit to the corporate
insiders:
“As operator of the Knolls K-2 and the West Milton
pile G.E. is in the first line of benefit from future
atomic-power possibilities. It is obtaining immediate
experience with a host of auxiliaries, isotopes, new
instruments, new plant conceptions, new gadgets of
every description. It is able to train and develop men
at government expense.” (Our italics.)
In addition to its relatively few contractors,
the AEC decided in May, 1951, to let four private
electric utility and chemical ‘“‘teams” participate
in the atomic program by making studies of the
feasibility of reactors which would change nuclear
These teams were:
energy to electric energy.
Detroit Edison
Union
Co.
Electric
Chemical
Co. and Dow
of
and
Missouri
Co. and
Chemical
Monsanto
Commonwealth Edison of Chicago
linois Public Service Co.
Pacific Gas & Electric
San Francisco
Co.
and
Northern
the Bechtel
Corp.
Il-
of
At the time these study teams were let in, the
AEC announced it would stop there for a time.
What the public did not know was that the four
private electric power utilities involved were close
relatives.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane, major
stockholder in many large private power companies, is among the ten biggest stockholders in
Detroit Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and ComIt is also one of the ten bigmonwealth Edison.
gest stockholders in the Duquesne Light Company, of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, which recently
became the AEC’s “partner” in the construction
of a huge experimental reactor near Pittsburgh
for the production of electric energy.
AKC will build the reactor. Duquesne will build
President
the steam turbines and generator.
Eisenhower waved an atomic wand in Denver
to start construction on the “Duquesne”’ plant.
It got a big play in the press as the first great
Actually,
private utility project with the atom.
Uncle Sam is taking all the risk—the taxpayers
are paying for the atomic “boiler” and Duquesne
is building only the generator portion which can
This is important because America needs low
It is required to assure expanding
cost energy.
industries, increased productivity, new jobs, better standards of living, and to assure national
security.
The President’s Materials Policy Commission
reported in 1951 that we must double our over-all
energy production during the 1950-1975 period to
permit normal national growth and maintain
We must boost electrical outnational security.
put even more than that—260 percent, for it is
essential to the growth of key electric-process
industries, including light metals of high priority
for defense as well as nuclear fuels themselves.
This means an unprecedented increase in generaBut the 1975 goal
tion installations every year.
is already regarded in many quarters as too low.
Obviously, low cost electricity from nuclear gen(For further detail, see the
erators is needed.
February, 1954, CIO Economic Outlook.)
There is clear evidence that it is feasible today
to build reactors that can cut power costs in a
large part of the United States if they are developed publicly.
Clyde T. Ellis, executive manager of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, has
alluded to this in reports to his Association’s reThere is real substance
cent regional meetings.
behind Ellis’ allusion.
Last May 24, 1954, at a meeting of the Atomic
Industrial Forum in Washington, D.C., the head
of General Electric Company’s Atomic Products
Division, Francis K. McCune, presented a paper
on water and graphite reactors on which his
company is working or studying.? G.E. is one of
the AEC’s biggest ‘‘insiders.”’
gave detailed statistics on cost of
McCune
generating electric power in a 300,000 kilowatt
steam reactor or a 700,000 kilowatt graphite re-
Basing his calculations on 5.7 percent reactor.
turn on capital and a like amount for federal,
state and local taxes, McCune showed that power
could be generated for:
St@aM LCACTOL...cecccccccceeceee 6.7 mills per kilowatt hour
Graphite reactov........... 6.8 mills per kilowatt hour
“The value in the estimates given in Table VII (on
the graphite pile) are derived from actual construc‘“There is no
tion experience,” Mr. McCune wrote.
G.E. has developed the engineering over
guesswork.
many years of technical effort, and the basic engineering is essentially finished.”
be switched to conventional steam.
Besides Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane,
New York City there will be found amongst the
10 largest stockholders in Duquesne Light Co.
many silk stocking companies, with directorates
interlocking with scores of private electric power
Taking these same calculations and substituting
government costs (such as 2.5 percent instead
of 5.7 percent interest on money), Leland Olds,
former chairman of the Federal Power Commis-
utilities all over the United States.
Is Economic
How
Electricity
close is economic
Already
Here?
electric power
genera-
2 An article based on this paper is in the July 12, 1954,
issue of Hlectrical World.
tion from nuclear materials?
[76]
sion and now a consultant at Public Affairs Institute, found that the government could produce power in the same reactors at from 4.2 to
4.4 mills, using the same assumptions as G.E. as
to load factor and depreciation allowances.
Allowing for transmission costs, the former
Power Commission chairman found that REA
wholesale loads, at only 56 percent load factor,
WITH PRESENT REACTORS |}
WE COULD GENERATE
ELECTRICITY
THAN
4.4
KILOWATT
AT
LESS
MILLS
HOUR*
ELECTRICITY]
PER
COAL- PRODUCED
STEAM:
/
9 MILLS
PER
KWH
could be served by REA generation reactors at
from 8.1 mills per kilowatt hour.?
REA’s in half of the states in the United States
are paying 8.5 mills per kilowatt hour or more
They include:
for wholesale power today.
FINO:
WR GRGGS
COolerTags
TERA
Cae
ee
ii
ic
oi
shhh scene
Mills
8.5
New Hampshire ...............
rr
ee) EN: Sy
i cerenn
cc esccccccsacn
on
WN
ER
Bd 4, PUR ARERIAMORTD sa Secpsissterinclosmeesorgtys
i ceutcnldnngstanine
FN
DC) 0): h-) : ¢:
North Dakota .................
West Virginia .................... 9.0
South Dakota ....................
9.1
CO
TOE ia OR MMREE - sictnsih erwcatkadkucsidoncpien
n
PASTING oes idebie
Wisconsin 0.0000
sss
9.7
ech ctecuies
IR oiiisectichici
New Jersey ...............0.+
10.0
Maryland 3) oe
Minnesota. .....W0 00...
_..................... 11.0
Pennsylvania.
RN ek. are boueneebinsinn
peice ieeseneensddemys hae
DG KI
Mills
11.4
11.9
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
12.8
13.2
13.6
13.7
13.9
15.1
Generation of power from coal-produced steam
is costing
9 mills in Boston
and
other New
Eng-
land areas, 100 percent more than the generation
costs estimated for a publicly-financed reactor.
Following McCune’s revelation of attainable
nuclear generated electric power at private costs,
a new type of reactor has been announced by the
AEC using a liquid-metal heat transfer agent (inElectrical World describes it
stead of steam.)
as the most efficient reactor planned to date, even
more economical than those upon which G.E.
based its calculations.
Development of reactors is in its infancy. Many
materials used in the construction, in transfer of
heat from the fissioning mass to the generator,
in slow-down of neutrons to breed new fuel, and
in the fuel element itself, are yet to be tried. New
discoveries
economies.
in this field are sure to bring further
The research is now in progress.
By-products coming from the generator reacProspectors will undoubtedly cut power costs.
tive by-products include new fissionable fuel bred
in the reactors at the same time they are creating heat for the electric generators, isotopes
(radioactive materials) useful in industry, science,
Even the radioactive
medicine and agriculture.
materials coming from the fuel piles, which are
3 Olds also computed costs at 3 percent depreciation,
instead of 1.8 percent allowed by G. E., a figure closer to
cost
raises
This
practice.
depreciation
government
slightly, but would leave the nuclear generated power
competitive, or better, in all the states listed above.
KasrimatreD
BY
LELAND
oLKOS
Economic Outlook, CIO.
now treated as wastes, are being investigated for
uses and values.
The revenue from by-products will of course reduce the generating bill.
There is the promise of abundant low cost energy for the nation from the atom in the future,
and not too far in the future, either.
But will it be advanced or delayed by letting
private power companies patent key processes,
by withholding government yardstick operations
and virtually surrendering this domain to the
Power Trust?
Our
Experience
With
Power
Monopoly
History indicates that the advent of abundant,
low cost atomic power will be greatly retarded
and held back if private industry captures it.
High, private capital charges are today an obstacle to power reactors that would be economical for large areas of the United States.
Our experiences with the power companies
have always been unhappy: they are intent on
high rates for a scarcity of power rather than a
It has refair rate for an abundance of power.
quired government action to break this bottle-
neck.
The story of how TVA, the Bonneville Power
Administration and a féw fine municipal systems
like those in Tacoma, Washington, and Los Angeles, California, have broken the private highcost—scarcity formula of the private companies
in their areas is familiar to most Americans.
These yardstick operations have proved that
low power rates mean tremendously increased
use of electricity and higher revenue for power
companies.
For
the
most
part,
companies
in
yardstick areas have been slowly forced to lower
rates by government yardsticks. None have gone
[77]
broke.
Instead,
they have increased profits,
selling more units of power at lower rates.
But despite these examples, companies remote
from public yardstick power plants stick to high
rates. New England is an example.
A shocking example of the private power industry’s reluctance to make power available to
U. S. citizens occurred in the rural electrification
field.
The Power Trust fought creation of th
Rural Electrification Administration.
After it
was created, the Power Trust spokesman (Grover
Neff of Wisconsin Power & Light) wrote the REA
Administrator that all farms which needed electricity had it.
Less than 15 percent were then
served.
All through the Thirties and the Forties, the
power companies opposed REA appropriations in
Congress
on the grounds
that
the job was
done,
all farms had power which needed it.
Today
nearly 90 percent of farms do have power, but
only because the Power Trust lost their fights
to
stop the job at 20 percent, 25 percent, 30 percent
and every other level on the way up.
What
the
Liberal
Senators
Fought
For
During the 83rd Congress, the press ma
de it
appear that liberal Senators who conduct
ed the
extended debate on the Atomic Energy Bi
ll were
fighting for a government monopoly ove
r the
atom. This was not true.
They were fighting for: 1) preference for
public bodies and co-ops in access to publiclyowned
nuclear materials and licenses to build
power
plants; 2) yardstick plants to be built by t
he government; 3) private licensing but with safeg
uards
of the same sort as those in the Federal
Power
Act governing hydro sites; and 4)
to prevent either patents or licenses
safeguards
from being
used to extend monopoly, or to suppr
ess and
limit the use of atomic processes in a
free, competitive society.
licenses are pending, and for compulsory
ing of the use of any private patent filed in the next
five years.
But these liberal foes of
the
Atomic
Give-Away
were unable to get amendments placing the Federal
-Power
Act safeguards
around private licenses to
use nuclear materials, to
authorize construction
of
licens-
public
yardstick
reactors
by
federal
power
agencies which lack such authority, and to extend the period for compulsory patent licensing
from five years to at least ten years, or indefinitely.
Their victories were barely sufficient to “hold
the line” against a complete Give-Away until another Congress can act.
Just how nuclear-generated electricity shall be
“brought in” to our American society, by government monopoly, private monopoly, or a mixed
government-private development with public recapture always possible, can yet largely be settled by Congress if it takes action when it meets
in 1955 to protect the public’s rights.
Who
The
Gets
the
electric
Industrial
power
are but one of many
‘‘Pot of Gold?”
potentialities
of the
atom
of its promises for a new
era.
The public has been permitted to have some
glimpses at terrific advances being made in our
basic knowledge, and at some very practical results stemming from the use of radioactive materials in medicine and agriculture.
More about
these fields later.
There has been less public, unrestricted discussion of potential commercial developments. We
know that a great new nuclear plant engineering
field has been opened up; there is a demand for
new types of equipment, new types of controls,
measuring instruments, a whole MontgomeryWard catalogue of new-type supplies for this $10
billion industry.
As presently managed, only the
insiders (some of the biggest of big business)
know fully and precisely the nature of even this
field.
It is known that entirely new materials are
created by radiation; the new atomic fuel metals,
plutonium and U-233, bred from U-238 and
thorium, are examples. One AEC contractor in
the plastics field has subjected plastics to irradiation. There is a report that it doubled the tensile
strength of vinyl plastic.
Radiation does change
the nature and quality of many materials, creating both problems and opportunities.
Economic Outlook, CIO.
[78]
Will
They
Develop
All
Uses
of
Atomic
Energy?
[ JUST FORGET ALL
THOSE "IFS" AND
AL
=
THOSE GUYS
{ FROM 'WAY BACK
f
Z
F
piekelsfae=ss
[TRANSPORTATION
45
SE
3
S23 i
S Wi
4
OF
ca
CANCERES
;
KNOW
Me
ea WV
SS
ee eT
DISEAS
-——— oF
WE
Pd be DIT)
Ped
ore
BUT
-
ry
©
>
J
eperel
<
gd
ee
__BESEARCH
ee
sr1]
2
Serica L
oe EN
PRESERVATION
.
a=
|—
| ee _—}| —]) 3) AGRICULTURAL
|
:
=
|
»
|
—
TA
~
:
US!
TO
eee
IT ALL
|
==
LEAVE
o*
-_
-
-
Xf
7 oa
——
--*
Crna
Oro
Economic Outlook, ClO.
The potentialities of this whole field of new
materials can only be guessed by the “‘insiders,”’
‘who are training their people at government expense and obviously getting a long head start over
all competitors who are on the outside and cannot get full information.
Much of the secrecy
in this field is defended on the ground that its
public release would aid the Communists.
There is a potentially huge industry ahead in
the production of radioactive isotopes.
are chemicals made radiant by exposure
actor.
The Atomic Energy Commission
duces many radioactive elements which
by scientists in hundreds of research
period, and to lengthen it. Some want exclusive
patents right now.
Others strongly contend that
this should never be permitted.
Other
immediate
exclusive
private
Isotopes
in a renow proare used
projects.
patents
Uses
of
Atomic
Energy
The development of practical peacetime benefits
from the atom in the medical and agricultural
fields is a contrasting study.
Public agencies (universities, colleges, hospitals,
and farm experiment stations) are conducting
scores of projects using atomic materials.
Great
progress and practical, useful results have been
developed.
,
Doctors are studying the effect of radiation on
humans and human diseases, including cancer.
They are using isotopes (chemicals which have
Some have industrial uses, too.
Most of the isotopes go to researchers at a
But at some point,
fraction of their actual cost.
perhaps just beyond the basic science research
field, private interests want the right to commercialize this field and take over the making
and selling of isotopes for profit.
In all of these fields, and others, the right to
is
patents
private
exclusive,
seventeen-year
The toughest fight in the Congressional
sought.
battle over the Atomic Act of 1954 was on this
point:
Civilian
been radioactive) to study every sort of body
function, nutrition, the use the body makes of
chemicals in foods, the effect of medicines in every
subdivision of medical practice.
The same sort of work is being done in agriculture in relation to both plants and animals.
The biggest goal in agricultural research is to
learn how plants turn the sun’s radiant energy
into chemical energy, that is into the foods and
fuels that provide human strength, heat and
power.
Several chemical processes involved in
changing the sun’s energy to chemical energy
have been traced.
Scientists are talking confidently of unravelling this secret, which would be
as important as the release of nuclear energy
itself.
Many people think that controlled use of the
vs.
mandatory licensing of any patents issued (which
means letting others use, for a fair royalty, any
patent obtained).
Under the Act finally passed, exclusive patents
will be available in the atomic field after five
,
v
years.
There will be efforts both to eliminate this time
[79]
—
[08]
‘ySanbas
uO
ajquisvav
a4v
SUu01j044SN1]2
Y2ne ¢——soido>d O10 10 O00’L
yone 97/, p—soido> s10wWl 10 QOL
SiIdOD
..4YO0]ING,,
{oO sD
y2D9 3C—OOL
4AbeA D QG*L$—Adod
01 dH
Pr dG,
WuUlXxi
UOIJPINPJ JO JOJI9IIG O4DIDOSSY ‘4201g °d IIPNIS
uolsponpzZ jo eBupyyD uy *4iq espp20ssy ‘Aasusony *y sBacay
yr2upesay jo 4JOJ2041G SynI20SSy ‘YDPquAsy yunAY
yrsnesay JO 40j2911G OyNID0Ssy “A9HuUYplOy IDN
yr2upEesay JO JOJIIIIG BIDIIOSSY ‘MO]DSSDyY J4O19Aq
y2uPEesey JO 4JOJ2O1IG OFPIIOSSW ‘UOS>I]Z YOO
Ouloywy
4042911
“QU3RENILINA
“H ATINVIS
‘2 ‘ad ‘9 NOLONIHSVM
"M ‘N ‘39W1d NOSNOVE 8LZ
HOUVasAa GNV NOILVONGS JO LNIWLYVdIG
*SOAg-S2}A °20X] “9441N “A NHOP
*SO4g “MFHLNIA
°SP241L-"29S “AFUVD “a SAWVE
“d YILIVM
SNOILVZINYVSUO
IVIALSNGNI JO
Aq Ajysuow peysyqnd
HOOILNG
pay7eq
SSeisuoD
SSAJYONOD
DINONODGA
‘VS6T ‘ANE Ur
UL S[TereqI, 94} YOIyM
JOJ ssano0d
9[PpIW JO OS 9Y} pue “IaAO SeuT} AUBU PpsdUeYyUe
9q [IM AJeI00S INO UT JaMod sSoyM sjURIs Ssou
-Isnq Aq poyeurtuop Ajodouow 9}eAlid ‘Ajodouow
JUSWIUTIAOS Ud9M}eq SI A[YSNOI UOISIDap oI,
“a[Qissod [[19S SI Utez}ed Jofew ay} Bul
-ystqeyse Ng
‘PG6L JO PV OY} PUusWe Ud ssals
-U0D JeyjOUe BIOJeq Oe SUI}SIXO 9Y} Jopun AeMe
pemeus oq ACU 2I}IT YW “A}eL00S INO OUI pases]
-o1 oie ‘ASsioue o1uoye ‘SyIe JeajonuU 9y} YOM
“Jepun uszezjed ay} YSI[qe}se 0} Ssalsu0Dg Jeyjoue
JO} a[qissod }I spew sey Spey juszed pue JeaMmod
OLI}D9[9 94} UL S[ereqi,T JO AJOJIA [eyed sy,
*[0.1}U09
Jeapun pue pojuezed oq [[e wey} Aq p[nomM s~asse
-001d 94} ey} JOR] 9Y} PasOUSI SIU, ‘“A}eIDOS INO
0} OP pjnom Aoy} JeYM pos}er}suOWEp SeM }I Jeqye
Se TeIfoNU 9Y} JO 9sn 9Y} 9}e[Nset pfnod 9M 3ey}
‘Ul dSTId19}U9 9}eALId joel 9A Jey} Posin sem YJ
‘OSO[D UBAV ST }eY} JUSUIdOTAAVpP
A[UO 94} JNoGe SeM }eY} SUI}eUIJUI ‘UOOS 9ZUIOD
pINOM Uol}Ve1oUes JaMod O1}De]e Jey} BepPI ay}
peyood-yood Aesyy,
‘astidiayue 24eALId 0} Sasso
-J01d dIWI0}e SUISBETaI JO SJIaTjJe 9Y} JoIpeid prnoo
auo OU pres AY,
‘AjNp Sty} potousl OWV eu,
"OAPY
plnom JUsUIdO[eAsp 2Y} 7eY} SyaIje [eUOT}eUIE}UI
pue ‘feoryod ‘ormouode ‘TeID0s jo Apnjs e aaed
-aild 0} ‘o[qisesy pareadde Sassad0id [eloJeurui0d
UdYM “UOISSIWWOD AsIOUD DIUIOJY 94} pa}eJIp I]
‘Pley OTW107e [elOJEeUIWUOD 9Yy} dn Surtusdo 10J ainpsod
-old 8 poystqeyse Mel AsIeUe DTUIO}e PO dU,
‘AS31I9UI DTUIOT
jo AeMY-dATDH WIe[D-jInb ‘yomb we JOJ VATIp 9y} Aq
reak sty} paredaidun iy8neo 303 SSoISUO_ 2ULL,
APPo]L
UOLWPNIIS
ANOS
‘ui0}e 9y} Aq SuvaA AUCUI pepseds Us0q
sey sdoio suronpoid juepunqe s10Ul JOJ Yoreas
9y} pue seseesip Jueid uo JYSy 9y} ‘A[SNOITAGO
‘pley 24} JO JNO pue UI SsjueTd
poyjod sutAow Aq JO ‘1a}U90 9Y} WOIJ asduUe}SIP
“yt punore
AQ poleA SI UOT}eIPeI O} OBINSOdxy
S9[DJID UI ynd are SjuR[g ‘pley ey} UI o71e STOyIOM
JIIYM puNnoIs 9Y} UI PetaMO[ 9q UBD I OS poassLI
SI 7] ‘pley e Jo J9}U90 9} Ul [eLIo}eU SATJOROIPeI
jo Sn[S @ YIM OUOP SI UOT}eIPe.II JUeTd Yons
‘UIBI}S JULSISOI
ysnd 9Y4} dn sulpssiq y1ejJS pue Ws9y} WOIJ poses
9} Joyyes “JSnI 9Y} JSISeI Jey} SUIE}S 94} JNO YoId
Avy} UeY, “ysnt 0} surjueld sy} vsodxe Avy} “jueld
‘Suor}
Ue SISOI JsnI @ JOJ SUIYyOO,T oe AOY} JI
“poos o1e Maj
-e]NU 9Y} 9}JEAT}IND SjstUSIOS VU,
eB JING ‘SNOL}e[ep JO ‘peq o1e SsuOI}e NUL SO]
‘OTT PepfelA usoo poyeIpesy
‘JUEeUTLIedxS 9UO UI Sie
wiodJy SUIeIS QOO‘T ING
“NSVILII 87% peplelA UO. ATeUIpPIO JO surets QO0‘9Z
‘(sulidsjyjo [Teutmouqe) suorzejnu
‘gjdurexe Joq
jue[d dn spseds uorlyerpet 0} Us[jod sulsodxy
‘psonpoid useq dAeY SJeqoos V1OW 4U9d
-Iod Q¢ vonNpoId pues }IM Jeol JSISOT Jey} SjnUvAg
‘sieoA JTey e pue 9UuUO UI padofeAsp sem ‘sdouo
yesYUM UINANP 9d1Y} JSCT INO pouIna sey YOIYM jsnt
JO }10S 9} S}SISOI YOIyM ‘S}eo JO UTeI}]S Mou VW
:SJUDWUGO[SAVP JUBIYIUSIS DUIOS 3Ie OIOP{
"d}9 ‘SJDBSUI ‘UOT}BAJASeId POOF UO [e1BdAVS
‘AI|SIUIaYyooIq pue AsojorsAyd ‘uOoT}IAjNU ‘sotjoues
jewue uo Aueutl ‘Ar}stwIeyo JuL[d pue sued uo GZ
‘SISZI[ILIOJ PUB STIOS UO GE 9pNyOUT S}USWITLIEdxXy
"SI9JU9D YOIeISeI [euTUe pue
jueld oijqnd ul s9jeJs OP UL ABM JepuN sre Sj}o9
-foid [einjnolise OGL uey} s10ur ‘sIsoy}UAsojOYd
UO YIOM S}SI}USIOS JO Sdnois [eJeAVs a[TyM jng
‘IaMod reajonu jo esn Jofew uUeYy} JeuUOOS sUIOD
pue ‘yueyodu a1oul aq [IM UNS 9Yy} Jo AsioUue
"OID
'JOO1NO
d1WOU0DF
;QGOOH ONIAlu
G34
AWLLIT
“TITAN
©
- Item sets