XIV. A Program for Americans

XIV. A Program for Americans AsWE have seen, the American Republic is threatened by revolutionary forces which, if not checked, will cause its down fall. The primary menace is that our economy, already gravely overstrained, will be ruined by taxing and spending, ostensibly for defense against a foreign foe. Remote control of this coun try's purse strings, and not the thermonuclear bomb, is the No. 1 weapon in the Kremlin's arsenal. The revolutionary movement has made alarming progress in the last twenty years. Constitutional restraints on the power of the national government have been removed by executive usurpation, legislative aggrandizement, and judicial acquies cence. We have seen great "inroads upon the old·social order," as advocated by Marx and Engels inthe Communist Manifesto. We have seen the rise of the welfare state, which assumes re sponsibility for the care of the citizens and also asserts authority to control their daily activities. We are spending more than 70 billion dollars a year; the national debt is 272 billion dollars; taxes and inflation have depreciated the dollar to about one half of its pre-war value. Government support, and conse quently control, of the national economy is no longer a socialist dream; it is a basic principle 'of an administration calling itself Republican. Government competition with private industry has expanded considerably,. especially in the electric power field.

However, the collectivist program no longer calls for a step by step nationalization of industry. Some of the British labor unions have been disillusioned by experience with nationaliza tion. The revolutionary program is much bolder and much more dangerous than progressive nationalization. It calls for unbearable taxes and expenditures to create a revolutionary 244 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION crisis, which would provide a pretext for the government to take over the whole system at one stroke. The first step, therefore, in a program to save America must be a substantial reduction of expenditures to balance the fed eral budget. Expenditures should be reduced to 60 billion dol lars in the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1954, and to a maximum of 55 billion dollars in the following fiscal years. President Eisenhower, before his election, promised to sup port precisely this program. After his Morningside Heights breakfast conference with General Eisenhower on September 12, 1952, the late Senator Taft issued a statement saying: "Gen eral Eisenhower emphatically agrees with me in the proposal to reduce drastically overall expenses. Our goal is about 70 billion dollars in fiscal year 1954 and 60 billion dollars in fiscal year 1955. That would make possible a reduction in taxes to the 60 billion level for the year 1955. Of course I hope we may do better than that and that the reduction can steadily continue.

In our opinion a free economy cannot continue successfully if the total burden for the purposes of all government continu ously exceeds 25 per cent of the national income." Instead of a reduction of federal expenditures to 70 billion dollars in the present fiscal year, the President proposed an outlay of 74.1 billion. On October 8, 1953, he told his press conference that a balanced budget would always be a goal of his administration, but he refused to say when he expected to achieve that goal. It was impossible, the President declared, to pick a specific date and say: "Here all things must give way before a balanced budget." This is exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt used to say year after year, as the prospect of a bal anced budget receded farther and farther beyond the horizon. The estimated federal deficit this fiscal year is between 4 and 5 billion dollars. If new taxes are not voted by Congress, the treasury will lose about 8 billion dollars through the expiration or reduction of taxes now in effect. Therefore it will be neces sary to decrease expenditures by from 12 to 13 billion dollars in order to balance the budget. Since current estimates of ex penditures are running a little below the President's proposal to A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 245 spend 74.1 billion, such a reduction would balance the budget at around 60 billion.

Further reductions will be required in future years to bring the total cost of government, federal, state and local, down to 25 per cent of the national income, which is the limit for a "free economy," according to the Taft-Eisenhower agreement. Since a reduction of spending should halt the inflationary spiral, we cannot reasonably count upon a sustained national income of more than 290 billion dollars a year, which was the total for 1952. Since state and local taxes now aggregate about 20 bil lion dollars a year, a 25 per cent limit on the total cost of government would leave only 52.5 billion for the federal gov ernment. A federal outlay of 55 billion dollars, plus 20 billion for state and local governments, would be 25.8 per cent of a 290 billion dollar national income. The President can keep faith with Senator Taft only by sub stantially reducing expenditures under the heading of "national security," including foreign aid, which are estimated at 51.7 billion dollars for the current fiscal year. It is obvious that all other expenses of government, including veterans' costs and almost 7 billion dollars annually for interest on the public debt, cannot be held below 20 billion dollars a year. This means that "national security" spending should be cut to 40 billion dollars in the next fiscal year and 35 billion dollars annually thereafter.

An outlay of 35 billion dollars for the army, navy, and air force for the next fiscal year, and of 30 billion dollars annually there after, would leave 2 billion dollars a year for atomic weapons production, 2 billion for continental air defense, and 1 billion for foreign assistance. Such a program would require· basic changes in the foreign policy and the defense strategy of the United States, but it could be carried out while simultaneously strengthening our military position. It is self-evident that economic strength is a prerequi site of military strength. With a balanced budget and a limitof 35 billion dollars a year on expenditures for "national security," we can preserve our economic strength. Moreover, by basing our strategy primarily upon the retaliatory capacity of power ..

246 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION ful air and sea forces we can deter, and if necessary punish, Communist aggression within the limits of our economic and manpower resources. The program of the Eisenhower administration, which is a continuation of policies adopted by the Truman regime, calls for the simultaneous development of huge ground forces, naval forces, and air forces, for munitions and cash subsidies to other countries, and for local resistance to communist aggression wherever it may occur-in Korea, Indo-China, the Middle East, or Western Europe. There is no foundation for assertions that the Eisenhower administration has abandoned the "contain ment" policy of the Truman administration. In the 1952 cam paign' John Foster Dulles talked vaguely about "liberating" the 600,000,000 people enslaved by the Soviet tyranny outside its own frontiers since 1939; but on September 17, 1953, Dul les told the United Nations that "our creed does not call for exporting revolution and inciting others to violence." The de lighted comment of a delegate from a British Commonwealth country was that Dulles had made "a fine Acheson speech."

Regardless of semantic distinctions, the Eisenhower admin istration is continuing a policy of dispersion, of reacting to com munist initiative. It is identical with the policy deplored by Demosthenes in the first Philippic: "Shame on you Athenians for not wishing to understand that in war one must not allow one's self to be at the command of events, but to forestall them. You make war against Philip like a barbarian when he wrestles. If you hear that Philip has attacked in the Chersonese, you send help there. If he is at Thermopylae you run there. If he turns aside you follow him to right or left, as if you were acting on his orders. Never a fixed plan; never any precautions. You wait for bad news·before you act." Former President Herbert Hoover, the greatest American of the twentieth century, is the foremost exponent of the air-sea defense concept. Although Mr. Hoover calls himself "a mere civilian," the advice of the ablest generals and admirals in this country is available to him. Among others, he is advised by General MacArthur, Lieutenant General Wedemeyer (author A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 247 of the prophetic reports on China and Korea), and Brigadier General Bonner Fellers who was General MacArthur's chief planning officer in the Pacific war. The former President told the Republican national convention on July 8, 1952, that his program was "supported by seven of our most distinguished retired army, navy and air force officers" and "six of our most seasoneddiplomats."In the same speech,Mr. Hoover said: "The effective deterrent which American resources can con tribute is not bayonets against overwhelming land forces, but the expansion of air power and navies to make up a great strik ing force, which could destroy the communist military potential if they started any aggression anywhere. And this striking force naturally includes strategic bases with a stretch of water in front of them over which communist armies cannot pass our navy."

Lest it be doubted that the Pentagon was relying on bayonets to deter or resist the communist hordes, Mr. Hoover quoted the following dogma, which might have been taken from a manual used in the Franco-Prussian War, but actually appeared in a War Department bulletin of February 1, 1952: "The individ ual rifleman is the most effective and most essential weapon against the enemy. All other services exist to support the in fantry soldier." In a speech on January 27, 1952, Mr. Hoover declared that "the only way to save Europe from destruction is to avoid the third world war." He advocated cooperation with the Brit ish to "expand our already strong air arms and navies up to a striking force" that would deter communist aggression. He would furnish "such munitions as we can afford to other na tions who show a determined will to defend themselves," but ground armies would be Europe's own problem.

It was to be expected, of course, that Mr. Hoover would be smeared as a "defeatist" and an "appeaser" of world commu nism by some of those who had distinguishedthemselvesas champions of collaboration with Stalin in the United Nations. Sumner Welles accused the former president of counseling "ab ject defeatism." Such a program, he wrote, would be "tanta248 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION mount to the scuttling of all forms of collective security," and a "cynical breach of all the obligations" entered into by us since 1945. He agreed with the statement of Elmer Davis that Mr. Hoover sounded "a clarion call to his fellow countrymen to crawl under the bed, shut their eyes, plug their ears and hope for the best."l If the American people could be deluded by such discredited prophets as Sumner Welles and Elmer Davis, the counsel falsely ascribed by them to Mr. Hoover would be as good.as any, for our days as a free nation would be numbered. Instead of aban doning the noncommunist world, as Welles argues, the Hoover plan would serve notice on the Kremlin that "aggression against other noncommunist countries as well as Western Europe"

would be punished by an air-sea striking force strong enough to destroy the Soviet war potential. Instead of cynically breach ing our treaty obligations, as Welles contends, it offers the only possibility of carrying out our commitments to those countries. For, as Senator Taft declared in a speech at Cincinnati on May 26, 1953, no one has ever argued convincingly "that United States ground forces could effectively defend Europe." From air force bases available now in Greenland, Iceland, Labrador, and Alaska, our B-36 bombers can carry atomic bombs to any target in the Soviet Union and return without re fueling in flight.2 Our newall-jet B-52 bomber, which can strike targets in Russia and return to North American bases without refueling in flight, will be available in quantity in 1955. From carriers now available, navy attack aircraft, also pres ently available, can reach any target in Europe, including Arch angel, Murmansk, Finland, Leningrad, and western Russia to Kiev, Rostov, and Baku, and return to their ships. From car riers operating in Pacific waters, the same aircraft can reach targets well beyond Peiping and deep inland along the trans Siberian railroad. 3 The Russians know this. Fear of retaliation by American air power, and not the phantom army of the 1. Seven Decisions that Shaped History.

2. Wings for Peace, by Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, Henry Regnery Co. 3. Hanson Baldwin, New York Times, September 25,1953.

A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 249 NATO countries in western Europe, has prevented any aggres sion by the Soviet Union's own forces since World War II. They have instigated and supported aggression by satellite armies and guerrilla forces, but they have not attacked with their own. The announcement that a thermonuclear explosion had oc curred in the Soviet Union was followed by a series of alarm ing statements by administration officials, warning that it might be necessary to spend more money for national defense and increase rather than decrease taxes. President Eisenhower, speaking at Boston on September 21, 1953, declared that the "enemies of freedom" are equipped with "the most terrible weapons of destruction" and that "no sacrifice, no labor, no tax, no service" is too hard for· us to bear to support "a logical and necessary defense of our freedom." Representative Cole of New York, chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, said the country should forget about trying to balance the budget and spend 15 to 25 billion dollars on continental air defense. Even then it would be possible to stop not more than half of a Soviet bombing force, he declared. The babbling Val Peterson, head of the Civil Defense Administra tion' warned that the Russians would use not only atomic and thermonuclear bombs but germ warfare, poison gas and "psy chological panic." Then he made a contribution to the "psycho logical panic" by declaring flatly that such warfare was in evitable.

The hysterical clamor about the Soviet hydrogen bomb, which could only be described as subversive, apparently alarmed the country less than the President, who had started it. The President finally enjoined all members of his adminis tration from making statements on Soviet nuclear capabilities without the approval of the Atomic Energy Commission. Even if the Russians have a "deliverable" hydrogen bomb, which most of our experts doubt, there are few military targets in the world which could not be destroyed by a super plutonium bomb. Therefore, possession of the hydrogen bomb· by the Russians hardly alters the strategic power relationship. The Russians are believed to have 25,000 airplanes, of which the great majority 250 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION are fighters and not all of these are jets. Fighter planes are no offensive threat to the United States. They have more than 700 TU-4 bombers, an improved version of our World War II B-29s, capable of 5,000 mile flights. A longer range bomber, slightly smaller than our B-36, with swept-back wings and six jet engines, has been seen over Moscow but has not been pro duced in quantity. 4 General Hoyt Vandenberg, retiring air force chief of staff, recently testified that the Soviet air force "has the capability of carrying atomic bombs for a distance of 2,000 miles and returning to its bases. It can also deliver the atomic bomb through staging bases already prepared in Siberia and Northern Russia to any target in the United States on a one-way mission. Whether the Russians are yet completely pre pared to commit this force in a full scale attack against the United States we do not know."5 It does not require a "military expert" to determine whether the Russians are likely to commit this relatively small and rela tively short-range World War II type "strategic" air force in a no-return raid against the United States. Simple reasoning shows that it would be an act of military madness. If they could destroy most of our major cities and war production centers and continental air bases, and thirty or forty million of our people, in a single one-way raid, they might temporarily par alyze our capacity for resistance to such an extent that they could land an occupation army on our shores, provided they had the ships to transport and protect it against the opposition of the American navy. They would have to do all of this to accomplish a reasonable military purpose. Anything short of· such a success would subject the Soviet Union to immediate reprisal and probable ultimate defeat by the United States. If the Russians were contemplating an imminent surprise attack against the United States, it is more logical to assume that they would seek to knock out our strategic air bases, just as the Japa nese wrecked our fleet at Pearl Harbor. That would give them freedom of action to invade western Europe or the Middle East 4. Wings for Peace, by Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers.

5. U. S. News & World Report, July 10, 1953.

A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 251 or both. However, our strategic air bases, dispersed in Green land, Iceland, Labrador, Alaska, the Azores, England, North west Africa, the Middle East, Japan, Okinawa, and the Philip pines, as well as continental United States, presumably have modem air defenses, and it is inconceivable that a major part of them could be knocked out simultaneously by the existing Soviet air force. One of the few officials of the Eisenhower administration who has shown any promise of breaking through the sonic bar rier into the realm of reason is Charles E. Wilson, Secretary of Defense. At a press conference on October 6, 1953, he con jectured that it would be at least three years before the Russians would have.deliverable hydrogen bombs in significant quantity and airplanes with which they could drop them on the United States. Even then, he remarked, one might ask; "so what?"

"The final thing," said Secretary Wilson, "is this: Is there any reason for them to go to war, and if they did, wouldn't it be clear to them that they would meet so much opposition that they would finally lose?" Dr. Marek Stanislaw Korowicz, who broke away from the Polish delegation to the United Nations, testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on September 24, 1953, that the Soviet master plan calls for world conquest be tween 1970 and 1980. However, he declared that the Kremlin hopes to achieve its aims by "the progressive destruction of the cultural, economic and political foundations of the free world." The Soviet leaders know, he said, that "under present circum stances war is not the best and safest way to achieve their aims." With all the trouble Malenkov's dictatorship now has on its hands in the Soviet Union and in the satellite countries, the suggestion of imminent war with the United States undoubt edly would cause shudders and convulsions in the Kremlin.

The full effects of the mysterious Beria purge alone may not be known for years. The recent riots in Czechoslovakia and East Germany were symptoms of sullen discontent and po tentially violent resistance. Dr. Korowicz testified that Poland is "one immense totalitarian prison camp," and that not more 252 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION than seven per cent of the population are even remotely sym pathetic to communism. Dictator Malenkov himself, in a re markable speech to the Supreme Soviet on August 8, 1953, acknowledged serious deficiencies In the production of goods for popular consumption. He said the Soviet Union was "still a long way from adequately meeting the increasing demand for meat, milk, eggs and other animal produce." There is even a "serious lag" in the production of potatoes and vegetables, he declared. With seventy per cent of all Soviet industrial workers employed in heavy industry, the long suffering Slavs are at last demanding butter instead of guns.

Advocates of higher taxes and increased spending for arma ments conjure up scenes of indescribable havoc wrought by Soviet atomic attacks on our great cities. Yet the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to press reports, do not believe that they could spend more than $500,000,000 of additional funds on continental air defense in the next fiscal year without upsetting their whole program. Even if the danger of an atomic attack is not imminent, we should begin now to develop an air defense system that will deter such an attempt when the Russians have adequate strategic air power. It would seem that at least one third of the six billion dollars a year we are spending on aid to foreign countries could be more usefully devoted to air defense. Many pretended experts have questioned the feasibility of defending our cities and munitions plants against airborne atomic attack. This is transparent nonsense. Duncan Sandys, Britain's minister of supply, announced on August 22, 1953, that Britain has developed 2,OOO-mile an hour antiaircraft rockets which can outmaneuver any piloted aircraft, either by "riding" a radar beam or "homing" on the target by means of their own preset mechanism. Presumably the United States is abreast of such developments. General J. Lawton Collins, re tiring Army Chief of Staff, recently testified before the House Appropriations Committee that the American antiaircraft guided missile, called the Nike, is being produced "under nor mal American techniques of mass production," and that in A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 253 tests against remotely controlled drone planes, actual bombers, the targets have been "literally blown to pieces."

The effectiveness of antiaircraft artillery in World War II was limited because a bomber could take evasive action in the time required for a shell to reach the predicted position of a target five to eight miles away (slant range). The radar guided and "homing" antiaircraft rockets can reach targets at much greater distances and no evasive action can elude them. More over, "homing" or target-seeking air-to-air rockets, fired from jet fighters, can knock down bombers far beyond the range of aircraft guns. With an early warning radar screen across northern Canada and Alaska from Greenland to the Aleutians, jet fighters can be alerted in time to intercept Soviet bombers from Arctic bases before they reach our cities. Bombers approaching our shores from the Atlantic or Pacific can be detected by radar picket ships. Some would get through, but they would have to contend with the guided missile batteries protecting major tar gets. Such a system would not insure complete protection in a war with the Soviet Union, but its existence would;deter a sur prise attack.

The feasibility of defense against airborne atomic attack does not mean that our own air offensivewould be ineffective. If we keeR ahead of the Russians in electronics we can jam their early warning and antiaircraft missile-guiding radar. The United States and Britain successfullyjammed the German gun-aiming radar in World War II, and by using higher and higher fre quencies in the microwave region they prevented counter-jam ming by the Germans. The success of the American electronic gunsight in the Korean war indicates that we are well ahead of the Russians in electronics. How large should our air force be? Some air enthusiasts are sincerely concerned, and the socialist spending cult is shedding crocodile tears, about a reduction by the Eisenhower adminis tration in proposed new money appropriations for the air force. Former President Truman, who withheld funds appropriated 254 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION by Congress in 1948 to increase the air force to 70 groups, on the ground that 48 was all the country needed or could afford, now has the effrontery to accuse the Eisenhower administration of sabotaging the 143 group program.

No one has demonstrated the absurdity of the Pentagon's ground defense concept more impressively than General Fel lers, in his excellent book Wings for Peace.6 Yet General Fellers, like most air enthusiasts, is influenced too much by the air war fare of World War II. He believes that we need 250 groups (or wings, as they are now called), and he supports his judgment by the testimony of General Carl Spaatz, former Air Force Chief of Staff, before the·Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 21, 1951. Surely the advocates of a 250 wing air force are thinking in terms of World War II, when more than 1,000 B-17sand B-24s, each carrying about 3Y2 tons of con ventional bombs, were flown in single raids on Germany, and up to 1,000 B-29s, each with a 10-ton bomb load, were used in single attacks on Japanese cities. A single airplane carrying an improved plutonium bomb is the equivalent of hundreds of B-29s, while the hydrogen bomb is said to be 50 times as de structive as the plutonium bomb.

According to Secretary Wilson, the air force had 106 acti vated wings, including 90 combat wings, on June 30, 1953, and will have 114 effective wings by June 30, 1954. A total of 60 fighter and 40 bomber wings, equipped with the most modem aircraft, would give this country a truly formidable air force. With 75 fighters and 30 bombers to a wing, this would be a total of 4,500 fighters and 1,200 bombers. With a 100 per cent replacement reserve, such a force would give us 11,400 first line aircraft. The actual number of wings in being, so long as it is adequate, is less important than our aircraft production and aircrew training rate. According to military intelligence estimates recently submitted to the House Appropriations Com mittee, our current production of both bombers and fighters exceeds the Russian production rate. We are producing about 6. Wings for Peace, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1953.

A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 255 1,000 aircraft a month for the air force, the navy and other nations. The air force is training pilots at the rate of 7,200 a year, and this is higher than the estimated Russian rate. General Collins recently testified that the army has 20 com bat divisions, 18 regimental combat teams (the equivalent of six additional divisions), and many separate antiaircraft bat talions. GeneralFellersmaintainspersuasivelythat the stand ing army should be reduced to 10 divisions, all of them airborne. He believes the mission of the airborne army should be limited to "providing antiaircraft artillery defenses, and to defending bases and critical areas·from sabotage or attack by enemy air borne troops." The six divisions now in Germany would be streamlined to become part of the airborne army, but the six army divisions now in Korea would not be immediately ·avail able for that purpose.7 Eventually we may be able to withdraw our forces from Korea, after we have completed South Korea's twenty-division army program. We have signed a security pact with the Korean Republic, warning the Communists that any further aggression by them will be punished by the United States.

We are obligated by the North Atlantic Treaty to defend western Europe, ·but we are not obligated to protect it with ground forces. Our six divisions are insignificant as a deterrent force and would be sacrificed or compelled to flee in a Dunkirk operation in the eventuality of a Soviet attack. The provision of ground forces, as Mr. Hoover says, is Europe's own problem, and the rearmament of Germany is the only answer to that problem. If the French continue to obstruct German participa tion in the defense of western Europe by refusing to ratify the so-called European Defense Community treaty, we should en courage unilateral German rearmament. That would help to restore the European·balance of power which we destroyed by intervening in the last war.·Moreover, it would expedite French rearmament. The French are not impressed by our concern about the Sovietmenace,but they are pathologicallyafraid of 7. Wings for Peace.

256 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION the Germans. They conceived the EDC scheme only as a means of thwarting American plans for the creation of a German na tional army, and now they are sabotaging it. A national defense program based upon the concept of a powerful air-sea striking force to deter communist aggression could be maintained for 30 billion dollars a year, possibly even less. It would avoid intolerable taxes, inflation and eventual bankruptcy, the fate long predicted for this country by the Kremlin rulers. In its global struggle with Soviet communism the United States needs friends, not only in western Europe but in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, where dependent peoples and those who have recently emerged from colonialism are in a ferment of revolt against the west. The peoples of these areas are struggling to throw off the last vestiges of imperialism, and to improve their wretched standards of living, the heritage of two centuries of exploitation. The prevalence of anti-American sentiment in western Europe, after all the billions of dollars we have spent there, is conclusive evidence that friends cannot be bought. Historical experience shows, however, that they can be won by enlightened example, intelligent cooperation, and a decent respect for their rights and aspirations.

The United States has lost, and must regain, the moral lead ership of the world. Addressing the United Nations on Sep tember 17, 1953, State Secretary Dulles quoted Lincoln's statement that the Declaration of Independence gave not only liberty to the American people but "hope to the world for all future time." Unfortunately, recent American policies have not inspired such hope.. Our prestige reached an all time peak when we granted independence to the Philippines, but in the short period of the so-called cold war it has sunk to an all-time low. Dr. Y. T. Pyun, foreign minister of the Republic of Ko rea, told the General Assembly's Political Committee on Au gust 24, 1953: "The United Nations is fast becoming a hot place, not for the Soviet Union, but for its free world opposite number."

A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 257 We have lost the moral leadership of the world largely be cause we have s~pported French imperialism in North Africa and Indochina, and British imperialism in the Middle East, in the hope of strengthening our NATO allies economically. Sec retary Dulles, in the September 17 speech, mentioned the re sponsibility of the United States and the other noncommunist countries toward the non-self-governing territories. The Arab delegates regarded this as a sardonic joke, for it had been only two weeks since the American delegation voted to deny fifteen Asian and African nations a hearing by the Security Council on their complaint against France's oppression of the Moroc cans. The United States also had been the decisive factor in preventing a hearing on a similar complaint against France in Tunisia. By any reasonable construction of the relevant international law, the French are aggressors in Morocco and Tunisia, and the United States should exert all its influence upon the French government to grant full independence to those countries. This would not harm, in fact it would benefit, French economic and cultural interests. The Moroccans, grateful for America's good offices, would give us a treaty safeguarding our strategic air bases. In case of war, under existing conditions, we would have to station large ground forces in Morocco to protect the air bases.

For seven years the French have been fighting a costly, futile war in Indochina against native guerrilla forces led by Ho Chi minh, a Moscow-trained Communist. Ho's Vietminh forces are supplied by Communist China. The Eisenhower administra tion's response to this situation was to increase annual aid to the French in Indochina from $400,000,000 to $785,000,000, in addition to great quantities of military equipment. Secre tary Dulles, addressing the American Legion on September 2, warned the Chinese Communists that they could not send their own army into Indochina "without grave consequences which might not be confined to Indochina." The Eisenhower admin istration, like its predecessor, recoiled from a chance· to defeat the Communists in Korea, but now seems to be prepared to 258 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION fight them on the mainland to save French colonial interests in Indochina. Addressing the governors' conference in Seattle, in August, 1953, the President declared that if Indochina should fall India would be outflanked. With Chinese communist forces in Sinkiang province and in Tibet, India already is outflanked.

The President asked how it would be possible for "the free world to hold the rich empire of Indonesia" if Indochina should fall. A glance at the map suggests that sea power would be one way. No matter how much support we give the French, the war in Indochina will not be won so long as the people there are offered only a continuation of French colonialism. A member of a western European delegation to the U.N. told me that even some native Catholic priests, educated in France, have gone over to Ho Chi-minh, not because they are procommunist, but because he is fighting the French. The French have promised independence to the associated states of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, but the examples of Tunisia and Morocco do not inspire confidence in such promises. Writing in the French military magazine Revue de Defense Nationale, General L. M. Chassin, commander of the French air force in Indochina until June, 1953, declared that "the key to victory will be the morale of the people of Vietnam."8 If the French could be induced to get out of Indochina, most of Ho Chi-minh's followers would desert him overnight, and even Bao Dai, who has been dis trusted as a French puppet, could head a popular government in Vietnam. The United States then could train and equip a Vietnamese army capable of defending itself against the com munist guerrillas, at far less cost than our present bootless aid to the French.

We should stop all subsidies to Europe, both military and economic. Korea, devastated by war, will have to be rehabili tated, and the United States can expect little help from other countries in that program. It probably will cost us 2 billion dollars. We should grant or lend a billion dollars or so to Japan, 8. Hanson Baldwin, New York Times, September 10,1953.

A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 259 to facilitate its rearmament asa deterrent to communist expan sion in the Far East. Since the United States must defend For mosa in its own interest, there is no need for further expansion of Chiang Kai-shek's already considerable forces. Other for eign aid should be limited to loans by the Export-Import Bank for economic development projects, and appropriations of about $50,000,000 a year for technical assistance. If properly administered, the technical assistance program, now costing $180,000,000 a year, can be constructive and far less expen sive. The Truman administration squandered .the taxpayers' money and antagonized the people of some countries, espe cially in the Middle East, by loading the payroll with deadbeat bureaucrats who put on the airs of proconsuls. Under the Eisen hower administration, over-zealous administrators are spend ing too much for economic development projects on a program that should be limited to technical aid, with the United States paying only the salaries and expenses of the experts and the cost of demonstration projects. American specialists can help the countries of Latin America, Mrica, the Middle East and Asia increase their food production, improve health conditions, and institute teacher and nurse training programs.

Wherever possible, capital investment for economic devel opment should be left to private industry. However, self-liqui dating loans should be made by the·Export-Import Bank for the development of natural resources when adequate private capital is not available. A recent Export-Import Bank loan of $67,500,000 to Brazilian-American interests to exploit one of the world's greatest manganese deposits is a creditable under taking. Supporters of the NATO program justify endless handouts to the European countries on the ground that American indus try is dependent upon raw materials controlled by them. We import raw materials from Canada, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, but not from Europe. Even if the Communists should overrun western Europe, that would no more shut off our sources of raw materials than did Hitler's occupation of those countries. Of the twelve materials listed 260 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION as strategic in the second world war, eleven-copper, manga nese, chromium, tungsten, tin, antimony, platinum, mercury, iodine, sodium nitrate and bauxite-are available in Latin America. The vast continent of Africa is rich in raw materials.

The Middle East has the world's largest known oil reserves. It is clear, therefore, that we should cultivate the friendship of these countries and not alienate them by supporting European colonialism. Their intense nationalism is a factor in our favor, for they are beginning to understand that communism, which poses as a champion of national liberation, actually seeks to enslave them. The United States should assert its moral leadership by re fusing to associate, in a pretended peace organization, with the Soviet Union, the worst menace in history to the peace and security of mankind. We should withdraw from the U.N. and break off diplomatic relations with the communist countries. Dr. Korowicz told the Un-American Activities Committee that the Communists use the U.N. only as a forum for their poison ous propaganda, by which they further their plans for world conquest. "The greatest defeat short of war for the Commu nists would be the loss of diplomatic relations with the west,"

Dr. Korowicz said. He is indubitably right. We should treat them as moral outcasts. It is an insult to the intelligence of our people to tell them that it may be possible to negotiate de pendable agreements with these international public enemies. Despite the examples of Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Stalin's cynical nonaggression pact with Hitler, his equally cynical nonaggression agreement with Japan, and his attack on that country while it was trying to surrender to the United States, we·are told by French, British and even Ameri can leaders, including Secretary Dulles, that a nonaggression treaty with the Soviet Union might reduce tensions and effect stability. If there is anything under heaven the Kremlin does not want, it is stability and a reduction of tension. Where would these tension-reducers and stabilizers draw the line of demar cation? Would they guarantee East Germany against attack by A PROGRAM· FOR AMERICANS 261 West Germany, and thereby condemn the East Germans to permanent slavery?

There is little hope that the present administration, the Re publican Party, or the Democratic Party can be depended upon to redirect our foreign and military policies, to put our financial affairs in order and to halt this head-long charge into national disaster. The Republicans in 1956 will renominate President Eisenhower or a candidate of his choice. The Democrats will nominate Adlai Stevenson or some other candidate acceptable to Americaps for Democratic Action. We must have a political realignment in this country, and a new political party, to ex press the will of millions of Americans who have been effec tively disfranchised by a system which asks them to choose between New Deal Democrats and New Deal Republicans. Colonel Robert R. McCormick, editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune, has proposed the only appropriate name for such a patriotic movement-the American Party. The new party should appeal to the Taft Republicans and to the conservative Democrats of the South. General Eisen hower's personal popularity undoubtedly accounted for a large part of his support in the South. Nevertheless, southern Demo crats in great numbers voted for him as a Republican, in the belief that he would satisfy their demand for a "change at Wash ington." He carried Virginia, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, and received 4,103,673 popular votes in eleven Southern states, only 319,880 less than Stevenson's total. These conservative Democrats left their party for Eisenhower and they will leave it again, for without the two-thirds rule they cannot prevent the nomination of a socialistic candidate. After four years of the Eisenhower administration they should be ready for another "change at Washington."

The Whig Party died because it lacked the vision and moral integrity to fight the extension of human slavery. The Republi can Party also will die, and it should, if those who control it temporize with the extension of programs and policies that will enslave the whole nation. A new party should bring about a 262 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION realignment. Let the New Deal Republicans join the New Deal Democrats. They should call themselves Social Democrats, the name used by their ideological counterparts in Europe-but that is their business. Let the free Republicans and the free Demo crats join the American Party. The people should begin now, in 1954, just as they began in 1854 at Ripon, Wisconsin, and later in other cities and towns, to hold meetings and form com mittees for the organization of a new party. The Republican Party, founded a hundred years ago, did not elect a President until six years later. There is no time to lose. A committee of the American Party should be formed in every congressional district this year. Present members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, whose record is above reproach, should be in dorsed by the new party, but in other districts it should nominate its own candidates. By 1956 the party should be well organized.

It should hold its first national convention and nominate candi dates for president and vice-president. Even if it should run third in the popular vote, it could throw the election into the House of Representatives, where New York would have only one vote, the same as Nevada and all other states. The Hoover-MacArthur-Fellers air-sea program of national defense should be a major plank in the new party's platform. It offers the only hope for· a drastic reduction of taxes and ex penditures. The party should support a proposal by Senator Everett M. Dirksen (R., 111.) and Representative Chauncey W. Reed (R., 111.) for a Constitutional amendment to put a ceiling on income taxes. Their proposed amendment, which has been indorsed by the American Bar Association, would limit individual and corporation income taxes to 25 per cent unless Congress, by a three-fourths majority of each house, should increase the rates. Congress could increase the rates to any point, but a maximum spread of 15 per cent between the top and bottom brackets would be permitted. This would elimi nate most of the evils of the "heavy progressive or graduated income tax" advocated by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. The highest surtax rate on individual and corporate incomes when the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913 A PROGRAM FOR AMERICANS 263 was 6 per cent. Now the highest rate on individual incomes is 92 per cent. The Marxist graduated income tax not only facili tates government extravagance, but also permits the majority, who pay little or no taxes on income, to rob the minority by pushing the top rates higher and higher. As James Madison remarked in No. 10 of the Federalist Papers, the majority are both judge and party in their own cause, and "every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets."

The American Party should advocate withdrawal from the United Nations'and adoption of the Bricker amendment to pre vent subversion of our liberties by treaty lawmaking. It should support a bill recommended by the Jenner Internal Security Subcommittee, giving Congress. the power to grant immunity from prosecution to witnesses who refuse, on the ground of possible self-incrimination, to testify about the Soviet fifth col umn in the government. Defiant witnesses then could be prose cuted for contempt, or for perjury if they should testify falsely. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be com pelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," but it does not protect a Communist or ex-Communist from possible loss of his job or any embarrassment he might feel about naming conspirators against the nation. Finally, the new party should promise to get the federal gov ernment out of business and to halt the expansion of its activi ties in other fields. The following statement by Mr. Hoover, in a speech at Cleveland on April 11, 1953, could well express the party's political philosophy: "True liberalism is found not in striving to spread bureauc racy, but in striving to set bounds to it. True liberalism seeks all legitimate freedom, in the confident belief that without free dom, all other blessings are vain. Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit coming from a realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved."

A new political party is essential for the realization, of this program, but the preservation of our freedom will require also a spiritual reawakening. The 'creeping revolution, stimulated 264 THE TWENTY-YEAR REVOLUTION by atheistic Marxism, has been attended by a rapid decline of moral standards in this country. More Americans should go to church. We need to rededicate ourselves to the spiritual pur poses of our forefathers, which made this country great. Reli gion is an impregnable shield against Godless communism. If we have faith, the Lord will deliver us. This is the promise of the 33rd Psalm: Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people he hath chosen for his own inheritance. The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.

There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. Behold the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy: To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. Our soul waiteth for the Lord: he is our help and our shield.