Nevertheless there is a great danger in sweeping generalizations. As already suggested, a solution suitable to the situation in one country is not suitable to that in another. There are occasions where society must insist upon the resignation of the use of violence. We have adopted that principle in our own American society with reference to insurrection; we are struggling to make that principle generally applicable to strife between management and labor. That principle can operate only if there are procedures for peaceful adjustment. In the domestic labor field we are slow in finding these procedures. In the international field inevitably we move on still more leaden feet.

The world will not overnight be composed of model governments, partly because it is not yet even composed of groups of people competent to operate republican forms of government. Many peoples must still pass through generations of tutelage. Some of their masters will be benevolent; some will be malevolent. Some will seek to lead and to educate by disinterested progressive methods which you and I like to think are characteristic of the United States. Some will seek to instill wisdom with the birch rod or its political equivalents, the concentration camp and the machine gun.

The classic appeal, "Come over into Macedonia and help us," has a new meaning today. Our ears will never be deaf to such appeals. They were not deaf when the natives in the Congo were abused some 40 years ago. They were not deaf when the Turks massacred the Christians in Armenia, when Czarist Russia persecuted the Jews, when the Nazis embarked on their career of genocide.

But let us keep our emotions straight even while we keep our powder dry. In the present Greek situation there are at least three interwoven factors which were not sharply distinguished in President Truman's speech. In setting forth those three factors by way of conclusion I recognize the risk of oversimplification and that I do not venture to suggest detailed solutions of all our problems. But it is in the light of the immediate issue in Greece that we may test the long-range policy of international guaranty of democratic government.

First. There is the problem of economic reconstruction in Greece. Here the International Commission of the Food and Agriculture Organization has clearly pointed the way to international action under the United Nations. To such international action we are committed and in it lies the only hope of future world peace and progress.

Second. There is the problem of communism. This too is not essentially a new problem although the labels are new. We see in communism a threat to our established institutions, economic, social, and political. Monarchial Europe saw the same threat in the republicanism of revolutionary France. That Europe of 150 years ago shuddered also at the excesses of the French Terror as abolitionists shuddered at the cruelty of the slavocracy and as we are aroused and appalled by the cruelty of the police state. Slavery was ended indeed by our Civil War with its sad aftermath of the carpet-bag governments and a long heritage of bitterness. Our ultimate success ensued despite our failure to find the right process for attaining the objective. It is a commonplace assertion that communism, or any other revolutionary creed, finds most fertile economic distress. The victory of our concept of democracy lies in its own demonstration of its effectiveness and in its ability from its strength and self-restraint to persuade and help-not force-other peoples to choose our road.

Third. There is the problem of power politics-the expansion of Russia. This is not a new problem. It dominated much of international politics of the nineteenth century. Russia cast envious eyes on the Turkish Straits long before the dawn of communism. Russia and England clashed and defined their spheres of influence in Persia long before there was a United Nations Security Council to discuss the Irainian complaint of Russian influence in Azerbaidjan. In this sense, we are indeed the inheritors of century-old British policy. It is precisely the reverse of Kipling's line that "there is neither east nor west-when two strong men meet face to face." The history of modern Europe teaches the failure of the system of balance of power to solve the perennial conflict of two strong vital nations or groups of nations. I, for one, reject absolutely the idea of an “American Century" in which the United States in complacent benevolence will tell the rest of the world and each part of it what is good for it. There remains the experiment of international cooperation, briefly and unsuccessfully tried by the League of Nations between the two wars. "With firmness in the right" that is a road which we can travel, not with blind optimism and not with utter confidence, but with hope.

Professor Fisher, in the lectures which I have already mentioned, stated eloquently the view which Mr. Eric Johnston of the United States Chamber of Commerce also expounded. In Professor Fisher's words:

"The paramount issue of our time is whether in the world community now taking shape, these two unconquerable powers shall work together in leadership in the unity of that community, or whether each, suspicious and fearful of the other, gathers allies about itself and stores up more terrible engines of destruction to get ready for a conflict which will prove with awful finality man's incapacity to save himself from the misuse of the knowledge and skill he has acquired."

EXCERPTS FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF THE SENATE REGARDING AID TO GREECE AND TURKEY, APRIL 1947 (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 93, PT. 3)

AID TO GREECE AND TURKEY (S. 938)

(Senator Byrd, Virginia, April 1, 1947)

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent to submit a resolution; and I request that the clerk read it, and that it lie on the table under the rule.

The Chief Clerk read the resolution (S. Res. 101), as follows:

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United States representative before the United Nations organization bring before the United Nations organization immediately, for its immediate consideration, the present problems which have arisen with respect to Greece and Turkey with a view to having said organization take such action with respect to such problems as it may deem necessary for the immediate solution thereof."

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to preface what I am about to say with a sincere tribute to the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Vandenberg), who has performed a most notable service in connection with the establishment of the United Nations organization. I want to compliment him as one of the chief architects in that great movement designed to assure the future peace of the world. He deserves, and has received, world-wide applause for his ability and leadership. After devoting months of effort to establishing the United Nations organization, I can well understand his misgivings toward the proposal to bypass the United Nations Organization and intervene directly in Greece and Turkey by providing military aid, with both implements of war and military missions.

In very clear and unequivocal language, the Charter of the United Nations provides for taking "effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace." This is to be accomplished by collective action and not by unilateral action of any one nation. It is indeed the very basic spirit of the idea upon which the United Nations was built.

After introducing the bill providing for intervention in Greece and Turkey, the Senator from Michigan has proposed a preamble, denying that the United States intended to bypass the United Nations Organization. This is merely a lot of pious words and one can imagine that when the officials of other governments read this language they will surely think he "doth protest too much."

The Senator from Michigan now proposes another amendment which will give to the United Nations the right to veto the action taken by the United State Government in extending aid to Greece and Turkey. When the statement is made that this eliminates all question of superseding the United Nations, I submit that this amendment is completely unrealistic. As a practical proposition, a majority of the members of the United Nations have the hope, prospect, and expectation of becoming beneficiaries of American dollars just as is proposed in the case of Greece and Turkey.

These hopeful nations would certainly not oppose the beginning of the new American foreign policy which visualizes an extension of aid to Turkey and Greece on the basis that it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures.

I look with anxious astonishment upon this latest proposal which establishes the very unique principle of permitting an organization of foreign nations to

veto legislation adopted by the Congress of the United States. The effect of it, of course, is to bypass a Russian veto by setting up a method to veto the veto. The time has come to call a spade a spade and to deal frankly with the foreign situation that confronts us. The reason we are not willing to submit the question of military intervention in Greece and Turkey to the United Nations is because of the fear, if not the certainty, that Russia will veto such an action, and, because of that fear, we propose to undertake to do ourselves what the United Nations could and should do had it been organized on a basis of majority control.

In taking this independent action, we overlooked some important factors of the most vital consequence. First, by taking independent action, we cannot very well mobilize world opinion against the communism in Russia, which, in essence, is our new foreign policy. Affirmative action taken with majority support in the United Nations would mean that we would have the moral support of many other nations who would favor and support this action. The force of public opinion still remains the greatest force in the world, and we must use every force at our command to assure success of such a global venture in this troubled time.

Secondly, dependence upon military assistance in Greece and Turkey by the United States for resisting communism in those countries would overlook the great power which this country and associated nations could exert through economic sanctions and other measures for retaliation against communistie influence. Under pending proposals we appear in the contradictory position of with one. hand dealing out money to Russia and her satellites which will strengthen communism, and with the other proposing to deal out vast sums to oppose the aggression of communism. Russia owes us many billions for lendlease. We have loaned her many ships. Only recently the Under Secretary of State appeared before Congress asking for an appropriation of $25,000,000 to send oil, equipment, and machinery to Russia as a gift. We are even now sending millions to Russia's satellites.

I agree that the time has come to act firmly with Russia, but we cannot ride two horses going in opposite directions. If the veto power given to Russia has made unworkable the existing United Nations Organization, then we may as well face the situation frankly, but, at the same time, we must recognize the fact that the United States urged this tragic error. Despite opposition from other nations, it was at the insistence of the delegates of the United States that the veto power was given to Russia, as well as to all the so-called Big Five.

I say the time has come to be realistic and to reorganize the United Nations Organization, if such action is necessary to permit it to function. If Russia is an enemy, and persists in being an enemy to free peoples, it is better to have ber outside the family than inside the family. If we cannot get along with Russia, what is the use of trying to appease her at the council table as we have done from time to time, thereby strengthening her hand for a future show-down with us?

The first appeasement to Russia was giving her the power to veto any punitive action against her, regardless of whether she is an aggressor or not. I was strongly opposed to this first appeasement. Russia has so far used the veto 11 times and virtually stymied and made impotent the United Nations Organization. There is no reason to think she will not continue this course unless her hand is called within the United Nations. Let us not repeat our tragic error with Japan, when, just before the war, we permitted her to purchase in America 10,000,000 tons of scrap metal out of which she manufactured ships, arms, and bullets for the slaughter of thousands of American boys.

As time goes on it appears that the Greek and Turkish crisis is not so serious as at first it was claimed to be. The 9,000 bandits menacing the Greek Government of 7,000,000 citizens are apparently being brought under control. England is not going to withdraw her troops immediately, as was first stated, and in the meantime America can continue her economic aid to Greece without violating in any way the spirit of the United Nations Charter. England, I am sure, will stay in Greece for a reasonable time, at least, if this country requested her to do so, in view of the fact that she received from us only recently a loan of $4,000,000,000 and, prior to that, about $30,000,000,000 in lend-lease. The war of nerves in Turkey appears to have subsided.

If the Greek-Turkish gift-and it will be a gift; not a dollar of it will ever be repaid-is made as a part of the global policy announced by President Truman, we are beginning interventions which will extend all over the world and which

will continue for many, many years to come. We should not undertake this alone until we have exhausted every means to associate with us other like-minded nations.

I propose that we request our representative in the United Nations organization to present the problem of Greece and Turkey to this organization for action. It will first go to the Assembly of Nations composed of 55. If the assembly approves it, then it will go to the Security Council, where it can be nullified by a veto of any one of the Big Five. Let Russia, if she pleases, veto it, and then have a show-down with her, and, if need be, take steps to remove the veto privilege. If this means the retirement of Russia from the United Nations Organization, it will be far better that she does so, because if she continues her selfish and obstructive tactics, there is no hope of the United Nations being a real instrument for the preservation of world peace. If we accept alone the terrific obligations of the new global foreign policy, our enormous expenditures in many foreign nations will weaken America, and Russia will get stronger. Today, too, we have possession of the atomic bombs, which give us a source of strength which we will lose if and when these bombs are destroyed, or when other nations obtain the secret. So there is no question in my mind that now is "the time for a show-down with Russia within the United Nations Organization rather than wait until we have been weakened by excessive drains on our economic system which may result in bankrupting ourselves in the effort to help bankrupt nations. It is far better to have at least the moral support of a majority of the nations of the world in such a gigantic undertaking rather than to go our way alone.

There is one other consideration to which we must give close attention. A foreign policy in America is only as strong as its public support here at home. Millions of our citizens, when they are called upon to make great sacrifice at home in the years to come for the expenditures contemplated abroad, would much more willingly assume these burdens provided the machinery of the United Nations were utilized instead of bypassed with ill-advised, independent action on our part.

I am introducing, Mr. President, a Senate resolution providing that our representative in the United Nations be instructed to present for immediate action the question of Greece and Turkey to the General Assembly of the United Nations. Again, I respectfully submit that the last amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Michigan is like going in the back door instead of the front. We have had enough of vetoes, and we do not want to establish another system of vetoes. Let us meet the issue face to face and not attempt to equivocate, because no matter what skillful maneuvering we do now to convince the people that we are not going outside the province of the United Nations, the fact remains that the basic principle of the United Nations was collective action to promote world peace. When we take unilateral action we cannot object then to other nations taking a similar course, which means the ultimate collapse of the United Nations organization.

In plain language, I propose a show-down within the United Nations with Russia and her communistic satellites. If the United Nations organization must be reorganized and strengthened in order to function, let us do so now. As a matter of fact the Truman plan may bring war, or the reorganization of the United Nations Organization may bring war, or no plan may bring war, but strong measures within the United Nations Organization are more likely to bring Russia to cooperation than an infiltration of American money over the world in an independent crusade against communism.

For myself, I started with the United Nations as the only hope I could see for future world peace. I will continue with it as long as the last vestige of hope exists for this agency to become the world instrument of peace (Congressional Record, 80th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 93, pt. 3, pp. 2951-2952).

Senator Vandenberg, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submitted the following report to accompany S. 938, Assistance to Greece and Turkey (Rept. No. 90, 80th Cong., 1st sess. ) April 3, 1947:

"NONGOVERNMENTAL WITNESSES

"On March 24, 25, and 31, the committee heard 33 nongovernmental witnesses. A few of these testified as individuals but the great majority of them represented either local, State, or National organizations. Many of the witnesses who appeared objected to the provisions of S. 938 mainly on the following

89965-51-62

grounds: (1) Unilateral action by the United States in the way of assistance to Greece and Turkey would tend to weaken the United Nations; (2) the extension of military assistance to these countries might not be in the best interests of world peace; (3) it was objectionable to support in this fashion the regimes now in power in Greece and Turkey; and (4) this initial request for aid might result in a series of similar requests from other states in various parts of the world. These and other objections raised during the hearings are examined in later sections of this report."

(Senator Vandenberg, Michigan, April 8, 1947)

This brings me, Mr. President, to the most important of all considerations that have been raised by the pending plan. The United Nations, the voice of collective security, must always be our first reliance and our prime concern as far as possible in every problem of this nature. It must be used to the maximum of practical possibilities. In no available aspect should we bypass its functions. But in no unavailable aspect should we ruin it by assigning to it functions which it does not possess. Such an assignment would destroy it for keeps. Meanwhile, under such circumstances as in the present instance, Greece would sink into the Communist orbit and the fateful chain reaction would set in both east and west.

Under the amended bill, now pending in the Senate, this whole situation is honestly and faithfully assessed. The Foreign Relations Committee has added a preamble which recites the facts. It asserts our belief and purpose that this bill "will contribute to the freedom and independence of all members of the United Nations in conformity with the principles and purposes of the Charter.” The committee has added an amendment which stops the functions of this bill whenever the Security Council, without counting vetoes, or the General Assembly finds that "action taken or assistance furnished by the United Nations makes the continuance of assistance-under this bill-unnecessary or undesirable."

Mr. President, far from bypassing the United Nations, this amended bill is the greatest act of voluntary allegiance to it in the whole story of the United Nations. It even goes to the heart and core of the veto controversy.

* * * The most we can do at the moment is to leave certain special phases of the problem in United Nations jurisdiction; and to leave an over-all authority in the Council and Assembly to hold us to strict accountability for what we do.

Mr. Sumner Welles recently pointed out what he said will be the line that Soviet propaganda will follow in its efforts to combat the administration's present foreign policy. He cited Izvestia and Pravda-both official Moscow publications-which charge us with destroying the United Nations. He was a good prophet. This argument has met with much popular and often innocent support in the United States. On the one hand, this support is a precious tribute to the faithful hopes of humankind. On the other, it is a cunning backfire to becloud the issue. I know of no better way to destroy the United Nations than to give it a specific job which it is neither intended nor prepared to do. The only better way to destroy the United Nations of which I know is to overuse the veto. Indeed, it is a significant thing that this plan is opposed by two totally opposite and incompatible groups in the United States. As has been well said, it is opposed, first, by those who hope it will not work but are afraid it will, and, second, by those who hope it will work but are afraid it will not (Congressional Record, 80th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 93, pt. 3, p. 3197).

(Senator Bushfield, South Dakota, April 9, 1947)

** **

It seems to me that the United States should have first applied to the United Nations before embarking upon this unilateral project. It has been said that the United Nations has neither the power nor the available money to act positively. Nevertheless, the United Nations was set up for this particular purpose, and apparently the administration is bypassing the United Nations in this unilateral proposal by the President. It would have created a better feeling both in this country and in the United Nations had the President applied to them to take part in this action.

This proposed aid for Greece and Turkey is a complete change of policy from anything that the United States has ever engaged in. I want to say now categorically that I am opposed to this loan, or gift, by whatever name it is called, and urge Senators to join me in voting against it.