3     	    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

considerations of major importance to 
our welfare. Like any person unsure of 
his convictions, we were timid and 
reticent in our approach to problems of 
foreign relations. In short, we were 
bewildered, and therefore we improvised 
from day to day.
It is conceivable that, as the leading 
industrial Nation, we might have 
embarked upon a career of imperialism 
designed to control the world by force. 
Germany in fact attempted this solution. 
But such a policy is alien to all our 
history and to all our instincts. This 
policy is so at variance with our very nature 
that I do not think it could have been 
followed with success then, nor do I think
it can be followed now. On the other 
hand I think a system of collective 
security is not only the best hope for 
success, but it is also the only one consistent 
with our political and moral standards 
of conduct. The principal question that 
remains in my mind is whether or not 
we are sufficiently convinced of the 
necessity of collective security to be willing 
to make the necessary economic and 
psychological adjustments.
Many people have assumed that 
because the House of Representatives, the 
Senate, and the President have declared 
for collective security, the job is done. 
But the establishing of order and the 
making of peace does not consist merely 
of a solemn declaration or a well-drafted 
constitution. The making of peace is a 
continuing process that must go on from 
day to day, from year to year, so long as 
our civilization shall last. Our participation 
in this process is not just the signing 
of a charter with a big read seal. It is a 
daily task, a positive participation in all 
the details and decisions which together 
constitute a living and growing policy. 
What an empty shell the Dumbarton 
Oaks proposals will be, even if complete 
agreement is reached at San Francisco, 
if at the same time, or in the near future, 
we are unable to agree upon such things 
as exchange and monetary matters, aviation, 
the free flow of information, trade 
barriers, cartels, armaments, and oil, 
and, I may add, a simple treaty with 
Mexico on the division of the waters of 
the Colorado River. Surely we all know 
by this time that political solidarity in 
this suffering world is dependent, in the 
final analysis, upon economic stability.
I do not mean that all of these 
problems must be solved immediately, and at 
once, to the satisfaction of all. I do 
think it very important that the 
American people, and all people, recognize that 
these matters are inherently involved in 
any system of mutual security; and that 
adjustments and temporary sacrifices 
must be made. They should be told that 
the price of peace is high. How high it is, 
is difficult to estimate; but I am confident 
that it will not be nearly as high as the 
price of war. However, unless we are, 
prepared to make these payments for 
peace we might as well recognize now the 
futility of Dumbarton Oaks or San 
Francisco.
I said temporary sacrifices, for I am 
convinced that because of our enormous 
power to produce wealth of all kinds, 
given a reasonable length of time, in 
which we are free from the threat of war, 
or war itself, we can more than repay 
ourselves for any reasonable concessions 
we may make in the way of loans, tariffs, 
or outright relief. There are vast areas 
of the world, with untold wealth, that 
can be developed if we can be reasonably 
sure of peace. We can be sure that as the 
areas are developed, we shall share with 
the rest of the world in the benefits of
these developments. So I repeat that our 
sacrifices will be temporary if we can 
establish and maintain peace.
In addition to the material costs of 
peace there are other adjustments which 
must be made and which may prove more 
painful to many of us than the payment 
of gold. We must give up some of our 
most cherished prejudices if we are to 
work in harmony with other peoples. No 
plan on earth can assure us of anything 
resembling a peaceful future unless, 
supporting it, are the positive forces of 
public opinion. The beliefs and convictions 
of the people must be in accord with our 
policy or it cannot be definite and settled.
Among the prejudices which we must 
examine, I need mention only a few to 
illustrate my point. Foremost among 
them is the anti-British already referred 
to. I shall not go further into that 
except to urge most serious consideration 
as to whether we desire to see the power 
and influence of the British people 
destroyed. Is it not true that in assisting 
Britain and the Commonwealth of 
Nations, we were in fact preserving friends 
who are, in a very real sense, indispensable 
to our own welfare and the welfare 
of democratic, freedom-loving 
peoples everywhere? In this troubled 
and violent world is it not true that we 
would feel quite alone in the world if 
the British Commonwealth of Nations 
had been subjugated by the tyranny of 
the Nazis, and its resources directed 
against us? If that be true, then whose 
chestnuts did we pull out of the fire?
Another powerful prejudice which has 
affected our policy, and is vital to our 
future, is our fear of Russia and 
communism. Until the revolution in Russia, 
we had always been on friendly terms 
with that Nation. We had never fought 
her. We made one very profitable deal 
with her when we bought Alaska for 
$7,200,000. and promptly extracted more 
than $400,000,000 in gold from its 
mountains. I should say that even the 
Tribune should approve of that kind of 
a deal. Yet, after the revolution was 
established by Lenin, we refused to 
recognize Russia until 1933, the last of 
the major nations to do so. Moreover, 
we sent two armed expeditions against 
her without provocation. When one 
recalls the birth of our own Nation— 
that in 1776 our forefathers were 
regarded as being quite as radical, by the 
rest of the world, as Lenin was in 1920—
is it not strange that we should be so 
harsh toward Russia? Since we have 
been the most successful revolutionary 
people in history, why are we so critical 
of others who follow our example? 
Surely it cannot be because we approved 
of Czarist Russia with its illiteracy and 
abject, grinding poverty. As I read 
history, the Russian experiment in
socialism is scarcely more radical, under 
modern conditions, than the Declaration 
of Independence was in the days of 
George III.
I realize that it is not popular even 
to compare Russia with ourselves, and 
yet it is necessary to get our ideas 
straight. When I hear the unbridled 
and intemperate attacks upon Russia by 
some of our own people, I cannot help 
but be troubled. If these people, who 
profess such profound love and faith for 
our American system, are sincere in this 
faith, then why are they so afraid of 
Russia? I have a feeling that the real 
reason for their hate and distrust is 
their lack of faith in our own system.
I believe firmly in the superiority of 
our democratic capitalistic system, and 
I desire to preserve it. But we should 
remember that capitalism is not divine 
and inviolable. It was not handed down 
to us by the Almighty; and to question 
it, or test it, is neither sacrilegious nor 
treasonable. We have capitalism, and 
we can defend it, because it has by all 
standards of decency provided better 
conditions for more people than any 
other system on earth. It is of value to 
us, and is defensible, only so long as it 
maintains that record.
The highly emotional attacks upon 
communism and Russia by some of our 
public orators is an indication of the 
weakness of their faith in our system. 
We must demonstrate the superiority of 
individual initiative under capitalism by 
our results, by the provision of a superior 
way of life, not by the violence of our 
oratory.
Russia is a great and powerful nation. 
She can become either a good friend and 
customer, exerting her influence for 
peace and stability, or she can become an 
enemy using every opportunity to thwart 
us. The Russia of today is a product of 
a history less fortunate than ours. I do 
not believe the Soviets desire to 
domi¬nate the world as the Germans do. They 
have given no evidence that they believe 
they are supermen. Russia, like 
America, is a nation of many races, and I 
can see no real reason why we cannot get 
along peaceably.
If this is sound reasoning, then we 
should make up our minds as to our basic 
attitude and stop the irritating and 
confusing practice of condemnation on the 
one hand and praise on the other. Our 
policy should be one of respect and 
consideration for a valiant Ally in peace as 
well as in war, at least until some 
compelling reason to alter our views 
intervenes.
Another myth that confuses our 
attitude toward the other nations is the 
often repeated statement that "we have always
been a Santa Claus to the world." The 
more selfish among us call us "Uncle 
Sap." Thft implication from these 
statements is that we are soft-headed, 
starry- eyed idealists who know nothing of the 
realities of this hard-fisted world. It 
would take too much time to explore 
fully this thoroughly false prejudice. 
Its plausibility and the evil of it arise 
from the confusion of two different ideas. 
The idea of charity, in regard to which 
we have been and should continue to be