Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956
File 069
File size: 34.16 MB
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 069. 1956-06. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 25, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/138.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-06). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 069. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/138

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 069, 1956-06, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 25, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/138.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date June 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 069
Transcript Flnal installment of the Senate Sub­mittee's Handbook for Americans The Case For and Against FOREIGN AID .{; California Declares Independence \I.my ktters ha\<' h<'t'n f('('('in·d rt'garding rt·l·t·ut Facfa h>rum \'£·tc~ artieks rdating to (1ttr <·ducational sysl<.'111. From thl' \/ancliestn ( '· 11.) Union L('lllll'r, comt:s an t:ditorial which t('lls us th,lt tlw C.difornia Congress of Par('11ts and l"t.'.ll'ht·rs h.l\ l' is..,11('d the following offidal statcmt·nt: \fkr .111 inh'miH• stu{h of ft·dt•r,11 ,1id to edu­(.•, 11io11 .rnd .1 rt'\ it.•\\ of tlw 'lllllm.1ru·s of lo<:.11 s,ttnt·rnor., .wd \\-hitt llou'it.' Conferenc<·s on Edu­t ·.1trnu. "d' hdit•\t.' tht· ,,1ticw.1l Con~n·,\ (of P.trt nb-Tt·.1c:ht·r\ l no lon!.!;t•r n·Ot•cts the• thinkin~ 11t lhi., hod,.. "I tu rdort•, \\t" rt''it:ind our prt.'\io11s action in .1ppro\1J11iC tht• ,,1tional Coni.tress' le~hlative polic:y. \Jr.., Rollin Brown of California, Prt'sid<"nt of tht \._1tional Congn·ss of Parents and T('.tthns, .tTld a mt·mher of the \\'hit<- I louse CommiltN on Education, has n•plit·d that th(' C~1liforni.1 ac:tmn will not afft'et n.1tional PT.\ polic' unlcss at lt-ast :JO of tht' state PT\ eoncn·ss(·s ad likt'wise. Tht· L'riion L(·adrr (·0111nwnts cditorially: Th(• ohl11{.1tio11 nf riddin~ Nh1(·.ttin11 of ih pr(·-t­t ·11t d 111C"t•iou' domii1.1tiou i-; din-dh· n·l.1ted to tbt· fHt,t·r\,1lion nf \nwrk.m fn·t>dom. \'i1,torou'1 1dio11 in tht• t.1k' <·.m undo the pn·s<•nt throttle holcl. l.N\ J.:"t.'t to it. • • Amendment to Limit Income Taxes Onlv Oil(' more state rH:<•d now appn>,·c tlw n~o,;ol11tion proposin,I!; an anH·rHlnwnt to tlH' Constitution li111itinJ,! frdl'ral Ll\.('S on in­t'Olll<", <"St1t('S and gifts to 2.j pC'r eent C\<:C·pt Ill <:.1st· of \\~Ir, si1Kt' South C.1rolina n·ct:ntly ht·e•rnH· tht· thirty-first stale to appron· this n·solution. \s nu.-ntiorn·d on this pag-t· in \larch, ap­pr°' 111 h} tlw lt·gislat11rt's of :)2 states is n·quin·cl to .dlow tlw ton..,iclt·ration of an a11u·11d111('11t I)\ Congr('<.,s, following whi('h r.1tifit.1tio11 h) :)6 st.1lt-s makt·s it a p.trt of tli<· Constitution. To kt·t'P tlw rt·(·orcl str.light. tht> folio\\ inc ..,t.ttt-s h,t\'t not )l'l pass('d thio,; n·..,olution. \rizon.1, Co1liforni,1, Colorado, Conrn·l'tin1t, lcl.d10, \l.1ryl.rnd, \limu·<.;Ota. \lissouri, '\t•w Yorl, '•>rth C.1rol111a, '•>rth lhkot,1, Ohio, Orl'{{On, T<·nrn·ss<'t', \'('nnont, \\'ashington, and \\'est \'irginia. • • New Study Program Launched \11u·ril'.111 titi.1<·1h al'ro..,.., tht nation .ire IH"illt!' oil1·n·d a stT\ i<·<· to aid th<·m in form­i11:.! loc.d dis('11'isio11 groupo,; to ..,t11dy tlw h.1'iic prirn.·ipl<·'i of to11stit11tio11al go\(TllllH·nt. TIH' Fo11ncbtio11 for El'o110111i<" l·:d11l-.1tio11, In rnctmHrn-1 fud ... on, \t·w York, puhlish('r of rlw /- f('('tlllm, is lllilking il\.'i1il.1hle free < 0111i:-.1·l , and frl'l' artidl's and p.1111phkts .1ho11t our 11.1tim1;d ( hartt"r .111d how to org.111- itt' Co11stit11tio11 Stud) Cro11p ... \l,o ,1\ .1il.1hlc i:-. ,1 m·\\ hoof... on tht• Constitution in ~1 low­co:-. t 1up<"r-ho11nd t·dition l'\pn·ssly <ksignt·d for discussion group 11s('. Tht·st· ilt'111s t·an hl' obtained simpl) h) writing the Foundation. Offt·n·<l without tharg<• art· two artid<"s, "I low to Start and Condutt Constitution Study Croups," and "Town \l('l'tings J9.J6 ~t) I<.," a wide ,·aril'l) of pamphlets and re­prints ('Olll't'rning tilt' Constitution and relat­<' d ... ubjt"c:ts, and a fr<·<· list of rct·o111n1t·1ul('cl hooks on tlw Constitution. .\lso a,aiJabl<• is tlw n('wly-publislwd rnl­"''"" "The Constitution of tll<' Unill'd Stall's." h) Jcmws \lussatti, a 176-pcige hook which study groups ha,-c found iclt•ally suitc•cl to th<'ir 1wl'Cls. The ,·olunw indudt•s a new Studv Guidi• hy Thomas J. Shl'lly which mak<•s it C'spedally n1luahlt• for discussion groups. H<'prints of tlw Constitution itself art• a\ .ulahl<' tlS <:tlrri<"d in tlw January iSSlll' of Fade; Forwu \ 1('li'S. Plt•ase St'<' reprint notiec on p~1g<• 1 of this issue. • • Towards World Understanding \ person-to-p('rson t) JW of world 1111der­st. 111ding is being fost<'n·d hy \\.oriel Ta1w Pals, now in its fourth )<'<lr. 1 larry \L1ttht·\vs, l I I(; Conner Drin', Dallas, T"''"· a l) p1·­settinq c·mnp<m)· employ<'<', has spent about $2,000 in till' last fl'w )t'<trs trying to bring about international fricncl ... hip through tap<'­n ·(·orcl<·d 11wssag<·s hdwt'<'ll incli\ icluals here and abroad. Tl1<·n· an• about 2,000 \\'orld Tape Pals in .51 ('Ot1ntrit's and th<'ir posst·ss1ono,;. On<·<· i11- trod11t'l'cl, llH·ml><'rS 111ail tht'ir tapt• nwssag<·s had, and forth hdw1-cn t'ountri<'s, aclclinJ,! to intt'rnat1onal <·om1111111il'atio11 and, they f<'d sun. to world 1111clcrsl<lllclinL';. \Ir. \lattlwws pnblishcs a paper, Tape Topic.\:, whit'h 1s f rt·<• to 111<•111lwrs and pros­pt• do,;, Sml'l' m1t· 111aili11g 111,1} rt'.tl'h .j,000 1woplt" tlwn· is a ~·) .1111111.d 11u·1nl><'r'iliip f1·<" for l nitccl St.1t1·s 1111cl C.rnaclian t.qw pals. Citi.1t·11., of oth<"r eo11ntri(·s ar«' 11ot n·q11in·d to pay cl11t'S, hut are t•m·o11ragl'd to l'Oll­trilrntt• \o l'h.1rL1;c· i:-. 111.ule to h.1nclil'.1ppecl p<·rsons or shut-ins ilTI) whcr{' . • New York Parents Organize For Better Education \lrs. \\'alt<'r Fra11('iS('O, 922 Arbor Drh·t', Encli('Ott, \t•\\ York. has s1·11l us matC'ri,tl <·om·t·rniuc tlH' org,mi.111tion of thP '\1·\\ York Stat(' \ssot1ation for B<'lter Ecltt<"ation, in­d11ding th(' procr.1111 for tlu·ir \pril or,1.?;,111i.1.1- tio11;il lll('t'ting, It w.1s pl.1111wcl to sd 11p a <"Onstitution and h)-1.tw'i, d1'c11s' thl' ..,dt111g 11p of n·g-ional clistrids .• lllcl pn·p.1r<' a sl.1t<· of propo<.,<·d p<·n11arn·11t offil't·rs at thi.., nu·d- 1111! \!rs. Frandsto '' rit<·s. "Tiu•<.,(' are tc11ta­ti\ t plans for ,1 st.1tc· orL';ani/,1tio11 to rqJrP­s1 ·11t pan·nts in raisinL'; tlw sL111cl;1rcls in our 'id1ools and t<·ac·hn,· t·oll1·L';t'"i." E.1d1 t·o11111H111it) \\;IS <l<.,siL1;1u·cl a topic for discussion, d111011g \\ hieh wt·rc: Ecl1a·atio11 ) cstf·rda) a11~l ~I mLl), Dis('ipl11ll' 111 ~Jie Sthools (too littlt-, or the '' rong- approadi. · Crnlralizalion (handicap or ht'lp"), 11011 Can the Prt•st·nt Dc·(·lin<· of Ed11('atio11 St.111d· arcls Be Controllt·d?, and ToJ11orrow's Edu· t'ational ~·eecls. I l<·aclquarlt'rs of this new organization ;Ht' at I 11(; Flora St., Endicott, '\cw York. • • To Arm Our Youth rill' Cmmcil of l'ublic Affairs .\'e<L'1/cll<~ P. 0. Bo' ().5(i, In ing, Tt'\ilS, has pubhshcu an t·clitorial wlm:h points up onl'c again ti~ 'aluc of th<' study of A1m·rit·an histor) 111 our schools: \<:cordini{ lo lh·rl1t·rt Philhrkk (FBI (.'ounter· \(>~ ), .\111t•ri<:.1\ (:01111111111i,h' \\Ork ,l!llUllJ..l' tht c:ollt·s.::t· \t11dt·11h h,t\ 11ot lu-1·11 .1\ dlt•(.•ti\ r <I" tht·~ h.1d ho1wd, \ill<.·<· tlw~ found tlw t·oll1·s.::1· .. tutk•1t' ..• nol too n·u·ptht• to their idt•oloi;::ies. lm1t-.1d of n·1n-.1tins.::, tht·> h.nl' \l'I up rt·Jl('\\.eJ c;1111p,1i.i.:m ai111t·d ;ti his.::h '('hcml '>lmlt·nl\, ·1 hi\ 1.~ .1<·<·0111pli\lw~I throui.:h '111>pm1·dl) indt·pt·ndt·~ :1 :::11II ~ \ :~lrt.;;:~ 1;; ;~,~1111i~ <l~,i~~;::-.n<~\'~~ :::l.~)t~· ,:~·t~r~~1<11~~t_I· u.1h \\ho op1·11 tlwir hmllt'' to \ 01111){ p1·opit' If tht• i.!lii,t• ol <·nit rtainins.:: tlwm m.1ny soci;1\ ciuhS .m· lornwd in .uid hy thnt• l.!m\lp\ that ).!.1tJwr 11 ho•lll'\. 111 this \\;\\.' .1dult' in ch,1r).!1• of '>11d1 pnr i;::r.1111\ ht•(>fllll(' the. confid.mt«. of >·outh\, \\ h:,~::~:~·.,1l:.n:1.:~~·1 ~~)(,:1:·;1.1!~'1 '.:, > ~:~~'i';: i :11r:·1.:~:;;:~~1 ';:~: pro,1d1 ,m· 111,111\ indi\ id11.1I\ \\ho t·lljoy the cOJll' p.111iomhip of \Ouns.:: JJt'oplt" Tht• \i111ph·,1 .,0!11!111 in dt·h·nninill~ tht· purim\t' of ;111\ \Olllh 1110' 1 " 1111·111\ \H111ld lu: for tlw part·nts. to inforrn. th\0 )011111.?,tt-1' of thi.. Ill''' \tr.1h•J:'' .'1111wd ,11 tht111• t .1h·rl .1lw111 \O th1•\ 111.1) n·t·0.1!111.ft' _•Ill) .. 11h,1·r:~;i. :.'.:~·:1~:~·<~:11 ,'·:~ii~",~::~ s.::~ ~:;~, ,;~:~!u;:;d .. ~~~1'·~~.~ nt1<1.',K;::~~- Th i, lu\ ht t·n hom1• out 11)(1 111.111' tim1·\ to il!• 10" \Ir. Philhri<.·k \a)' it. i\n't lll'Cl"'"·lr't' to ust' f~,I~ as .t It·' 1·r.1s.::t• ~11 111for1111111! o_ur ym11_1J.!: p1·oplt'. 1 ~b .1 nu>rt· c·fft·t·h\I• 1111·.rns i\ 111 .• 1rm111s.:: th1·111 ''~ )lO\LllH' \111('rl(".lll ('OllC'('jll\. "J ht'\(' l'illl ht• f{ll:ht 111 tlw hl'ton nf tht• Unit<•d St.th•-;, om'. llf f • ).!:rt•,11!·-;t \lorit·'> t•\t·r \\ritll·n tlw t•x1>0,1111111 <1 pnt·(·ll''>\ lwril.1S.::t'. TH In:: C\St Fo1 Rt:EOO\I 's :\ lom·n" \1n ·OPLL\ C \Pl ~o Fon F1c1 v1td<·11s,1tion ~ES Oen '\, \1 Gurnc;1 . 11(J; ••. G11 l'll\POSJ'llO'.'' 111 CO\l\ll '' /'i11a/ ln1t1 11,10 ''o T\ '''n"' Ht L8 I\~"(; LLT1 lP'I11LC\l L ()t l 'TIO' ·'· Rr>t crs .\, FOH Tl . . "-..- _- ___ In the Interest of Sound Government Tiu· A111<'ri('a11 C11;1rcl of Anderson. Ju:rt ana, 11 h1p<irtisan eclnc;1tional grouP;);t planning to issu_l' tht"1r tl'nlh a111111;d \ 1 . 11 \/m111al a('(·orcl111,1.?; to Charl<'s \\'. IJ,ilt ('\l'(·11th,t• 'iu· pr1·sicl<'11l of tlw org;111i/;tll 1 Tiii' 11111n1·s and hiographit'al sl..dl'hl'~ all <·andidatt·s for puhli(' offil'l' will ;1pp<"1r th1· hoollet. Thl' l'OSt of p11hlishi11g. and 11ia1lin.~ / \'oli'n _\lawwl b 111l{l('rwnllt'11 hy ,·oh111 ·11 ~·c~11trih11tio11s of i.ll(li\ ic~11al t'it1~t·11~ \\ l~<~1t~: JOllH'd th«' A111cn~·;111 C.uard. l'.arl 1cr .«rt1ill ha\(' ht·t·n atTla111wd <lS 111\·al11;1hl<. ~ 1 for i11cli\ icl11al dti.1c·11s who sought 1nfort tion ahoul politic·al aspirants. • • American Legion " Action Against Communism" Tl1<• l 111-A11wriC'an \ dh1t1t's Con1111itttf tlll' \\ ('sldH'stt·r Count\. \c\\ Yori.., \ l\1 1 <"an Lt·gion ha ... prqJ;1n.·d a hanclhooJ... '\~ ck.do,; with tlw l1111d;11111·11tal.., of the ;1gai11st t·mn1111111i'i11l. Entitlt·d ,\rtit111 \t.!1 1 , Con11111111i.\111, thi'i clig<"st -sit.t' hooJ..ld f <·0111pil.1tion 11! lht• arti«ll's wrilt1·11 h~ 1',1 g;1r llom<"r, J. B. \L1tlllt'ws, ;rncl 1°\ 1 Fl) 1111 '' hi('h ha,<' h(·t·n r('pri11tecl fr011 \11wrin111 \/uc11ry. . 1 Copil's 111.1) ht• ohta111(·d for lt'n ('t'll1' ,, hy writing to Bo\ 11 1, \ \'hill' pJ,tinS, York. Rtpri1 8'<·ad and Ci1 1cfn1iral Bc,1 \1 l 'lit11tion of ti 2-pagc folde •..),., .\rt for 1 lt,1J. \fodcn lh-prinl TH IS Volume 5 Number 6 June, 1956 1c1/cttcr. 11blishcJ gain tl~1 istor) 111 in: C "' Fon ·"" Ac;"''"' Fonuc;, Am Ru1x>"'s 2\'1.w T,si.., Joh11 Foster Dulles loou" A1n "I> F11u1x'"· Re11c d'Jf11rno11co11rt 2 !:) 12 lb 20 21 counter· umJ.!: the • ,\\ tht'' .,tudt·nl' n•ncwrd ;. 'I hi'i i; t·1wndt•11 ; re;1Lio11al • indi,id· >t•opit' ill cial c1ut» J.!•ither 11 .,ul·h pf'I)" rnment ·son. fntt r0t1P· ,ar ti•" \ 'tilt '" n.111< ~·1111/ilttt \,.,ctchr'.'i I ;1ppc."1r \."ti iai 111 .... ~ ,·o\unP ,. ,,ho h·11 • icr ec.litl1 hie 1!1111 ~t infor!l 0PLl·.\ \PIT \LIS'\I F1G11T"C., Carl If. ]acolJ ondrnsation of Tm·: B11n1s11 Soc 1 \LIST 11.1.-F \Ill·: ST \TL, Cecil Palmer llEs Ot·n '\ \T10,·s LEDGEl1 Co "hTo TllE Hui"? 30 31 3:2 31 \r Gu>nc.1 ... I'm tlw Guy You L<'I Do Jt! 1 ~L: .•• Gt mru \f1ss1LE Goum:ss, ll mcarcl C:oshom Tr,;nprn,n 10': \ Lu. \L C11 \LLl 'c;1:i' it Co\l\lt 'rs1 l'\lrn, L.S. \. A J/1111dhook for Americans Fi11al f11.1t11//111nll 1t>ro "" T\ Sc 111.1n·Lt.s >\ns1 Ht L.L.s 1,,,,c; Li..r11.11s H> THI· Eunons Lr ·1111. C\l-~I CH F1u.HX)'\C \'I) POLL Ql!ESTIO'.\" \\ '''UtS lL lh:st LI s HHI APHIL 41 .')b 62 62 6-l 6.3 6.) 1'C." FOii ·1111 \ fo,·111 6.) Photo Cn·dih. PaJJ:t·~ l.'3, 11, J.I) un<l IR courk.,y or Tht· \(u•H·um of \lodt•rn Art of '.\"t•\ .. York. n.iC'k CoH•r: Flag, Untkn'llOOd & L0 tHkmood Facts Forum News Reprints Hq>ri11ls of tl1< following artides may be obtained •ll the prkl's shown: l.t·s\ than kri·,ul .llld Cir<:uM·s 100 100 .;oo 1,000 . 5,000 or more '<l111iral Br11 \forcdl ( Ft'li .. IH.56) toe <«Ith fl.00 ·I0.00 7.).00 :35.00 per 1,000 1titution of the U. S. 12-pagc folckr) (Jan., 1956) 1.5c «ach 11..50 70.00 ]:30.00 ''°'"' Art for Whose Sake? 1 11ltal: \lodern Art and Freedom J JOc pds«l 9.00 40.00 7.5.00 lkprinls of other nrtidl'S will })(• m;.tde <l\ ailahlc upon suffidl'nl dc.•mand. t•1c:i \I Jll'Ol.IC \TIO' of F.1t·h Fonim, Inc., rthJJad, on ">trnl, 1>,111.l\ I, Tn.1s. l,uhlisht•<l " 111 tlw i111t·n·,t of F.1c:h Forum parlidp.mts ~1\f'r" c:ont·t·nu·d ''ith disp(•llin,i.t puhlic ap.ithy. ~~i·:~t~·cjn;11~1i~'\~l~:' iln!t•\ nuthon/t'd at D.dl.1s, 1\HI) CH DIHFC"l'OHS: Holwrl II. D"dmnn, 111 1t; John I.. J).1lt', \"it·<·-Pn·\icknl; \Vam·n 1-.. '~J}: i.~;;nh~-~:h:·t.\'i~~- 15~:. ~f~~~a~~t·J~~1t~~:~~ nt. Di~l'SOnr BO.\H_D \foior B. A. llarcky, Chair­i r. \rthur \ .Smith, .l.loyd K Skinnt•r, J),1\1d lt'k\l~·r, ll.1rrv F, Hm!"lt'r, \\ill1orn_1 :\. Blanton, · · Uus <·ll, Jr., \fr<;. \Vullatt' Savn,I.!(', \V. G. \·hDo.1k W.1llwr, Jo:. K \lc:iuilll'n, Gonrnor ·~ 1\~:,;<~~1 c,:~1: 11\\~,~~d 'lt::;r~m1· "~~~·i~~'.~7~i·1~; "'r;i-s FOHU\f is n n.1lionwide public t·duca­•• rg.1.11i/,1l1011 dt•tli~.11t-d to arousinl{ puhlic ll 11'i' ~111.~~~;~~~~'.~~ii~;1irr;;:1t th~.1·1:~,1;~i:~~ '~fm;!~~~!J~~ I· \CTS FOHU\I is nonprofit and no11p.1rti< ... rn, 'upporlinl{ no politit.:.11 co1ndid.\lt• or tMrl\·, i',\t·h Forum\ ul'lh itit·s arc dt•sil{ned to pn·st·nt not )11\l t11lt' '1t•\\ ol ,1 contrO\ t•r\i,11 i'i,llt', hut oppmin!! \it'\\'i, lwlit·\inl{ th.11 it is tlw right nnd thl' ohli· g.11in11 of tilt' \nwrkan pt'ople themst•IH'\ to lt·.un ,111 tlw fads llnd t'O!lll' to their own t·onclnsions SIG"\ED \HTICLgS appearing in F \CTS FOHU\I :\E\\'S do not nrct'\\arily n·pr.,.·.,1·11t tl1t' 01>i11ion or tlw t•ditors. \I \'\USCHJIYfS 'iuhmilt"d to FACTS FOHl \I :\F\\·s 'hould hr a(.·companiNI hv st.1111pt·d, <,t·\I· 1Hlclrt·\\l'cl t·nq·lopt·s. Puhli.,fwr 11\\umt·\ no n·.,pnn· 'ihility for rdurn or Ull~Olic.:ilc'd l\hllltl\Cripts. Sl1BSCIUPTJ0:\1" H.\'n:s in thC' U.S. and U.S. pm,t·ssion'i, $:l pt·r year, $.S for two yt•ar<;, and $7 for :) )t•nrs. \II othn countrit•'i, ,.1 pt>r )'1'.1r. To \llh\l'lilll', \(•(• JMl{t' 6·1. Cl! \'\CE 01 \DDHESS; S<•1HI old ;1ddrt'S\ ( <'l<l("lly .is impri111t•d 011 m.tilinC" lalwl of ,·our t·opi; of tlw m.U.[.l/illl') 1rnd 1ww addrt•\s to F\C·1 S FOHl'\I '\E\\ S. Dt·p.1rtnwnt CA. D.11lo1s I, Tt·x.1s. l'll'li't· ,1Jlow thn·t• ''·t'l·k~ for chnn~l"O\er. IN THE Next Issue OF Facts Fotum News DON'T MISS " Will Income Taxes Destroy Capitalism?" Ka rl Marx ~tat cd , ''The re i~ onl) o n (' \HI ~ to kill ea pita li ... m - h) hn.e ... , ttn .. e"l and ntorc taAe .... " ~t a n ) Am c rit~a n ~ ar(• SU) ing tha t the Sixt<"enth Ame ndme nt j .., a dangerou 1' and u nlimit('d grant o f J>O ~ <' r th a t ~ i ll destroy o u r polit ic.-a l a nti el'ono rn ic free d om. Othe r ., d t' f~ 0 1>1>o n e n h to de' i1'C a h<' tter, n 1ort• t'((Uil a hle means o r 3('l'U1t1Ula tin1r reH'­n ut.•. Head both Ji n('~ or rea.;;on ing in th (' Ju )} j~1'U C. * * " What's the Hullabaloo About Mental Health?" \\ h«n th<' Alaoka Me ntal llcuhh Bill " a "' 1m!!<..;ed by 1hc ll ou .. t·, a fu rol'e aro ... e in some ((Ua r te rs cl aiming tha t thi .. ~a ~ an nlt <'mpt 10 <'"! l a bli.;;h a '-~H bcri a ,' in the U.S.A. to ~hi<· h n il tho ... <' ~ h o differ ~ith Ne ~ -},a ir Dea l p o lidetoi could be ~en t. \Vh a t i.., the lm .. i .. of tht'"'<' fear ... ? A ~ i d t'-... ereen .. potlight \\i ll he focu ... e<I on 1hc- m a n ~­dim e n ... io n ed 1n e n1 a l h ea lth Jl iC' turt' ll <''l mon1h in an e ffo rt to de lermirn• \\ hid1 parl:-. o f th i"i pic lure arc faeh - ~ hi r h nl'e fa n l'~ • * * The news about Facts Forum's NEW TV and Radio Shows featuring : 1\loderator, Hont.nT l . lh111~u;11. " ho:-.t• ohjet·· the rt>portinJt hi1d1li1tht.. ih<' 1' EW Ue11orter.,· Rowulup-TV mu/ Radio progr am:-.. Th<> TV '.'>hO\\ fir:-.l appt•ur<>d on \ pril 29, and the nul io \.:er­~ ion, 1'opic of 1he II eek. began 011 May 6. T he J u ly i ~s u e ~i ll ind ude JH'C \i ('~ S o f the JlCr1'on a lit ie., a nd subjt'cts to he 1>rP-,cnted on tlu.•.,c inte rc~ 1in g nnd inform a ti'e pr o gra m ~ . Page 1 .r.. The Case For and Against FOREIGN AID O:\E of the year's hottest election battles has already begun to rage on Capitol Hill and throughout the countr). This is the legislathc battle centering around Presiden t Eisenhower's request to Congress for an appropriation of $-1,560,000.000 for foreign aid - three billion dollars of this amount to be e'pended for military aid and the re­mainder for economic assistance. \Vith a total of only $2,700,000,000 approved last year, the amount requested for this year would be an increase of almost 100 per cent. With many political and economic leaders throughout the country unalternhly opposed to the very principle of for­eign aid, the proponents and critics of the new foreign aid program proposed IJ\· the President ba,·c established themselves in opposing camps and luwc already begun skirmishing in the Yerbal combat which has pvcry ap­pearance of becoming the ]pgislati\'e fight of the decade. There is powerful opposition in both parties to not onlv the amount requested by the PrPsicl~nt hut to the idt•a of a long range commitmPnt of our government to support specific projects in foreign countries o,·er a period of perhaps t<•n years and in­rnh ing a total of appro~imately $100 million. This opposition was set off h,· the PrPsident's statement in h(s Budget \lessagc that foreign aid laws should be revised "to assure greater continuity in providing economic as­sistance for dcvelopmPnt projects and programs which ... require a period of years for planning and completion." Opposition to the ~ ielding of year­to-, ·car control o\·er foreign aid dollars ha~ been especially formidable in the Senate, and only slight!~ less so in the House, where appropriation hills must origin,1te. \\'ith unexpended foreign Page 2 aid funds from pre\ ious appropria­tions totaling near!~ $-!.5 billion, the scope and size of the new proposal h<we many in a quandary. Close to a total of $50 billion has been made available to foreign countries, through grants and loans, since \Vorld \\'ar IL, and many are asking if e'periencc has proven this to be justified. There is much agreement that the foreign aid programs have been helpful in varying degrees, but in the light of changing domestic and world conditions many feel that the timl' is at hand - in fact, long past - when we should reeval­uate the dfcctiveness of our foreign aid policy since World War II and continue it onlv if it can he deter­mined that the 'o\'cr-all results justify the continued drain on the taxpayers' pockt•thooks and the threat to the <'Conomic sccuritv of the U. S., which the unhalanc<'d liudget constitutes. HISTORY OF FOREIGN AID The Lend-Lease programs, under "hich we supplied $-17 billion of de­fense materials and services to our allies, was the first modern major .\merican assistance program. It was followed by $8.7 billion e,pend<'d for ci\ ilian supplies and rehabilitation of essential fac:iliti<'s to liberated and <'X­t'nemy people during and after \Vorld \\'ar II. In the early period after the war, we contributed $:3.1 billion to the Inter­national Bank for lkconstruction and Dc,clopment and to the International :\lonetary Fund, which was organized to remove restrictions on international trade. We provicl<'d a loan of close to 84 hill ion to Britain to ease her severe international and internal economic difficulties in the belief that interna­tional economic relations throughout the world could not he reconstructed unless Britain were strong. Other countries n·cch ed a total of $1.3 bi!- lion toward the purchase of surph1 : materials which our armed forces h•1~ left abroad. In 19-17, the U. S. provided ·g:J I million in stop-gap assistance and 19-!S the first long-term program, ti European Hccovery Program ktl0'1 commonly as the ~larshall Plan, ,,. put into effect and this invoh ed ti expenditure of around $11 biJliv through 1951. Postwar reconstruction and rceo,·( had been the aim of the foreign '' programs until this time, but after ti outbreak of the Korean War, mllit•1r assistance became the dominant the1 of our aid programs. Of course, s? 11 military assistance had been pro,·1d1 prior to the Korean \Var, as, 1 example, the aid to China in 19' and the aid to Greece and Turk• strengthening them against Coin1. 1 nist gu<•rrillas and Soviet aggres>1 ~ The ~lutual Defense Assistance of 1919 provided for the channeline funds to the North Atlantic Trr t Organization. This was followc<\l the \lutual Security Act of J. ~ which has been followed each yclir similarly named acts. " Aid to underckvcloped countr 1 had been accelerated by the p,isj', of the \ct For International DP''.i m<'nt in 1950, and since the J(ort', \\'ar the shift toward military J de\'<'lopmental assistance has hccil companied hy a redirection of our t away from \V<'stcrn Europe. Fr01!1 t start of 1953 to the middle of 195.1 • proportion of nonmilitary funds de~ ed to areas outside of Europe I from 32'!' to 95'!'. ADMINISTRATION OF PROGJ!.A~ Foreign aid programs are ~<~;. istcred by the Department of 0 through the semi-autonomous l t national Cooperation Administr£1 and by the Department of l)C ' FAcrs FoRu'c 1'\Fws, ]1111C· 1 Also, An foreign < COmmod intcrnati• Agricult tional ( )..Jigrati< Heconst lnternat lnternati :'\ations ( cd Progr Li, Hef Organiza \Ve ha for cconc struction Bank, fo1 rnouth t huilcling fjuarters Steel c~ tion of fa f \Ve h i arninc re I' ) ... ' f surpht' I orces h•1d dcd S911 cc and grnm, ti 111 k110'1 Plan,,,. ·olved ti ,1 billiO d rcco"c. orcign n t after tt r rni1it••r ;~nt thC11 ursc, s011 1 provid1 .r, as, t a 111 1· 1d Tur~' t Corl11~1 aggrcs>\ istance annclin~ 1tic rrc·~ >llowrclg: t of 1 ~ tch ycnr I countr ·he pns» ~I De,c1' the J{ort tilit<H) " 1as been n of o11r c. Fron1 ~ of 195.S. ·u ncl s de~' ~uropr •ROGl!.A~ arc fl(h' f St· nt o 111~ mous t ministfll of pcft Also, American fun<ls are provi<lc<l lo foreign counh·ics for the purchase of ~ommo<litics or services through such international agencies as the Foo<l an<l Agriculture Organization, Interna­tional Committee for European ~ l igration, International Bank for Reconstruction and D evelopment, International Labor Organization, International Monetary Fun<l, United ~ations Children's Fund, UN Expand­ed Programs of Technical Assistance, UN Hcfugec Fund, \Vorl<l Health Organization, and others. f We have also made extensive loans Or economic development and recon­struction through the Export-Import Bank, for the eradication of foot and lllouth disease in l\lcxico, for the huilding of the United Nations hcad­~ uartcrs, to the European Coal and . tee! Community for the moderniza-tion of facilities, etc. \Ve have provided emergency famine relief assistance to such coun- ... '. r' ~~ tries as Yugoslavia, India, and Pakis­tan, and distributed food parcels in the western sector of Berlin, where in 1953 nearly a million East Germans crossed the border to obtain them. Types of foreign aid may be briefly summarized as follows: ( 1) l\llLl­TARY ASSISTANCE is ordinarily a matter of joint financing with a for­eign country, especially in the NATO area, of certain military facilities and activities; (2) OFF-SHORE PRO­CURE~ IE T provides for the pur­chase with American dollars of mili­tary equipment and materials which arc prodded to countries to whom we give military assistance; ( 3) DIRECT FORCES SUPPORT includes furnish­ing such items as petroleum, paint, tires, and uniforms; ( 4) DEFE SE SUPPORT is the furnishing of civilian commodities to countries which arc e ligible lo receive our military help; (5) COUNTEHPAHT FUNDS con­sist of the local currencies of aid- THE HOT POTATO By Herc Ficklen, Dallas Morning News p\('"f s Font 'r l\'1-:ws, June, 1956 rccei"ing countries which arc gener­ated as dollars-are exchanged for local currency or for commodities which are bought in the market-place of these countries; ( 6) TECHNICAL COOPEHATION provides for the sending abroad for training and advis­ory purposes technicians in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries , health and sanitation, and education, who may not use American funds for the purchase of equipment and com­modities except to the e\tent that they arc ncccssan for instruction or dem­onstration pt;rposes; and (7) DE\'EL­OP:\ IE:'\T ASSIST.\'.'\CE pro"idcs to counh·ics not eligible to receive our military assistance certain commodi­ties needed for projects or activities placed in operation by our foreign policy . GENERAL ARGUMENTS FOR FOREIGN AID In President Eisenhower's message to Congress he stated: "The need for a mutual security program is urgent because there arc still nations that are cager to stri\'c with us for peace and freedom, but without our help, lack the means of doing so. '"\\'e must continue to work with other counh·ies to insure that each free nation remains free, secure from ex­ternal aggression and subversion, and able to de"elop a society marked by human welfare, indiYidual liberty, and a rising standard of living . . .. \Ve must continue to provide technical knowledge and essential materials to speed the adrnnce of other nations in peaceful uses of ti,. 1tom. \Ve must continue our rt1ltural and educational exchanges to e\pand mutual knowl­edge and understanding. " ... \\'c h<n e no desire or intent to subjugate or sull\·crt other peoples - no purpose to change t11cir chosen political, economic, or cultural pat­terns - no wish to make any of them our satellites. \Ve seek onlv to further the cause of freedom ami independ-ence .. . " ... In their economic aspects, our programs have made significant ad­'" tnccs toward the solution of many problems of the free "oriel. Without this assistance many other nations, be­yond doubt, if existing at all, "·oiild c•,ist today only in the grip of chaos. "Significant testimon~ to the success of our mutual security programs ap­pears in the new turns and deYelop­mcnts of So\iet policy. Aggression through force appears to have hccn put aside, at least temporarily, and the Communists are no" making trade approaches to man\' nations of the free world. · " ... :\lanv ... nations do not now ha\'c the resources required for a mini­mum rate of economic gro\\th. They arc stri\ ing to create the standards of Page 3 living under which their economics can develop. This is a long-term pro­cess, in which their own efforts will play the major part, but in which our help can be crucial."1 Those who favor foreign aid point to the advantages of collective secu­rity for the United States, contending that the militan· forces which our allies provide de{cnd the U. S. as well as their own borders. The U. S. sup­ports, in varying degrees, more than :200 divisions, 700 combat vessels, and ."300 air squadrons in 37 countries. The key to peace lies in this combined militarr strength of the free world, together with the greater measure of economic secu1ity provided by Ameri­can assistance, according to propo­nents of foreign aid, who believe that we must maintain the cooperation and unitv of the free world in order to be strong enough to resist Soviet aggres­sion and expansion. As long as the free world stands with the United States, our strength consists of 75 per cent of the world's population. If the oviet bloc could be extended to encompass the rest of the free world, including South America and the rest of 'orth America, it would have 94 per cent of the world's population. Or, related to land area, we either have 65 per cent of the world on our side, or the Soviet bloc has 95 per cent on its side. It is argued, in the light of these figures, that failure to bind the free world countries together would tilt the ad­, ·antage to the Communist5. Even if \Vest Germany's and NATO Europe's population, steel capacity, and coal fields were added to those of the Soviet bloc, the United States would he outweighed three to one in popu­lation, two to one in hard coal, and at least matched in crude steel produc­tion. Those who stress American depend­ence on the free world also point out the large per cent of our strategic materials which come from abroad. For example, 67 per cent of the baux­ite, 100 per cent of the natural rubber, 100 per cent of the tin, 100 per cent of the industrial diamonds, '.).5 per cent of the manganese, 99 per cent of the chromite, 95 per cc•nt of the cobalt, q5 per cent of the platinum, etc. To the allegation that our foreign aid has not brought us friends and therefore has not been a cohesive force for a stronger free world, propo­nents argue that our aid is an invest­ment in strength and democracv, and that while foreign nations mav· differ sharply with us, it docs not follow that they arc unfriendly. They add that to n•quirc foreign political policies to he aligned with ours would defeat our 1"\futu:ll S~·curity Procr,lm" - \fec;~al.!e from the Pr"°"i1l{"nt of th<' Unit('d St.ltl>S (If, Doc. :\o. 338). \Llrc:h 19, 19.36. Page 4 efforts to obtain goodwill and would be regarded as imperialism by other countries. The uncommitted people of the world would be thrown against us, they argue, if we demanded such alignment, pointing out how we would have felt in 19.39 if Great Britain had demandC'd that we be actively with them or against them. In view of America's industrial ad­vancement and its limited manpower, many people feel that America can make its best contribution to the free world defense through providing tech­nical weapons and equipment and modern aid and naval power and leav­ing to our allies the responsibility of providing defensive ground forces and local naval and air power. This will discourage the small "bmsh-firc" wars and if they do break out, they will be fought \vithout atomic weapons and can be more easily stopped. It is pointed out that the U. S. must maintain troops at all points contigu­ous to the So\iet bloc in order to pre­vent Sov;et expansion and because American manpower is limited, allied forces must be relied on to provide border guards. That Communist Hussia realizes the restraint placed on her bv free world cooperation and unity is shown by her current bid to provide the help need­ed by underdeveloped countries who are at present in the camp of the free world. This trend was pointed up by a recent editorial in the 'orthampton (:\lass.) Daily Hampshire Gazette which stated, " ... The Soviet Union has launched a foreign-aid program of its own, with the obvious intention of outdoing America in this effort and thus gaining world domination. "The President is not saying to Con­gress that foreign economic aid must continue forever. Ile is saying that the Soviet Union is now using all methods short of war to entice the undcrde,el­oped nations into its embrace. Ile is saving that the cold war has become bitterly competitive and that unless the United States (wakes up) to its implications, we may lose the cold war itself." \Valtcr Lippmann propounded the same theory when he recently wrote>, "\Ve have come to the end of the time whe•n the non-Communist world is willing or is compC'lled to look solelv to Washington for economic aid. We arc living in a time when almost all of the countries which have bC'en receiv­ing aid from m f<'el that we have a competitor in the SO\iet Union, and that they are now in a position to bar­gain with both of the two super­powers. " ... \Ve shall have to go on with fort•ign aid. For we cannot ref11st' to compc•te, leaving to the Soviet Union by default a monopoly in the under-developed countries of South Asia and hoinbs North Africa."" lvouJd ht Another argument of those favoring Ing the foreign aid is that the expanded ex· 11·eapons ports from the U.S. are financed with re/opmcr our aid and that this export b·ade sus· rulncrab tains high levels of employment with· reductior in the United States. It was main· 11·ouJd str taincd by Harold Stassen, former us greatt administrator of foreign aid programs. giving us that our foreign aid program assisted the tecl the U. S. in its post-Korean War cco· 110uld m1 nomic readjustment by strengthening over the foreign economics whose finanei:1l These crises abroad would have adversely af· UnbaJanci fected our economy and by providin~ I " higher these foreign countries with the mean~ ~thcnvi~of b11y111g more U. S. exports, thercb) fnd cap1t strengthening our own economy, ~r expor U. S. Hcprcsentativc John W. Jlescl· ~.0Yed in ton of i\Iassachusetts, stated on the ;scontin1 floor of Congress that at the present 0 comp level of spending, foreign aid cost> kbroad, tl each citizen of the U. S. only $:26 a eets beco1 year. and that the U .. S. cannot afford e.~te. as. a1 to d1scontmue such aid. th P<1ns1on ln an article in the April issue of e· e early Harper's i\faa11zi11e, Peter F. Druckc '!ln-aid-fl appeals to his readers to consick ~llltant p funds spent for foreign aid as an c': ,1°~rces of penditure of self-interest instead .\n the o• of "foreign aid." Hegarding this ht lllc~rcan states, "In President Eisenhower's cur· , It is ar1 rent proposa1 to put 'fo re1. gn a1.c l ' on ', •en1g n. a1.e I f long-term basis we have made the Rr» ti Increa step toward an effective policy. Pron11 tes of nent groups, such as the Committl' lhUrope, ti for Economic Development, are ~k •nat the manding sharp increases in forcr~" ~· d scrvic aid, especially to the ear East all' d;ouJ~ res Asia. But much of this is still 'forcri!f q:sat15fao aid,' still conceived as an answer It ins~· for e~ Communist pressure rather than ns th: 1 ahrJity basic long-range American need n~• h/ ~uch self-interest." 1 Oi~edrng ! On a nationwide radio broadens 0 subve Hep. Alvin Bentley of Michigan st<~t<' feel ~e of along thi~ sam? line, "I have critic1Z'.j Prov~s mo the (foreign aid) program and I sh·1 1 inc ,1(. of co!1tin.ue to cri~ciz~ parts o.f it, b.ut · •bJ~easrng thmk 1f all foreign aid were iust w11f St•t to fo out ... the effects abroad would.;. rn~ es hai very disastrous ... the Commun15 Pr"nt~ to c.~ would immediately be able to o"r1 10._cl1ces 1 run a large part of· the free work1 n, ,, ·"raJ 1 ll<ii ref probably force us, in return, to go ~,,11nt .out Wtt .. ~ %~~ l.) 1 the a cor· -"O P rlr· rrtics s ARGUMENTS AGAINST FOREIGN AID On the other side, critics of A111r~ can foreign aid programs argue th tLe security of the United States :11 of other free countries would hr t' creased if greater defense c•xendit1t were undertaken at home instcnd · in assbtance to our allies. The) '". that our securitv lies in the detcrr< power of our atomic and hydro•' '\\'mliin.t.!fon Po"t mul Timt·f lfrrold, 'f11tt.·ll , JQ;R. ' JJ11lll'ti11 of Am<·rica'.t Tntrn .\l('l'li111: of tlif liancc that \ 1 ltipb.< 'coin Ir; rrcan If es IVhe lt("tt h ~tr,~• ut Jlr,,veents I 'r" r as l1'11lll<•nt ti'~'n~· c har] ~nf nt,1tivc fnc;rtunati lr1 easing \0111' ~ f~t FACTS Fonu,1 'Ews, J1111c, 1 1"s Fo11 J.mUM}' I.'), J<)'';O. Asia and favoring nded c.x­ccd 11 ith 1-.1clc sus· ent with­as 1nain, , former >rograrns. 1 assisted War rco· 1gthpnin~ financinl crsely nf· :lrovidin~ he meuns ;, thcrcb) 1my, N. IIcscl· d on thr e present aid cosb nly $26 '1 not afford I issul' of _ Druck<' consid! as an ev t instc•10 g this h• 1wcr's c11r· 1 aid' on~ le the fir> cy. Pron11· :ornrnitt! t, arc ~I~ n forc1C· East n11' ill 'forcil!I' answer 1' than as need a0 hroadc•1~ gan st•~t< : critic1t< . nd I sh'1 )f it btit just'wiPj' would ~ ommuni~, e to o"r world n\ n, to go NST · of An1rf , I> argue 1 1 Statrs '\ mld be rl cxrndill' inste:id . ThrY s· e dctcrr< I hydroC' lxnnbs and that our financial resources 11·ould he put to better use h) improv­ing the delivery systems for these 11eapons inasmuch as new missile dc­l'elopmcnts make our overseas bases l'ulncrablc. Critics further state that a reduction of foreign aid expenditures IVouJd sh·cngthcn our economy, giving lis greater domestic production and ~tving us greater opportunity to make the technological advances which 1vould maintain free world superiority over the Soviet bloc. These critics feel that foreign aid Unbalances our economy. By financing " higher level of exports than would otherwise be possible, more workers [ 0<l capital are drawn into production Or export markets than can be em­~ loycd in this production when aid is ;scontinucd, and by the development 0 competitive sources of supply kbroad, the retention of foreign mar­ets becomes even more difficult. They cite as an example of this the ovcr­~ hPansion of American agriculture in ci e ca.rly postwar years through for- 1 7n-a1d-financcd exports and the rc- 11 tant problems when the foreign ~urccs of supply had made recovery, .\ <l tl.1c overseas market did not need llle~1can agricultural exports. Ci ~tis. argued by those opposing for­a g~ aid that instead of encouraging ~ tncn•ase in the defense cxpendi­~ res of the countries of \Vestern it0Pe, this should be discouraged so an~t the. resulting increase in goods \\- services available for civilian use di0 tilc~ restrain the growth of internal q:sat1sfaction in these countries. They ins~· ~r. example the internal political th· t ihty of France, and point out hr~ ~uch imtability is the perfect ni\teding ground for internal Commu-su hvcrsion. fc3~c of the reasons which critics Pr ls most important in their disap­' n~rv~I . of foreign aid, is that by •hiec.tsing the total resources a~ail­Stat to foreign countries, the Umtcd lile cs has allowed foreign govcrn­Pra11. t~ to continue outmoded economic l()cic:,1ces and to try out impractical Poi~ reforms at our expense. They r·()unt .out that in many EuropPan 'otr tries ll'C'lfare expenditures cut I~~ th(• averagt• person's income hv c/ 20 per cent. . •Jer{rit1cs state that there is little cvi­has le that the threat of communism \llJ(•ll'come less serious, as a n•stilt of ltiestican forci~n aid, in thosl' coun- 11,rea IVh<•r<' communism is a real er11ill t, hut ratlwr that left-wing gov­ll< iivc·~nts have been ahll' to stay in r~11 as a result of our help. This lfon.~t_t was aptly stated by the r, -c•nt· ~·lrles B. Brownson, U. S. Rep­~ of0r(1h\'e of Indiana, who said, "It is 1nttea 11.nately true that foreign aid by Ir, s sing the total resources available t 0111c foreign go1 crnments has ~':ts F 'Ont:\r. ·, 11·s, J1111c, 19.56 all<med them to continue outmoded economic practices and to indulge their tastes for radical social welfare n1easur<'s."1 Propounding the same theory, Thurman Sensing in an article entitled "Stop Forpign Aid" appParing in the Ft•bruary issue of American Progress statl'd, "Even sound-thinking people in Britain, the best friend 11 c have in this world - if we have anv - 11 ill tell you that the worst thjng ·that could have happened to them was the $4 billion loan we made them in 1946, 1d1ich helped put their Socialist go1 - t•rnnwnt in office, and the ~larshall aid 11 c gm·e them in the following years, which helped keep it in office. They will tell you that they would ha1e got­ten rid of their Socialist government - 11hich brought them to the very hrinJ.. of ruin - much sooner than they finally did without our interference. " ... Discontinuance of foreign aid would enable us to cut taxes, which arc now taking a third of our income. It would enable us to begin paying off our national debt, which is larg<'r than the combined debts of all the rest of the nations of the world and which 11 e now give every appearance of passing on to our children as if we ll'ere in no way responsible for it. "The best assurance we have for the presnvation of freedom in this world is tlw maintenance of a strong econ­om1 in the United States of America - iincl this we cannot hope to main­tain if we continue to profligatPly scat­t<' r 011r substance over the face of the earth. " ... Indian newspapers praise Rus­sia as the country's friend whilt• they ignore American benefactions or take tlwm for granted. After all our aid, l'nitC'cl Stat?s prestige has .~lipped to a new low m that countrv. \lanv pC'rsons raise tlie objPction that oill' foreign aid dollars are not used for the purposes for which they are gi1 en. Often part of our military assistance is converted by the recipi­ent co11ntrv into economic aid lw the simple process of reducing its· own dl'fr'nse <'\penditures and diverting thes<• !'\penditurcs into civilian serv­icl's, lealing it up to the U. S. to main­tain the level of militarv stren~th tho11~ht necessary in that· particular co11ntn. Critics advance the thcorv that if 11·c spent as much for welfare pur­pose's as many of our allies do, we wo11ld not he able to maintain our prcsC'nt level of national secmitl and foreign aid. The total tax hurdC'n in the United States is already approxi­matplv 30 per cent of total income, and it is felt that if foreign aid were cut, ta\cS could he lowered and people in this country could hm·e more to spend •Cmu..rn \\imwl lkwrd, \forch 29, 19.56. p. A27HO. for their own purposes and for starting new businesses and expanding estab­lished industries. In answer to the argument that ex­ports financed with our assistance sus­tain the level of employment in the United States, critics say this is dis­counted bv the fact that the collection of hncs to provide that aid rl'duccs spending within the United States, which, if not reduced, would pro1 ide the same or even greater employment than is provided by our increased ex­ports. One of the foremost opponents of foreign aid, Eugene \V. Castle, author and former president of Castle Films, wrote in an article published h1 II11ma11 Ei;ents that "If it were deci<i­cd to declare a national dividend and to present to every family of three in the United States a bonus of $2,100, the total cost to the Treasury would not equal the amount which this nation has given away to foreign coun­tries since 1940. " ... If we pause to estimate the overdue domestic projects - new schools, health, slum clearance, rural rehabilitation, reclamation, power de­velopment, etc. - that these billions or a part of them would have bought if we had kept them at home, the foreign aid undertaking assumes a different and less alluring ligbt."5 0 J '>As:-.n·c H as foreign aid logicall~ falls into seven types, as outlined <'arlicr, it is proposed to consider, briefly, arguments for and against these seven types of aid. MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND OFF-SHORE PROCUREMENT It is claimed bv those favoring mili­tary assistance that dollars spent in this manner contribute more to our national security than a like sum ex­pended within the United States, and that .\merican air bases on foreign soil, 11hich arc a major force for peace because they provide the delivery sys­tem for the atom and hydrogen bombs, exist only because our aid to these countries secures for us the re­ciprocal right to establish air bases. It is argued that if we do not con­tinue foreign aid, our allies will assume we are no longc'r interested in their safet1 and 11 c will then lose not onl~· their: present military strength, hut also the bargaining power of our combined strength at conference tahll's. Proponents point out that \\'oriel \Var II cost us approximately 87 billion a month, and that the pro­posed program of military assistance 11·ould amount to about nine days of '·" 'Billionitis' Tht· Di"t"l"<" ~( Fon il.!n Aid,",,'.~' Flll't 111 \\ . ('.1 .. th-. l/um11n l.ll'rlf\, J.um.1r;. --· 19.36. Page 5 .£. .t months' wartime expenditures, not to take into consideration the clement of human life which would be de­stroved in war. Persons favoring military assistance claim that by buying military goods abroad which are given to our allies, we obtain these military goods more cheaply, save the costs of transporta­tion, assist in the development of de­fense production and maintenance facilities closer to the possible scene of conflict, encourage standardization of equipment, sharpen the productive skills of foreign labor and capital, reduce Communist penetration of labor unions abroad by threatening to withhold orders from firms whose unions arc infiltrated, improve morale in foreign countries by making them feel that they are earning their own way, and provide greatly needed dol­lars to our allies in payment for the goods they produce. These dollars arC' used to balance their international pa) ments and to raise their standards of lh·ing, thus casing unrest which could lead to social disorganization and Communist subversion. But these alleged advantages of off­shore procurement do not always stand up under analysis, critics of the program contend . They claim in answer to the argument that products arc obtained more cheaply, that pur­chases of ammunition arc known to have been made at higher prices than those charged in the U. S. There have been long delays in the delivery of equipment. Instead of off-shore pro­curement broadening the free world's strategic production base and provid­ing cheaper military equipment, crit­ics claim it has been used for political .md economic ohjectiu·s such as the pro\ is ion of dollars to countries in bal­ance- of-payments difficulties, the re­duction of unemployment, the com­hatting of local communism, and en­couragement of free enterprise, etc. £,·en though these arc worthy objec­tin• s, the goal of better militarv prC'­paredncss through off-shore procure­ment has not been attained. :\!any of these critics urge that off­shore procurement he restricted ac­cording to internal unemployment in the United States. Thev claim that off­shore purchases shoulcl he redirected toward pockets of unemployment in the L: nited States and that this would mitigate the decline in the American standard of living which necessarily accompanies foreign aid. A fall in the \merican standard of living occurs as off-shore procurement makes possible greater exports of American goods, rc•­ducing the goods available for domes­tic use, hut this would not he so pro­nounced if aid moncv were used to huy American goods p'roducC'd by m<'n and machines who would not b<' pro­ducing goods for domestic use be- Page 6 cause demand \\as temporarily low and who would be thus restrained from moving into production of other goods during the period of low de­mand. Critics of our military assistance program claim that the development of guided missiles by the Soviet Union makes our European and African air bases untenable. Since American mili­tary assistance is offered as a condi­tion of our obtaining those bases, they feel that military assistance no longer serves a useful purpose, and our na­tional security would be better served by devoting this money to research and development in order to shl) ahead of the Soviet Union in terms of special weapons and in the general technological progress which is ncccs­sar} for military success. lt is pointed out b} critics tll<lt aid recipients do not give sufficient coop­eration to justify our giving them con­tinued military assistance for purposes of our own national security. ln 1955 we used 10.9'.t of our gross national product for defense whereas Frnnce used only 8.5~ . Denmark 3.5~. Ger­many 5.2'.., Italy 4.3'l, Portugal 3.8%, Spain 4.8~ . United Kingdom 9.8't, Tur­key 6.7'.t, Greece 6.5'l, Belgium-Lux­embourg 5.7'.i, Netherlands 6.6'.t, and l\orway 5.1 ~ . There has not been the continuous military build-up which proponents had expected. i\lany persons feel aid recipients will make even less effort in the future to cooperate in free world defense because guided missiles endanger them in the event of war, and thcv can hope to avoid this only by dt•mtlining neutral. As a result of missile develop­ments they may seek reduction in de­fense expenditures and many frcl that conflicts will de,·clop over the pres­ence of American forces and bases on their soil. Critics further contend that little help would be forthcoming in the de­fense of the free world from the coun­tries rccc1vmg military assistance, judging from the record of the past. Tlwy cite, for examplt>, that AmC'rica carried the burden of fighting in Korea. Those who disapprove of militar: assistance charge that our allies have favored the casing of restrictions on strategic trade with the Soviet bloc, and have pressured us into recent cx­tcnsi\ e relaxation of such restrictions. 1 n line with this argument, Senator Joseph :\lcCarthy stated, "The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, htl\'­ing completed an im·csligation of cur­rent, . S.-authorized strategic trade with the Communist nations, finds that the long and short of the mattC'r is that you, the American taxpayer, are subsidizing the construction of the Communist war machine. "Th<' Committee discovered that in August, 1954, our gO\·ernment made secret concessions to our 'allies' n; regards what they could ship to th1 Communist bloc without losing Amer· ican aid. As a result of these conces· sions, over 200 highly strategic iteI11' - such as machine tools, metals, and electronics, transportation and elec trical equipment-were removed fro11 the anti-Communist embargo. "The American people were not in formed of these secret concessions !< our 'allies'; indeed, deliberate ano (until our Committee got on th< track) successful attempts were macli to conceal thcm."H i\lany people in tI1c United States while not opposed to all military a>· sistancc, arc very much opposed t1 furnishing military aid to Yugoslad" In recent years Tito has shown s• many signs of moving into the Sod< fold that many feel it to be the hdgh of folly to continue sending militM~ equipment to a nation that mav cl• cide to use it against us. fhcsc pr1 sons object, as a matter of principl• to giving assistance lo a ComnlllOI' nation C'Ven if it is not within th Soviet bloc, while proponents feel th our aid to Yugoslavia is evidence 1 the rest of the world that the Unitr States will assist those satellites "·I break with the Soviet nion. Critics also deprecate the mili1•1r assistance program because it is dire< eel toward building up ground forc' ahroad, which they feel would he 11 effective in mt>eting a comhiJ1f ground and atomic attack from tt Soviet Union. DIRECT FORCES SUPPORT, DEFENSf SUPPORT, AND COUNTERPART FUNDS Higher military c.,pcnditurcs b} Q1 allies divert their resources from ti production o[ goods for their cidli: markets into the production of 11it tar} goods and services. The smnll supply of goods availahlc for ch ih use causes inHationary pressure. fr poncnts contend that the redt1t' standards of living and inflatioJ1" pressures within allied countries j~'·r ardize their internal political stab1h with adverse effects on their willJ11 ncss to carry the military effort '1 with enhanced opportunities for ternal subversion. Since no man 1~ fight unless he has something 1rP fighting for, economic assistancl' necessary to ease the burden 1 011 civilian population. Certain special ach-antages arc '1 by proponents in counterpart f11 11 w.hich result from thl' prodsio1; 1 cill'C'Ct forces support and dl'fpnsc · port. lkcausc· tllC'se countC'rpart f11.1 1 arc under the control of the l111 States go\·ernmc•nt, \\'(' obtain :t 1 gr(•c of control O\'l'r the econon11 ---;tt;m chestrr ( '\" .II. ) { r1ion l.l·ad<'r. \pril .f FACTS Fom 'r '\'1-:\1S, June. lg: the aicl­be used funds ample lie w~rl unemplc living <'Conomi IVhich countn llhilc ;11. Critici that thc1 state th1 ('Conomi1 due to funds, th 1·ention t'il.(n stat Iii!] ul tJ Inent. Tl e.xtent c.~ over to tecchin SttbstitutInent of that th<' cft·fensc i desire to •llcl-rc•cei• the cost honal d. budget. TECHN DEVI cnt mack 'allies' ;ll lip to th• ing Amer· ;e conccs· ~g ic itc111' ctals and and 'clec ovcd fro11 o. ~re not i11· :cssions I< ~rate an1 t on th< vcre mad• :cd Statc> I iilitary a~· pposcd .t1 ~ ugosla\·1. shown s• the So\'i1 the heigh tg militar t mav cir fhcsc pet princiP~' I :01nn1t11W within tit ts feel th vidcncc 1 the Cnitr llites \11 n. lC miJit;Jf it is dire 1tmd forct 1tild be ii combiJlf : from t~ DEFENSf ;ERP ART ures b} 0 IS froill I teir cidb· on of 1111 ~he sm•1U for cidl1• !ssurc. }'r 1c reclttl' in£latio11•1' ntn.e s J"r'r' :al stabP cir willJI' effort '11 tics for 1 O 111;.Ul '' hing \,·o ssistanc<" 1 den oil 1cs are ~t :Part f11tt iro\ isiot1 lefensr s'' •rpart f11.1 1 the L'lltd btain '1 rcono1111 the aid-rccci\·ing country which can be used to further our objectives. Such funds were used last year, for ex­ample, to build roads and other pub­lic works in Southern Italy where unemployment and low standards of living hmc constantly plagued the Cco_nomic growth of the country, which as a strong anti-Communistic country would certainly be a worth­llhilc ally. Critics of this type of aid contend that these claims arc not valid. They state that to the extent we exercise economic control in foreign countries due to our control of counterpart funds, this constitutes American inter­vention in the internal affairs of sover­t• ign states, is wrong in principle and 11·1]] ultimatelv work to our dctri­lllent. Thev fu;ther state that to the• extent cou'ntcrpart funds ar" turned O\er to the government of the aid­receh ing country, they become a substitute for taxation by that govcrn­~ cnt of its own people, and they note hat the major reason for prodding :::fense support often appears to be a es1re to support the budget of the ihd-rccl'i\ ing countr~, and is done at I' e cost of increasing our own na- 110na) debt and unbalancing our own >uclgct. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE 1 Those who favor these types of aid ~aim that poverty causes communism ;j'1d therefore our assistance to undl'r'. t·eveloped countries to help them at­,;~ l higher standards of livi:ig also Ps to prevent the spread of com­llliinisn1. Thev state this is for two rea­;~ ns: first, tlie alleviation of the mis­\ 1cs of pon·rtv makes people less 0°sceptihlc to t11c promist's of commu­thsm; and second, our aid strengthens to~ economics of underdeveloped lll. 1 1 .ntnc•s and enables them to provide itary defense for their country. t·r In Asia. the presl'nt democratic gov­th~ 11.1t'nts may be c•,pe~ted to eo_mhat Po]· 1nro,1ds of commurnsm only 1f the <if 1tical stabilit~ of their present form thc~ovc•rnnwnt can be maintained and 110 } _can achie\ c some measure of eco- (1e progress. no/thl' democratic states in \ sia can­~ r(··show a ratt• of economic growth as ~Jl ut as that of Communist China, the t1t.P0 rtunitit'S for sub\ ersion within lt(r'·s e co un t n·C 's w1· 11 I) e grc>at l v m· - lt·ndSC'd. Propo1wnts of foreign aid con­lJittst th,1t tlw people' of thc'SC' countries tnt], h<' mack to l)('lic\'c that progress •l«llJtr freedom ean he rapid and that f"rr ~eratic progress should he prc­ilti~~ l. to the totalitarian brands lw­' lltli\·· lt also permits freedom for tht• ln!]-.1< 11.11. This is c•specially true in •op.\'1 Wh(•rc• political progress has 'rc•ntly s11rpasst•d economic prog- \(-rs F - · 0111" '\1ws, ]1111c, 19.56 rcss and where many Asian nations arc looking for a comparison of the records of democracy and communism in providing economic development and improved standards of li\ing for the total population. lt is felt by many that these consid­erations have assumed greater impor­tance since Soviet Il.ussia has l'\tcnded to underdeveloped countries loans and technical assistance and encouraged trade with them. Wide and fm·orable publicity has attended the Sovil't o[er to build the Aswan Dam for Egypt, to provide economic aid to India, to take Burma's surplus rice in trade for much needed capital goods, etc. lt appears that the cold war is rapidly shifting to economic competition and the United States must successfully meet this competition if freedom and our 0\1 n national security arc to be maintained. That our aid does implant in under­developed countries a feeling of friendship and trust for the United States is claimed by proponents. They state that in Andhra, 1 ndia, prior to the recent election, the people were urged to support communism as a lwt­ter economic and social system, but they replied that Amt'rica could not be so terrible because we had been helping them to raise more rice. Proponents feel that the size of our financial and technical assistance pro­grams arc closely watched by the rest of the world who feel that bt'cause of our wealth as a nation, we are mor­ally obligated to help those less for­tunate. In fact, proponents themselves advance the theory that only in eco­nomic assistance designed to relil'vc suffering and distress in undPrdc•n •l­oped countries can we reflect the true humanitarian desire of tllC' American people. Perhaps the most oft-heard reason advanced for foreign aid is that our own interest is best served hv c'tend­ing this assistance, inasmuch as ap­proximately thrcc-fot1rths of American imports of strategic and critical mate­rials come from underdeveloped coun­tries. Also, our export trade is greatly increased because industrialized coun­tries buy more per capita from the United States than underdcn•loped nations. All of these arguments arc dc•nied rnlidity hy many critics who challenge the fundamental assumption that pO\·­ertv lc·ads to communism. Tlwv sa\ t•vi°dc•ncc• abounds that pcl\ ert~· an cl eommunism arc not uniquely related. For example, in France \\ hC'rc' onc­fourth of the voters cast their ballots for Communists this vl'ar, there• han· heC'n four years of rising wages and prosp<'rity and thC' Communists arc> strongest among the highest paid workers. Jn Italy, communism has its greatC'st strength in the highC'r-wagc industrial centers, not in the soutlwrn part where po\·ert) rules. In India, communism has made least progress among the millions of untouchables and aborigines who arc the very poor­est people of India. Even in Italy, France, England, and the United States, interviews with Communists and ex-Communists rc\'ealcd that twice as many skilled as unskilled workers join the Communist party. Critics further contend that the main danger of communism in undcr­dcYeloped countries stems from dis­gruntled intellectuals, who ha\ c little hope of advancement and who often cannot Bnd a use for their O\'l'r-traincd minds in their primitiYe economies. Opponents claim there is little C\ i­dence that the present technical assist­ance programs of the United States \\ill provide any direct improvement in the economic and social status of the Asian intellectual, and that in this most important respect our aid funds arc wasted. Opponents of the foreign aid pro­grams argue that our aid to foreign countries has not made friends for us, but rather the feeling and appC'arancc of inferiority which such aid engen­ders among the people of thC'se coun­tries brings ill will to us. Thry contc•ncl that it is foolish to give aid to coun­tries which arc neutralist, to countries that assume none of the obligations of collecti\'e security. They point out that the publicity concerning our projects which is necessary to direct good will towards us, is self-defeating because the countries then regard the projects as foreign inten·cntion. It is argued by many that good will cannot be gained in underde\eloped countries as long as we also aid former colonial powers. For example, our cur­rent military aid to France increasc·s her ability to restrain :'\orth .\frican nationa'.isi11, and this is resented h\' former colonial countries all O\'er the world. It is also pointed out that mili­tar) assistance is regarded by some of the underdeveloped countries as proof that \1 e ha\'e war-like intentions. The theorv is ach·anccd that undC'r­clen• loped countries regard our aid efforts as an attempt to buy their thoughts and tcehnieal assistance is considered an arrogance'. Thc•v resent our talk about sa\ ing them from PO\'­c• rty and communism. :'\ehru urged a program of austerity on his pt'ople \1 ith the words, "Jt is better that we progress a little more slO\\ l\' than al­low ourseh-es in any \\·a) to ciepend on othC'rs .... " As proof that our charit) has failed in its objrcti\·es, critics point out tlw e\tremely fa\·orahk response in undcrdC'\'eloped countries such as India to Russia's tradl' offers and busi­ness loans. :\lany persons feel that people of underde\·elopl'd countries resent tlw \·er) presencl' of numerous Americans Page 7 {, on their soil since the spirit of nation­alism and the remembrance of colo­nialism are still strong. The disparities of living standards of these Americans and the mass of the people create jealousy instead of friendship, and many ot the Americans who partici­pate in the technical assistance pro­gram do not exercise tact in refraining from boasting about the achievements of the American way of life. Also, a source of ill will toward the United States is the division of our aid among recipients. Those who do not receive as large a grant as other coun­tries resent us. Examples are found in the ;\liddle East where the compara­tive size of aid received by Israel and the Arab states has been, and remains, a frequent source of criticism of the L:nited States. Similarly, the provision of militarv assistance to Pakistan led to denunciations of the United States in India inasmuch as they were in­, ·oh'ed in a border dispute with Pak­istan. :'\ ehru called for mass rioting to show their displeasure. Our assistance to India helped her to become self­sufficient in rice, but this hurt the Burmese and Thai export markets and increased the economic difficulties of those countries. Latin Americans are extremely dis­appointed with the small amount of .1id they received during the postwar period in comparison with the much larger sums given to the countries of Western Europe, and on the other hand, the \Vestern European nations disapprove of our aid to Far Eastern powers because this diverts aid from them. Opponents of foreign aid contend that although Soviet oliers of aid and expanded trade have made a favorable impression, disappointment will even­tually follow in the underdeveloped countries because the Soviet Union has a long record of not living up to its economic bargains with the West and will no doubt continue true to form. These critics argue that it might have been better for us to withdraw from the Egyptian Aswan Dam proj­ect and allow the Soviets to build it. Such a project would use immense amounts of Soviet resources which could not be de\'Oted to strengthen­ing the Soviet Union internallv, and with the clam taking considerable time for completion, the lengthy presence of oviet technicians on Egyptian soil ,,·oiilcl be certain to lead to animosity toward them. Furthermore, if we make an evident attempt to match Soviet aid in this instance we will only earn the contempt of the Egyptians. Some opponents of aid to undercle­, ·eloped countries state that it is a mistake to compete in international charitv with a totalitarian government which has the power to depress its pPople\ standard of li\'ing in order to Page 8 finance foreign aid. Proponents coun­ter with the view that the efficiency of our free enterprise system makes it easier for us to compete with the Soviet bloc in economic competition than in military efforts, and urge that we take up the challenge and prove to the world that our system is more productive as well as more desirable from the standpoint of freedom. PRO AND CON QUOTES ON FOREIGN AID From the Tou·1f .Meetin& national radio broadca5c April 1. 1956 ... There is more anti-Amer­ican reeling today in almost every country we have hcl1>ed than there was in ] 948 when Marshall aid began. That's un­derstandable. We are the rich uncle who has moved into the home o( his poor ne1>hew noel i., now tclHng hint and hi'I family how they should live. And on top of it all, forcing the poor relations e'.:ery Saturday night to look at motion picturC'S bragging about how rich the do1nineering old fossi 1 is ••. j,\ME~ L. WICK, Publisher of Humat1 Eve11t1 •• 1£ these monies (foreign aid) were labC'llcd "the anti· Communist fund," there would be liulc op1>osition to thc1n and a much clearer understanding of the 1>urposcs and reasons for them. We should .•• be willing to say to those free countries who are willing to help thcmsehcs that America is in the fight for freedom to stay and that we are prepared to assi'lt them in their own advnncc, economically and politieally, toward freedom. I think that we should only spend money in tho'le countrie'I that we are co1ninced want to build themselves as free nalions. In other words, I do nol helie"e 1hat we should SJ>end 1noncy on a So, iet satellite 1hat wa deter· mined to remain a Soviet s.utel· lite .. . JAMES ROO'>EVELT, . S. Repre~C'ntative, (D) of California Opponents of aid have advanced the theory that our assistance has re­strained local eliorts for improvement, stating that many i\liddlc Eastern vil­lagers have refused to do things for themselves because, in their opinion, if they waited long enough the U. . would do it for them. Thcv note that many underdeveloped co;mtries im­pose extreme restrictions on private foreign investment and have done ex­ceedingly little to mobilize domestic capital. Critics state that the policy pursued by the United States in the disb·ibu· tion of aid has been all wrong because much of our aid has gone to countries who arc either neub·alist, serious!) threatened with internal communism. or who have gone Communist and then have thrown off communisnl· Those who oppose this polic) stntr that this encourages countries to take a neutralist stand or to allow Commu· nist infiltration in order to secure ad· ditional aid from the United States. This opinion was well expressed h) William Henry Chamberlin who stnt· eel, "'Billions for private investment on fair terms, not a cent for economic handouts, especially to unfriendl) neutrals' would be a very good steer· ing direction in the field of forei~C economic relations."7 In regard to the new foreign polic) of the Soviet, John T. Flynn summc<J up the feeling of many of the oppO' nents of the American foreign aid prl' gram when he stated on a nation• radio broadcast, "The Communist• don't care about so-called free Euror' and Africa. They arc interested in off thing - in encouraging the Unite States government to spend itself in! bankruptcy."8 This same line of reasoning \\·• exprescd in an editorial puhlisht recently in the lndia1wpolis Star n111 placed in the Congressional Record b Senator William E. Jenner of Indino It stated, "For ten years straight t~ State Department has been sending' average of $.5 hill ion a year ahroaCl ~ foreign aid. The idea is to win 1 cold war by helping our allies becotl' strong and united and to win J110 allies to our side. Yet today, after t< years of doing the same thing defr11' ively, what do we find? We find o allies less united. The neutralists '1~ more neutral. There is less milWr strength abroad than was prom is. And the Soviet Union has heen '1'1 ning skirmish after skirmish in t cold war both in taking territory ~ in winning support from the uncO~ mitted nations." So the battle rages on. In the ~r analysis, of course, it is the Amer!. taxpayer who foots the hill for fore' aid and who must decide whethe1 1 not it should be continued and whr er advantages which might he g·~~~ by it would be worth the sacri , which its continuance would 111•· necessary. t' A ck11~>"' h•d l.("em<·~t i'i mildC" to tht" A ~ E.11t('TJ>n 'ie A'i.'ocrnl1on, Inc., 1012 Fourt<·rnth ~ :\ . \V., \Va<, lun i:ton .5, D. C., for A.KA. Ht•l)( 617, t1 \('d no; source' mt1 tc-rfal. . ;"Und <' Shylock and thC" D.ollnr Cn/1," hY ~\IJ Jlrnry Chamh(' rlin, ll1mum /·. u :nh, ~ <lrch 111 19.56. "''Bt·hind the lr<' adlinc· ," hy John 'f. ~ Broadca\ t. H{·print \1 · 11 3, ~ <.: heclu h•d ~1uhl·1 1.tJ <.'.l\lin i.c Syo;t1·m. March 2 .'J, 1956. Proch1' Amt·ri ca''i Futllrt'. Inc. FAC'TS Fonu~c 1Ews, ]1111l', 1 1 pursued distribu· g because countnri serious!) FREEDOM'S NEW TASI{ nmunisni . . mist and nmunisnl !icy state es to take •Commu· :ecure ad . States. iresscd h) who stat· nvestmc111 economic nfriendl) ood steer· Jf forcig0 By JOII"I FOSTER DULLES This slatemcnt':' hy lhe Secrelary of Slate cott<'erning rite new Soviet foreign policy and the foreign aid program of the nitcd Slates is imporlanl in lhat it reveals the thinking of rite man who will t>lay a dominant role in administering "hatever foreign aifl program Congress may adopt . ign poliJ o summ the oppo­~ n aid prt> a nation'• Jmmunis~ cc Euror 1tcd in 01 he Unite' D:\TIL recently, the foreign polic) of ~o,·iet commu­nism 1vas based on fanatical intolerance of all other systems and upon the organization of violence to overthrow all other systems. ;\Ian, Lenin, and Stalin all :hught that it was necessary to hate all "ho differed from e Soviet Communist creed; and they also taught that Only by violence could international communism achieve its destined goals. But the free nations when confronted hv this policy rrr ) ~ ' 'cw more strong, more resolute and more' united. Conse- J"~ntly the So,·iet pattern of hatrC'lJ and I iolPncc pro- Uced c•ver diminishing returns. In Europe, the defensive strength of I\ ATO was ~llnded out by the addition of the FedPral lkpublic of :ming "·~ errnany. 8 Ps'~~s~~ ad~~ th~ western Pacific, freedom was consolidated by Record Ji th, Ing to our A:'-JZUS, Philippine and Japanese trpaties, f I diaP· ~ e new mutual defense treaties with Korea and with the itself in1 ~rai;ht tfl < epub!ic of China. And the Congress, you will recall, sendin~ ~ 1 t:ut~onzcd the President to use the Armed Forces of the · abroad 1 d ~lied States in the Formosa area, if necessary, for its . 0 win tli e ense. les becon ""In southeast Asia, the \Vestern powers joined with Asian · rnP~ "'1 wm 1'er · · f ll · · d I 1, fo s 111 a treaty or co cctivc security, an t icy trans- r• aft~fel {l)~~d . the Indochina struggle fr~m a struggle a_gainst lngfid 1 0 \'j, nialism to a struggle by truly rndependent nat10ns - ~ rn~s ,_ ~lnam, Laos, and Cambodia-to maintain their freedom. , a ~ilit,1r 'h ~ the \Jiddlc East, the northern tier concept, without s~romis. f,, • lenging the concept of Arab unity, has dnl\\ n together been ,1·1 lier _collective defense four nations which, for 2,.500 miles, tish in it ti~~t south of Hussia's fr?nticrs. :rritory ~P th. ck of these formulations of free world resolve lay :he uncoP >ti~ Vast mobile power of the United States which con- [n the GP e Ameri: for rorel whether and whet ~ he g,1i111 1c sacri6' •ould 111'1 f,.' s"ted a formidable deterrent to Opl'n armed aggression. i~~ the oviets had either to give up their e\pansionist 1 · or turn to other means to advance them. i. ·l'llin and Stalin had taught that, under these circum- 10 ~ccs, there• should he no gi\ing up, hut rather a shift S C\v m<'thods. :,,do, hist year, the Soviet rulers concluded that the time (_,Jrn Corne to change basically their approach to the non­( rn11nist world. 1~11:lay of 19.5.5, the Soviet rulers signed the Austrian lri 1'i Treaty; they made their pilgrimag<' of repentance r;"r~o; they offered to establish diplomatic rc•lations with lsiil any and to make a belat('(] pPacc' with Japan. In '11~~ the Chinese Communists, <it the Bandung Confrr­~~ ht !l_ave at least lip service to nwthocls other than out­• 1 l'1olencc '"I . ICJ)6 bt·fort• the Philadelphia Bulfrtin Forum at Phil.ult-lphia, P.1., on Ft:b. t . ~,, s Fonn1 '\1ws, ]L111c, 1956 The SoYiet rulers twmpctcd all this world as proof that SoYiet Communist longer predatory. throughout the policy was no We hoped that this was so. But we were highly skep­tical. \Ve well knew that under Leninism an\ tactic is admissible and that the change had come ~bout, not through change of heart, but because old methods had failed. On the other hand, "·e knew that the new Soviet tactics of increased tolerance and less dependence upon Yiolencc required a basic change in Soviet Communist doctrine. This can, in the long run, have major internal conse­quences and set up within Russia powerful liberalizing trends. But the fanatical teaching of a generation cannot he erased all at once. Also the change had not gone so far that there could not almost overnight be a sudden rt'\ crsal to the old practice of intolerance and violence. Also "c could only safely assume that the new tactics "ere de­signed as a new means of conquest. So we did not relax our vigilance or allow our military posture to slump . But, on the other hand, we do not assume fatalistic;Ill~ that there can he no evolution within Russia or that Hussia's rulers will always be predatory. Some clay - I would not attempt to guess when - Russia will he gO\·­erned by mc'n "ho put the welfare of the Russian people above world conquest. It is our basic policy to seek to advance th<' coming of that day. So last spring, when Soviet conduct began to change, we determined to do all that we safelv could to make that change a first installment toward an c~entual Russian state that would he a normal, not abnormal, member of the society of nations. One major step we took was to join with Britain and France to invite the Russian rulers to a conference of heads of government. At that summit Conference at Geneva President Eisenhower did more than anv other man could haw done to open up to the Soviet ruicrs the vista of a new era of friendly relations between our countries. \Ve cannot Yet measure what has been the full effect of that Confer~nce. The gains will he measurable onlv in the future. For the time being the Soviet rulers, fimiing that the road of intolerance and violence was blocked, have subordinated those elements of their old creed in the hope that, in a new garb, they could still pursue con­quest. Tow th<'y pursue their foreign-policy goals "·ith lt•ss manifestation of intolerance and less emphasis on 'iolcnce. Their forc'ign policy now puts large emphasis upon seeking politieal cooperation with left-\\ ing Soc1al­ists, whom fornwrly th<') detested. Finally there is hc<ny Page 9 emphasis on trade ancl economic assistance. It is this eco­nomic aspect of the Soviet "new look" that I would consider here. T ms Soviet economic campaign is a varied one. It includes the barter of surplus arms into areas where ten­sions were already high. There are highly publicized purchases of agricultural commodities from a few coun­tries where mounting surpluses have exposed the vulner­abilities of economics lacking in diversity. Incidentally the Soviet bloc, with typical cynicism, has re-exported some of these commodities to markets that the original sellers normally would supply. And the Soviet bloc has made loans to a selected number of countries. This policy has been directed especially toward certain peoples in the Near East and South Asia. There the Soviet mlcrs believe that they can also exploit historic grievances for their own ends. But the new Soviet policy roams far and wide. Even African and South American countries are receiving Soviet economic propositions. \Vhat is the import of this new economic campaign of the so,·ict bloc countries? The first thing to note is that Soviet capital exports divert resources from the Soviet people who still lack many of the ordinarv decencies of life. On this we have the testi­mony of \I~. Khrushchev in his recent speech to the 20th Communist Party Congress. There he stated: "It must be S<tid that we do not yet have an adequate quan­tity of consumer goods, that there is a shortage of housing, and that nMn)" of the import.int problems connected with raising the people's living standards have not yet been solved." Still quoting ~Ir. Khrushchev: "Production of many important foodstuffs and manufactured goods still lags behind growing demands. Som<• towns and c:ommtmitit-s are still insuffici(·ntly supplied with such ikrns as milk, butkr, and fruit. There arc even cases where supplies of potatoes and other \'t•g('!ablt•s arc irregular. There are also difli­wlties in supplying the population with certain high grade lll<.lnt1fac:turecl goods.'' The SO\ ict Union, of course, has the capacity to do much to lift up the living standards of the Russian people, which \Ir. Khrushchev described, and to give them opportunities for greater happiness. There was indeed a moment when it seemed that this might become the Soviet policy. \Ir. \lalcnkov, as the Prime ~linister who first succeeded Stalin, advocated more consumer goods and better quality goods for the Soviet people. But Mr. Malenkov was quickly removed from leadership, and his successors resumed the policy of forcing the Russian people to work primarily to build up the power machine of the state. The output of consumer goods - food, clothing, and housing - was firmly relegated to a secondary place. Cnder these conclitions, can we accept at face value the Soviet professions that its foreign economic activities arc primarily designed to help others? Actually in this campaign the Soviet Union is seeking to advance its interests. It is important, therefore, to examine how the Soviet t: nion sees its interest. T 1mo1:cno1:T its 38 years of existence, the Soviet pattern has been unvarying. \Vhcnever the opportunity has arisen the Sodet Union has swallowed up its neighbors, or made satellites of them, or subordinated them in other wavs. The future may ,,·ell produce a c.lilfercnt Hussi<l. Ilut today changes in creed and conduct arc looked upon as Page 10 ways to makc1 it easier to achieve old goals of conqucsl cost in In If there is less apparent intolerance and less reliance on like those violence, there is perhaps more reliance than ever on did· temples, sion, enticement, and duplicity. Produced On December 29, 195.5, speaking to the Supreme Sodet. of the co Mr. Khrushchev stated the fundamental precept: "If cer· So it is t,1in people think that our confidence in the victory of so- informed cialism, the teaching of Marxist-Leninism, is a violation of Which ha the Geneva spirit, they obviously have an incorrect notion subject p of the Geneva spirit. They ought to remember once and for And " all that we never renounced and we will never renounC< Peoples · our 1·c 1 e as, our strngg Ic f or t ll C victory o f communism. " th elp, )'~u In his lengthy speech to the 20th Party Congress, !\If· 0 accept Khrushchev promised "fundamental social transfortn'- lh The pc tions" - this means a Communist party dictatorship - ti I it ey. ma~ any nation unwary enough to allow its political life to l~ difficul undermined by the Communist apparatus. Propagan \Ve must assume that the intent behind the Soviet ec<l . The inc nomic campaign is to subvert and communize the natio11• Vigorous that are its targets. Pro\'idc s TnE United States is engaged in programs of cconoJTlic \V CSTEHJ assistance to the less developed countries. Our progn1111 the lcss-d have been in progress for a number of years and ha1 • not be pa totaled billions of dollars. . \Vith 01 ·11 l;n· By these programs, we too hope to advance our Jeg1 . ion, m mate national interests. \Ve have never pretended otl1f· aid .the cc wise. ~ormal But again the crncial question is: 'Vhat arc those inll 0hould do ests and how arc they intended to he served? I 1°Ws into Our interests will be fully served if other nations inairt ~h re th tain their inde1Jcndence and strencrthen their free instit 11 a le. In m '"' t ~a · tions. \Ve have no further aims than these. We wa~ a Mal is world environment of freedom. We have shown this t11 1 h·ubstan after time hy electing to give freedom where we coli~ 1 1 , 1ch sp1 have had conquest. Our historic policy, reflecting the '' crms of 1 and the views of our own fr<'c people, is wholly compatib p This is with the interests of the less-developed countries as thf 1.crao gram ,, leaders themselves have defined them. .J. i· 'r. The The political leaders in the economically lcss-devcloP'j th~.r. (encl countries arc entirely capable of judging the purposes a rl it 1~ 1:~ use principles of other nations. They are, for the most P'1 11~ 1~ As men of political c•xpericnce. In many cases they have h a ~heir O\ an active part in winning for their countries political ind• I ssist, by pendence. They have no desire to preside over the ]t1' a~s: of that independence. c 11 . his ye The wisdom and patriotism of the political leaders ·. a~x'. Year' the newly independent nations arc among frccdo111 d ailablc greatest assets. These men arc not blind to Soviet purp0 '' i;Pends o and past actions. . 'fh a Panic But we must also recognize that the Soviet comm11JJ~ <nJre is, c'perimcnt has won for itself a consiclerablc popular P1 :· Ia for g tige in the less-developed countries. l n these coun~ ~ge proj "industrialization" is a word of magic. It is a slogan t 1 liiS 0mc ol the people have come to believe will solve all domc>1 fo c;int '' economic and political problems. The peoples of th p/ .tht• co1 countries do not like to he dependent upon the ind 11 nQ~l?cts u1 trialized \Vest for manufactured goods. For the most 11" llitllllst fo they now have political independence, hut they do n~t 1 f~~ ~ Dnitc have what they consider to be adequate economic 1°' \Vs fron pcndcncc. ltit· e hcli The neighboring Asian peoples have seen the So'· ,1 11 t shou Union within a generation develop itself into a JJ1•' p1 ·~100 n industrial power. These obscrwrs arc hut dimly a,vMe · l\~Jects ,~ the fact that the Soviet rat<' of progress was possible 11 tfi. ~0.mic because natural conditions favored, and that even >0 " hrnite I\ F CTS Fonu'r NE\\"S, June, 1 ls Fo conquest ~liance oi ~r on did· c_ost in human senituclc has been tragically high. They arc like those of us who admire the pyramids, the palaces, the temples, and the coliseums which despotic rulers once Produced out of slave labor. \Ve arc only dimly conscious ne Soviet. of the cost in terms of human miscrv. t: "If cer· . So it is with the peoples of lcss-de~elopccl lands who are ory of so· informed in exh·avagant terms of the industrial monuments iolation ol Which have been built by the Soviet masters of 220 million ect notion subject peoples. ce and for And "hen Soviet propaganda says to lcss-clcvclopcd renounc< ~copies, .. Sec what we have clone for ourselves; with our mism." elp, you can do the same," there is a strong temptation grcss, ]\Ir. to accept that so-called help. ·ansforn1•1· h The political leaders of these countries, however wise irship - t1 ~ ey may bC' and howcvC'r patriotic they may he, will find life to b<l 1 1 difficult to resist the public prC'ssures which Soviet Propaganda arouses, unless there is some alternative. :ovict ecO v· The industrial nations of the \Vc•st, with matured and he natio1r1 1!\orous economics and much well-being, can and must cco11o!llic prograni and ha1' our lc!(iti i:lcd othrr· Provide such an alternative. ~ tsn:m; efforts to advance the ccon_omic well-being of he lcss-clcvelopccl countncs are nothmg new. \Ve need not be panicked by the new Soviet economic policy. I.; 'Yith or "ithout th<' so-called competition of the Soviet _nion, we propose to go forward with sound policies to ai<l _thc economic progress of lcss-dcvelopC'cl countries. h ~orn1ally, under our syst<'m, private capital could and hose int ff ou]c] do the job. And, indeed, much private capital today 1°1Vs into many lcss-clcvelopecl countriC's. But it flows only 1 bherc the political and economic risks are deemed tolcr­a le. In much of the world, these risks are such that private e"P"t I ions maiP ·cc instil:t· Ve want 1 this til11 ' we coo! 1g the,,. :ompatib cs as th~ -dcveloP' rposcs at most P" I h;we JI' itical ind er the ]O' leaders r frccdo11 , t purP0~' ·ommuniS1 pular pr< ' countfl ;logan tit 1 do1nc>V ?S of th the j11d1 : most I'·; · do not 1omic iP' a 1 a is not ready to take them. If capital is to be found, 1 s_ubstantial part must be provided on a public basis 1 1h1ch spreads the risk so that it is not appreciable in crins of any single individual. p This is one of the purposes of our mutual security Jrogram which now, in one form or anotlJC'r, is in its eighth i-~:r. Th<' economic part of that program amounts this thisr· (ending June 30) to _about ~1,700,00?,000 . .\fuel~ of a 1~ used to help our allies, particularly 111 the Far l~ast ,,~<l 1~ Asia, to support adequate military estahlishmcnt5 as. their O\\n. Of the total, approximatc•ly $600 million will J, sist, by loan or grant, in capital de1 elopment in other •Ods. 11 This year we arc asking Congress to appropriate for .~x'. Year's economic program $100 million more than is de Up ilabl Jc for this v. car. The ca1Jacit.v to spend wisely in enc s on many factors, and we should not appropriate, "th: P<~nic, merely because of SO\ iet economic act~vi_t'.es. •n/e is, ho\\cver, need for somewhat grC'ater ne,1h1hty, t<in for greatc•r continuity, as regards support for long- _ge projects. nit~rne o~ the development projects which arc. mo~t sig­for ·•nt will take SC\'Cral years to complete. It 1s difficult ,lto·t~c· countries concerned to arrange for financing these ~0tcts unless United States support can he rC'lied upon ~·it1J1Is_t ~or one• year at a time, hut for sevc•ral yc•ars. Also, f1in; \.; n1ted States support, it is easi<'r for tlwm to procure \~ s frorn other sources, such as the \Vorld Bank. ·r.1.,._, 1nte beliel'c' therefore' that the United States govcrn- <, ~ shoul~l _have authority to commit some such amount ~to· lOO m1ll1on a year for several yc•ars for long-range <·eolects 11 hich 11 ill develop to an important degree the t~-~0.rnic strength of lrss-deH•loped countries. \Vithout hm1tecl, long-range authorit} ,,.c take a risk "hich is l'\r 15 Font \r '\111s, J1111e, 19.56 quite unjustified, having regard to the relatively small cost of avoiding it. J F our nation and the other free nations play their propC'r part, we can face the future not with complacency - that would be disastrous - but with confidence. I do not wish to minimize the threat of the Soviet "nc1\ look," of which the economic campaign is a part. Economic assistance knows no territorial limits. And we must count on the Soviets and their local Communist parties to press their policies with vigor. But we should reflect that Communist successes in the world so Far have come when Reel armies were at hand. No people has willingly accepted the Sol'ict type of Com­munist dictatorship. Communist open aggression has now been checked hy the cohesion, resolution, vigilance, and strength of the fr('e nations. Let us never forget that this is what cleflc•cted the Soviet rulers from primary reliance upon violence to which they were clcclicatcd by creed and which they arc skilled to practice. They came up against the granite of a declared and strong resolve. If that granite should turn to putty, then violence and threat of war could again become the order of the day. .\leanwhile, we have new problems. These will require new efforts, without relaxation of the old cohesion, resolu­tion, 1 igilancc, and strength. But the new efforts ''ill be of a kind that is in accord with our tradition. This nation was conceived with a sense of mission and dedicated to the extension of freedom throughout the world. President Lincoln said of our Declaration of Independence that there was "something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope for the world for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should he lifted from the shoulders of all men and that all men should have an equal chance." That has bC'en the spirit which has animatC'd our people since they came together as a nation. \Ve have, it is true, acquired much for ourselves. But also we ha\'(' had in large measure the greatest of all satisfactions - that is the S<ltis­faction which comC's from creating and from sharing. \Ve have created at home and we hme also tT<'at('d abroad. \ Ve have shared here at home and we have shared abroad. Today the greatest opportunity for creation and for sharing lies in those areas which, possessed of great economic and human potentials, have not yet realiz('d the opportunities which arc theirs. We have unprecedented resources with which to create and 11 ith which to share. Our 160 million people, 11·orking in freedom and with ample leisure, produce over thre(' times as much as do the 220 million of the Soi iC't Union working in sen itudc. Our industrial techniques are h('­yond compare. Our desire to create and to share with others is not a political plot; it is an e~prC'ssion of th(' spirit which has long animated our nation. It is not a prod­uct of gp1·ernmcnt; it is a product of the faith of om people. Let me conclude with words which Benjamin Franklin wrote from Paris on ~fay 1, 1777: "It is a common obser\'ation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for th!'ir liberty in defending our own. It is a glorious t•tsk assig1H'cl us by Pro1idenee; \\hich has, I trust, giH'n us spirit and virtue equal to it, and will at last cro\\n it "ith success ... Page l l ./. by Rene d'Harnoncourt lllethods rian into! Today of free enemy nc tary and tries whic of its m tion into danger it to unden and moti1 but abov dom it tl art, whicl of individ Part of ti Cto m1·s 11n1 ommuni FRI p T!1e att Is freedom the porent of modern art, os indicated by Rene d'Harnoncourt in this article, or is commu­nism its parent, as contended by Esther Julia Pels' article, Art for Whose Sake? published in our Febru­ary, 1956, issue? Director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York eh artic Pacts For up as folh dcgenerat1 ~rn art is d 0rrununi After you read this rebuttal by the Director of the Museum of Modern Art of New York, perhaps you'll be interested in securing reprints of both of these articles on this controversial subject. TIIE historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the article on modem art which first ap­peared in the October issue of the America11 Legio11 i\lagazine and was reprinted in the February issue of Facts Forum Nercs, gives such a dis­torted picture of the subject that they should be corrected in the interests of truth and fair play. \Ve greatly appre­ciate' Facts Forum News' offer to pub­lish a reply. E\'C'ry age must find its own way to c'prcss the ideas it generates. 'o age has <''·er successfully expressed itself in the exact language or imagery of the past. New forms of expression re­flecting new ways of looking at the world, whether presented by the philosopher Socrates, the scientist Gal­lileo or the painter Cezanne havr ,dwavs been under attack bv contem­pora~ ies who find them incomprehen­sible and disturbing. In times of insecuritv this sense of disturbance often hims into acute <.mieh· and the character of the at­tacks against the new becomes violrnt. In such times everything unfamiliar is looked upon by some people with sus­picion and fear. Jn the field of the arts, the e attacks are as old as art itself and follow well estahlished patt(•ms. \t first new forms of expression arc condemned because thev do not lh·r up to yesterday's artistic canons. Later Page 12 these art forms and their creators arc decried as tools of force destructive to established society. The attacks on impressionism in France at the end of the 19th century o!Fer a good example of this. In the wake of the disastrous Franco-Prus­sian war, France was shaken by politi­cal unrest, based on foar of Germany and anarchism and accompanied by outbursts of anti-Semitism. These anx­ieties manifested themselves in many ways and affected even the criticism of the new art movement. PaintC'rs who are today universally popular and widelv acclaimed as masters of 19th ccntu~y art, men such at Renoir, Cezanne, \for.ct and Degas, were in­discriminately attacked hccause of their style of painting and callrd an­archists, Communists, decadents and imbeciles. The fact is that these paint­C'rs represented the most divergent political \'icws: Cezanne, the son of a banker, was a conservative, Degas a reactionary, Rrnoir leftist in sympa­thies, aod ;\lonet politically inert. Yet all of them were indiscriminately tarred bv the same brush of radicalism hccausc· their critics, led hv the aca­demic artists of that tinie, didn't understand or like their paintings and fplt that somd1ow thC'\ must he s11h­\' Crsive. This campaign. played a decis­ive part in causing the French 'fa­tional ~luseum to reject some of their 0wn ow religious •rti . 0 sts arc rcomm1 \Jiss Pc C\J.lress h< triticizc ai IJJcaningl paintings at that time - a dccisi ~roceeds which is deplored in France toe!• ~~sc ,;.0 because of the irreparable loss 1 h lndling caused to the cultural resources 1 e cannol the country. ( tCfllain un In recent years the outstanding c 1~;get.s SC( amplcs of this type of attack h01 di action. been given to us by the leaders of 11 t;r Ustratcd totalitarian states who consider \ n •ph of a freedom of individual expression d•1 the A gcrous to the enforcement of the do~ \\·here the matic order they established. Ve~ t:"s acc01 similar attacks on modem art ,,·e "Ption .. issued from the azi Brown IIous1 ,;~~cy ~r 1 ~lunich and from the Kremlin in ~Jo· bia ic, cc1 cow. Their content and even t Jl ity nk can, language in condemning modern.''. t • this 'a arc often indistinguishable. Adjrctl' i~lj5ed in such as nonsensical, inhuman, dr¢& ti OIVer 0 crate and perverted appear Jll ·ti ~le artist i• same context in tlw speeches of Jfl 0 , r1~;,1c1 by. as they do in the writings of Kem:0, ll;t('.'lllcnts Hitler, of course, added the ep11fi· in ~011 has un-German and BolshC'vistic "'1 1 1 b} s11hsta Kcmenov (speaking for Stalin) en. , 1tract modern art capitalistic, imperiali' I 1~\Ja.re oit and bourgeois. , ii"t1on of Such fear-gpncrated attacks on 11 ''Y is\t .as s forms of <'xprrssion arc hy no 111{' 11ie· liss Pc limited to totalitarian states. In ;. ., insaniti the very danger which totalitari~tt li,~tcsque ; presents to free men has engcn .r1 l~C·i~ did gi frar and distrust among people h~I ,'~r rnock in a r rec society. It is unfortunate fl hla • \f is~ this reaction to a very real threat ~ iliir. nk l"<ln' leads people to adopt attitudes ' •lhJp ill FACTS Fonu'r lllethods horn ot the same authorita­rian intolerance which they fight. Toda} communism is the major foe of free society. It is a formidable enemy not only because of the mili­tary and economic power of the coun-tries which it controls hut also because o.f its methods of systematic infiltra­tion into free society. To nwet this danger it is of the utmost importance to understand not only the methods bnd motivations of Communist attack ut above all the meaning of the free­dom it threatens. To attack modern art, which is in itself a manifestation of individual freedom of expression, as Part of the Communist conspiracy is ~ misunderstand the nature of the ommunist conspiracy. FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE The attacks on modern art in l\lbs Pels' article [February, 1956, issue of New York Facts Fortun i\'eu;s] can be summed Up as follows: ( l) modern art is ugly, degenerate and meaningless; (2) mod­gn art h Communist-inspired and l 0rrununist-fostered in order to break ( 0~vn our concepts ot human and religious di~nity- and ( 3) modern •rtist\ are predo1~inantly Communists or c?lllmunist sympatl1izers. ti :\Jiss Pc ls has, of course, a right to press her prdcrcnces m art and to ertticize an} work of art she finds ugly, lleaningless or absurd. But when shC' 1 dccisi0 . P1rocccds to accuse the creators of nee toe ·1 111 11'1 t 1.sc .\\orks of art of dcliberat~I) 0 le Joss ,1 tndhng or corrupting the public, ;ourccs c ie cannot expect such accusations to \I ;.e11htin unanswered. Two of l\.liss PC' ls· andin~ e ~~rgets seem to be distortion and ab­: tack 1ia; n(attion. It is significant that shC' ders of \ • ttstrated her article with a photo­nsidcr di 0 ~·P~t of a framed blank canvas which, ~ssion ~ \\ t e American Legion ,\Jagazine Jf the d here the ·trticle was first 1rnblished] I \'ef 1<ts ' hel. , 1 it . accompanied by the following 1 art we 11R.lton, "Indicating either absolutl' n Jiousto· P~tcy or utter contempt for a gullible lin in r-1 c hJ. ilkc, certain modern 'artists' e\hihit even t 1 1~ itytn · 1 canvas as tll't. As a final ahsurd­nodern. ·., tii;. t lts 'art form' was seriously dis­Adjecll~ 1011~ed in the New York Times by a 1an, dr~t~ the llVer of this school. It seems that ~ar 1Jfitl ~·or~rtist is trying to express an unreal es of 00 f1it, by subtracting fragments of f Kcrfl~h· Qt~lllents till nothing is left." lnvesti-he. ep1,.Jii ,11~0 n has not disclosed that there is ist1c ' JI •hs Stihstance to this statement. One ilin) .~~i~t I "i~~a;t paintC'r did paint a white mpcn• trarre on a white canvas as a demon- 11, j111~0n of such reductio ad minimum cks on h~ \ •ls some Dadaists as rC'counted r no 111 {;. 'he·/iss Pcls, acting in ;Jrotest against cs: Ii~ oi• !(rot ~saniti<•s of World \Var I and the ahtarJdC~ Urin csw1e absurdities of postwar infla­engen) i,1 'h~i~ ( 1d go to dcplorahl<'. c\trl'mes in op le it ·er lllockerv of com en hons). IIow­rh1n< 1tcof 'hJa' \fiss ·P<•L>' photograph of a threat , ltir ~ can\·as" may w<•ll make an ad­tih1de5 '1 Ip illmtratiOJi of her story of the Page 13 These two paintings are not modern art, but are typical examples of Socialist Realism, the officio! style of Soviet Rus­sia which is urged by the Com­munist party on artists in sat­ellite countries as well as in the Western world. "Higher and Higher" (on the left) was painted by Scraphima Ryangina. According to the Russian cap­tion, "the artist conveys the enthusiasm of the younger gen­eration of Soviet workers, the self-sacrificing builders of So­cialist industry, to whom work is a matter of joy.'' Above is a painting af Stalin and Varoshi­lov on the Kremlin walks, a typ­ical example of official Russian Socialist Realism. "The Croquet Party" by the famous French master Monet was rejected by the French National Museum along with paintings by Renoir, Cezanne and Manet in the 1890's when the now popular Impressionist pointers were called anarchists, Communists, imbeciles and dec ­adents by academic artists, conversative critics and a sen­ator. i I Emperor's clothes - if the photograph should turn out to be as spurious as the Emperor's garments. \Ve cannot find evidence that anv modern artist had anything to do with the frame and blank cam as she reproduces. The article's objection to distortion lea\·es the reader with the impression that distortion is a device invented bv modern artists. This is, of course, not true. Artists of all times have used dis­tortion to express their ideas or to create balance of color, line and space. \!any of the paintings and sculptures of the :\lidcllc Ages and the baroque period would have to be disqualified as works of art if an exact rendering of nature were to be considered im­portant in judging all phases of art. Such a basis of judgment would, of course, also disqualify most of the arts of the great civili:tations outside our own. DISTORTION NOT THE INVENTION OF MODERN ART To accuse modern artists of dishon­esty because they employ distortion or do not paint in a representational style is hasty judgment to say the least. The literature of the beginning of modern art is so rich and accessible that it is easy for anyone interested to trace in it the honest fight for individual ex­pression and the sincerity of those who led and continued the movement. There arc, and always were, artists \\ho adopt a style after it has become fashiom1blc or remuneratin', hut to decry an entire art mo\·emcnt because it attracts some opportunistic gate­crashers is to condemn anv successful !TIO\·emcnt. Leaders of modern art have suffered public contempt and man\' of them. such as :\!atisse and Picasso. ha\·e li\·ed for years in po\ - ert\' rather than adopt a more conserv­.1ti; ·c style which would ha\·e greatly helped their sales. :\[iss Pcls' second accusation, that Page 14 modern art 1s a tool of communism used to attack the foundations of democratic society and religion, is a vcrv serious one and needs to be con­sidered in the light of evidence. E\'cr since the Communist party leadership has concerned itsell seri­ously with art, modern art has been officially declared to be anathema to Communist society. The Communist leadership used terms like degenerate, capitalistic, perverted, petit-bourge­ois. :\lodcrn painting was, and still is, banned in Russia and her satellites as can easily be established by glancing at the art magazines of those countries and by reading the statements made Distortion was used by old masters as a means of expressing deep religious emotion, as con be seen in these three heads of Christ on the Cross taken from great crucifixions of the twelfth, thirteenth, and sixteenth centuries. about art by Communist officials. The attacks on modern art by Communist spokesmen, both inside and outside the Soviet Union, have been remark ably consistent and have been echoed again and again by party organs be­hind tho Iron Curtain and in other countries, including the 'United States. For e'ample, the official magazine \'oks, published for Soviet cultural propaganda abroad, calls Picasso's pictures "morbid, ... revolting ... an esthetic apology for capitalism." So­cialist Hcalism is the official nami; for the kind of art the Communists ap­pro\' e. Communist art must he Social­ist in subject and very realistic in sty]('. ThP Communist attitude to­w: 1rds modern art was summed up in Prar.:da, the official newspaper of the Communist party, USSR: It cannot he tol1·rall'cl that side by side ";th Sociali t R1·alism we still h;n c a co­c11rrmt rcprescnt1·d hy the worshippcrs o[ bourgeois dceaclC"nt art who regard as their spiritual tt.-~tdwrs Picasso and \Iatis"><', cuhists and artists o[ the formalist school. And in this country, a Communist-front publication, Masses and ,Uai11· stream, said: Todar an increasing number of artists and intelled11als moved not only by th< strong curr('nts corning from the realisti,c art of the So,it-t Union and the peoples d('mocracies, but hy th('ir own strug-glt.'' against fascism, arc looking critically nt this false and 1•mpty "modernism," break· ing the manadcs it had fastened upon tlwir power to invcstig,1te and understand the real world about them. The distinguished American paintc Ben Shahn, who himself has bee' accused of Communist sympathir• offers quitP another opinion of Sod< art. Ile says: '\1•ither tlw formulae of Commissars no• induccmc•nts of honor, nor pretentiotl~ awards have yet succeeded in brcathin~ I lif1· into Soviet art. Its deadly proccss10~ of on·rdrawn gen('rals and O\'Cr-ideo.tlizt. prolct,irians bears sharp testimony to th•, fact that thl'r(' is no conviction in artist" hearts and that the search for truth h•15 ht•en staljed. A recent dispatch from Mose<>' indicating that paintings by Frcn Impressionists in the Soviet coll~ tions are now made accessible to ti· public in a temporary exhibition dOI not indicate any substantial chamze the official party line. It docs pcfl~ the Hussian public to sec some oft~ forerunners of modern art, who . \Vcstcrn standards arc now cons1 1 cred classics, but it carefully qua!i6• this permission by stating !hat _the J, lures arc shown for thctr Justo value. There is, unfortunately, no 1 dence that this step indicates a ft'' nition of freedom for the contr111 rary artist in Hussia. f The implications in Miss ~ I article that the Communist lcadcf'1 while banning modern art in Co11 \1 nist countries, is encouraging it Jilt! I countries as a means of sub\c free society are also entircl) t grounded. When ~liss Pcls asserts art is regarded hy Communists1; weapon in their fight for world l FACTS Fonu,1 '\1-;ws, j1111c. 1 nation, , rect, hw :.tateme1 lllisleadi Cjuotcs \ ean Con Tiwre that art I \ot onl• P<>tent m oltttionar i7p the i1 0n and I and US<·d ing rulini COMMUI OF nd Maiw of artist; 1ly by th< w realistic 1e people's 1 stru~gk~ ritically al m" break· •n~d upOO .mderstand m paintc has bee' 1mpathi~· , of So,·11 n1issars nor rctcntioll\ . hreathing I proccssiol'I ·r-icleali1.cd ony to th l in artist' r truth ""' 1 MoscO'' by Frcn iet colle< ible to ti: bition M change oes peri1 ome oft~ it,w wchonos 1•· 1 ly quali6 that .theJ~ ir Justo tcly, JJ0 ., 1tcs a r< : contc111 Miss f t lcudcr'; : in co11lt1 '1 ing it 1 1rr. : sub'·e ~ntirel) 1 s asserts nun1·s ts d·' world ' 1 I, ]1111C· nation, she is, of course, entirely cor­rect, hut her clforts to associate this !ltatemcnt with modem art are very misleading. For example, ~liss Pels quotes William Z. Foster, the Ameri­can Communist leader, as saying: Tiwr<• must he a clear und<'rstanding that art is a weapon in the class struggle. \ot only is art a weapon, hut a very P<>tcnt otw as we11. \Jorr-ovcr, rising rcv­~> l11tionary social classes instincti\'t•ly r<'al­ue tlw importanc:(~ of art as a social weap­on and haw always forged tlwir own art ~nd us1·cl it to challenge that of the exist­ing ruling class. COMMUNISTS FROWN ON FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION What she fails to point out is that F'oster carefully refrained from using the adjective modem. All evidence C\~ows that such references to art by ommunist leaders arc concerned 1~ith Socialist Realism, the only offi­cially recognized Communist art style, a. style which resembles the illustra­ltons in our conservative magazines. This makes good sense because Social­ist. Healism, with its emphasis on ~atnstaking likeness, makes it, of tlurse, a good vehicle for propa­~ anda. The assertion that the Commu-ist leaders use modern art, ''hi ch :hey consider inimical to Communist r°ciety, as a weapon to undermine r}" e society, as a sort of carefully •Inned ideological epidemic, cannot ~ s~1bstantiatcd and is absurd. Com-ll~ tsts consider any privilege of free ~07ety as dangerous to Communist f:~ Cr; they fear freedom of speech, a ~d?m of the press and freedom of r~Shc expression. There is no sound tc· ~lt·nce whatever that they arc fos­crri~ g any of these freedoms in demo­st atic society in order to weaken its is}Ucf:tire. It would obviously be fool- 1r~ to. attack realist art as Communist lea simply because the Communist "v dcrship approves of it, but it is ist~n rnorc foolish to attack non-rcal­lis~ c art as communistic when it is con­thr~ ntl( attacked by Communists and 11 0;ld. ellow travelers all over the lic·\f is~ Pels takes extraordinary lihcr­l! J 1 \\'1th tn1th in presenting evidence 1,r Prove this calumny. Her story is (}cly borrowed from the specch<'s of ~h ngrcssman Dondero, many of •ncJ\c accusations against modern art dis! rnodprn artbts have already been k\·lr~\·cd. She implies that Kandin­' ni-' l Commissar of the 'Isms,'" was ~11~\ed in the founding of the \l u­t,. n I· of \fodern Art. ~l iss Pels prc- 1,1~ s . that Kandinsky (a great Hus­' 1i1/1onc•er of abstract painting) was dpQ d by Lenin in 1921 so that his 'thp adent distortions" might corrnpt l~n· P<'op)p outside Russia whom lliQ/7. hop<'d to soft<'n up and dc- '1 11e." She describes how Kandin­t' \r-r F s ·0111 \! '\1ws, }f/11c, 1956 sky was "brought to the United States" to become Vice President of the Societe Anonymc, a modern art organization. She then quotes Don­dero directly, "The Societe Anonymc according to the American Art Annual was first organjzed as the ~Iuseum of Modern Art. The Museum of ~lodcrn Art founded in 1920, officered in 1923 and for years thereafter by Kandinsky, Hus~ian Commissar of the 'Isms' be­comes crystallized in 1929 as the pres­ent ~1uscum of ~lodern Art. As an c•nduring link between the two, Alfred TT. Barr, Jr., member of the Board of Directors of Societe Anonyme, is the Director of the present ~Iuseum of ~lodern Art. "The way was open," ~liss Pels adds, "for the virus of foreign­spawned 'Isms' to be injected into the bloodstream of American culture .... " It is hard in a brief space to sepa­rate the facts from the distortions and falsehoods in th is story. For a brief period after 1918 Kandinsky did or­ganize museums under the Soviet regime, but he was not a Communist and worked essentially for what he believed to be the free and experi­mental in art. His ideas were soon re­pudiated and his work undone by the SSR, which he left in 1921 to teach abstract painting in Germany where he had nothing to do with politics. In 1923 he did accept the Vice Presi­dencv of the cw York Societe Anon­yme,' hut the appointment was essen­tially honorary, since Kandinsky. 3,000 miles awav, contributed little but his name anc!' the loan of some pictures. }.fiss Pds to the contrary, Kandinsk~ never in his life set foot in America. Furthermore a way for the "foreign spawned 'Isms'" was not opened by the Societe Anonyme in 1920, hut by a group of American artists and art patrons who in 191.3 organized a large C\hihition of modern art. icknamed "The Armory Show," it was presented in cw York and later at the Art Insti­tute of Chicago. The Societe Anonyme was not "first organized as the }. [useum of \ lodcrn Art." Jn order to clarify its purpose it added the words "museum of modern art" as a parenthetical subtitle to its name. The subtitle, ho\\·ever, was so little used that when the present \lu­St'um of ~ l odern Art was organized in 1929 none of its founders was aware that thcv had borrowed the sccondan nam(' of an older institution. E\cept for this unintentional coincidence of nanw, there was no connection what­ever hl'hveen the Societe Anonvm(' founded by }. fiss Katherine Dreil;r in 1920 and the }. Juseum of ~ l odcrn Art, initiated in 1929 hv \ liss Lillie P. Bliss, \! rs. John D.' Rock<'feller, Jr .. and \lrs. ornclius j. Sullivan. Alfred II. Barr, Jr., whom Congressman Don-dcro discerns as the "enduring link" between the two did eventuallv be­come a board member of the Societe Anonyme but that was in 1950, when he was no longer Director of the }.Iuseum of Modern Art, and primarily to help in cataloging the collection of the Societe Anonyme which 11ine years before had become the propert) of Yale University. Incidentally, when the collection which \Ir. Dondero and ~liss Pels consider such a menace was accepted by Yale, President Seymour wrnte \liss Dreier, thl' donor, saying: "Your benefaction will not onlv be of lasting usefulness to the uni\·crsity, but to the entire country." MANY CHURCHES PATRONS OF MODERN ART The article further charges that communism is using modern art in its fight against religion and that modern art is sacrilegious and in essence anti­Christian and that the churches, par­ticularlv the Homan Catholic Church, have officiallv condemned it. This is not true. No church has officiallv con­demned modern art, and, in fact, the article does a disservice to the churches of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish faiths which are important patrons of modern art. ~lodcrn archi­tecture, which is so closely related to modern painting and sculpture, is in­creasingly accepted for church build­ings. One out of every four churches being built in this country today is modern, including the Corpus Christi Homan Catholic Church in S::n Fran- Some modern religious art is hig hly abstract, such as this "Crown of Thorns'' which won the coveted first prize at the 1955 Pitt sburgh Inter­nat ional Exhibition of Contempora ry Po inting. The artist, Alfred Monessier, is o devout French Catholic pointer who hos decorated two churches in France and one in Switzerland. Page 15 cisco: the Homan Ca~holic Church of St. Philip the . .\postle in Clifton, !\cw Jersey; St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Columbus, Ohio, and the Faith Lutheran Church in Tucson, Arizona. :\lodern painters and sculp­tors have been commissioned here and abroad for churches and synagogues. For ernmplc, JacquPs Lipchitz, a sculptor ridiculed in :\l iss Pe ls' article, has recently completed a statue of the \'irgin :\fary for the Church at Assy in France, and L<'.·ger, another famous modern artist, has designl'd mosaics for the same church as well as for the "·indows of the Church at Audincourt. The dernut French Catholic painter, .\lfred :\lancssier, has decorated two churches in France and one in Switzer­land with his nearly abstract composi­tions. His Cro11.:11 of Thoms recent!) won the coveted first prize at the great Carnegie International Exhibition in Pittsburgh. Henri \ latissC' cksigncd an entire chapel at VC'ncc, including the stained glass windows, altar, crucifix and the vestments worn by the priest to celebrate :\lass. Ilenrv :\loore, the famous modern English· sculptor has earwd a monumental Virgin and Child for the Church at '\orthampton and the leading modern British painter. Graham Sutherland, has done a life­size crucifix. A team of modern artists including the painters Hobert ~lothcr­well, and Adolph Gottlieb and the This sculpture representing the burning thorn bush by the American Herbert Ferber was com­missioned by the Congregation B'noi Israel for the facade of its synagogue in Millburn, New Jersey. In soldered copper, brass, lead and tin, the artist hos conveyed his feeling of the Bibli­cal passage, " ... and the bush was not con­sumed." Page 16 Graham Sutherland, well-known British artist, is shown here standing beside his pointing of the Crucifixion which was commissioned by Canon Hussey of the church of England for the church in North­ompton. Like many artists of the post, Mr. Sutherland hos expressed Christ's ogony by exog • geroting ports of his body. sculptor Herbert Ferber have, in col­laboration with the architect Percival Goodman, created an entire decoration for the synagogue in lillbum, cw Jersey. The Crucifixion, reproduced in :\liss Pels' article and characterized as vul­gar and distorted and, by implication, sacrilegious, has in fact been highly praised by leading churchmen. Father James L. ~1cLanc, Rector of St. :\lat­thias Church, Los ngelcs, California, said of it specifically: Allow me to offer you my bcbtcd con­gr<. ltubtions on the prize-winning Crucifrx­ion whid1 I was privileged to sec only today. Quite aside from th<' artistic authen­ticity, simpleness, and integrity of your C.'Ont'eption and its most intt•n•sting: t'\('Ctl­tion, I cannot understand the objections its showing hcrc has occasioned. That of coursl' is political - and has nothing rmlly to do with art. Speaking not only as an art connoisseur and an art collector on a mod­cst st·ale, hut as a priest of the Episcopal Church, >·our Crucifix is '\OT sacrikgious. In addition, :\lonsignor Hobert E. Brennan of the Church of Our Lach of the Holy Ros,1ry, Sun Valley, also said of it specifically: It is wrong for anyone to fore<• all artis­tic crmtions bdon• the judgment scat of rt'alisrn. J low would some of the gn•at Byzantint' rl'pn·s('ntations of our Lord and thc saints fan• from such treatment? The chargl' of "s;.u:rill'g:ious" hy H'<\lists is out of ord<'r h<·c.·aust· rC'alism has no plat·e in the 111atll'r. •.. From a personal point of dew, I do not find anythin~ in your work that nwrits tlu· \tigma gi\'('11 it. On the umtrary, it r><>"'st·\..,t'S spiritual qualities of .t high v.duP for thos<' who think in terms of tlw nwdium }Ott ha\'e (.'hOs<'n. Similar statenwnts from high digni- Corn mun are in m; lain that of Cornn evidence. to bear o artists w effort to l Socialist 1 sure is s< handful fame w~ llleans ti Willing to a rnan of Picasso it his name But even lllunists ,, acceptanc the aecep 1110v, Pres of Art, aft lllernlwr no artist'." FREE n The atl ttol (1 I· SCrt'( !rough r sonaJ corn t1fi taries of the Catholic Church arc c11 • Inc orga1 dencC' that the interpretation of Pol' h. her efl' Pius Xl l's words is left to individt•• t~e associi church leaders' and is not intended •' 1·ll l'olo hv101 a blanket condemnation of rnodef, I to tlogy art, as implied in ~liss Pcls' artic' "Ill le rr but as a condemnation of lack no ong m< obvious spiritual qualities in so!l' n<ttiattcmp works of art. Prominent Catholics sor trr ire of as the French Dominican, Father co•' lisi~ds Wit! turit'r, the American editor, fatl~' I lio~ 1 as John La Fargl', the leading En~h' the 5 , >y l Jesuit, Father d'Arcy, the philosophi \\>) rcb} ti· JacquPs ~laritain and the husinessfll·'' li<>~· Were Otto Spaeth, all approve or actire Yrns ar~ advocate the use of modern art by 1~ (;en ~·1.t1~1z church as do the great Protc~~.1 Ptir era] s I theologian, Paul Tillich, of the P' 11 1itl0se 1 vard Divinity School, and in Engla111 ~Uicl:e dp the Bishop of Chichester and 0 1111 I eiee •tn 1 .cc Hussev· . fo r Uus e1 v· c The record shows that condl'l1111 1n~es·t. in ' . t . 1g·1ti tion of modprn art, effective in rl' 'Ctentio' USSH sincC' 1920 and the official P'1 "1ploy; 1 ,. lim• in ~loscow since 1932 h:1s not ~(i 1 t.ttcs th~i~ been forced on all of Hussia s satcl f~ but also on Party members in countries. ThC' consistent linkin~ 1 communism with modern art anc l specific modern artists with the o; munist party and Communist-fro111 1 gani~ations !n :\liss Pels' article c~r·~ the 1mpress1on that modern art 1> only dominated but largely prod1 ;' by Communists and fellow tra1·r'. This third point in :\liss Pels' M 1 ;, is aho not true. It is obvious 1 there arc a fr" Communists and l F,t-rs Fom \I :'\1·"·s, ]11111'. 1 'fltp ,,, ' ''PPrs 1'"1." 'b iat1/ lry ;,, I ~QrgP. It is 01 /ti3 <'O~ cu,, lt(•j :h are C' 1' n of Pol~ individt1" 1tendcd' ,f modcO :Is' articl' 1f lack in so01 1olics sur athcr co• Jr Fathl 1g' En!lli1 ilosopht sinessJ'll<l· Jr acti't) art by t Protest;li f the JJ;ii n En!(la!l' me! cao~ condcJ1'11 ' . t :ivc 1JJ rl fficial p;l ias no t 011 11 .' s•1tC 1 I ls ' fr' ~rs in 1inki11¢ art aod ~ the c~ ist-fr0111 ~ :iclc ere;' I ··I n art is c v procl11 ~ travclt Pcls' nr\ Jvious 1 :ts aocl I'' Communists among artists as there ar~ in many professions hut to main­ta10 that modern art is the stronghold of. Communists is not borne out by tv1dence. Jn fact pressure is brought to bear on the relatively few modern drtists who arc Communists in an effort to gl't them to adopt the official Socialist Hcalism style. That this prcs­hure is soft-pedaled in the case of a f.andful of modern artists of great arnc who are Communists simply illcans that the Party leadership is Willing to close an eye to the work of f,.rnan o~ international reputation like h~casso m order to he able to claim 8 1s name as an adherent of the party. ut even in Picasso's case tlw Com­illt1nists wanted to make sure that his ~CCeptance as a member did not nwan e acceptance of modern art. Gerasi­illov, PrC'sident of thC' Soviet Academy of Art, after praising Picasso as a party illernbc•r, added bluntly, "but he is no artist." FREEDOM AND FAIR PLAY THE AMERICAN WAY t The attempt in liss Pcls' article ti< i u·i scn•c I it moc I ern art as a whole trough references to the artists' per­~'. 1~al conduct or affiliation with spe- 1~6l organizations is very misleading. h. ler effort to condemn modern art t~ association she significantly omits id~ obvious fact that every brand of to ology from the most conservative "ill the most radical can be found no 0ng modern artists. She also makes n· attempt to evaluate objectively the .;~•re o.f the affi.liat~on of inclividual Ii sts with orgamzat1011s such as those tiso ted•· 1s ·Co mmum'st -fr ont orga111. za-th ~s hy the Attorne) Gc1wral , gi' in!.( "'hrehy the impression that all artists tio~ Were members of such organiza- 11.lll s ar('. Co~r;i1.111ists or Communist (: p.tth1zers. l l11s use of the Attornc•v p•cncn]' J• • ·1 11 ' s 1st runs counter to its stalc'c ]115T-0se which the Department of ~~icl~c (kfincs as established "for the e~e ,\nee of the heads of the federal f0 cutiv deparlmPnts and agencies t t1se · '~v · . 111 connection with requests for 'Ct~st~gation regarding employnlC'nt or 'll lhon i.~ emplormcnt of federal \f.;ir 0>ccs. The Departnwnt further es that "the nature and c-.;tpnsion 1'/rp /Jr o/f•lflCPd iu lPr,,a tio unlist usunlh· ' ''Pers at 11ntio11alism . at 1mtrio t is ,,;. ~;' " at avlw t toe cflll "Am Prica11 ism ." tr<" ~h/11 u1 /or&HJPar our 101''' of cou11· 1 y '" thp " " "'" of love o f tl1t• ivorl<I at .«rgp. JVP 11atio11 alists a 11swPr tlwt .. . ~t · i1 only " "' m <w 1-01'0 a rrle utly love& ''" f'Ou111ry fi r st roho in actual 11racticc en,, l1elp '"'Yother country at all. -Tll EODOHE llOOSEVr.LT ~ ~r,.s F · 'OllL:\C NEws, June, 1956 of a nwmbership in a designated or­ganization is hut one factor to he considered in determining the qualifi­cations of individuals for employment or retention with the federal govern­ment." It is clear from this that the wry government agency which pub­lishes this list is against the principl(• of guilt by association, and recognizes the danger of the indiscriminate usl' of the list without intelligent evaluation of the significance and date of the individual's membership in a desig­nated organization. To judge the merit of a work of art and the contribution it makes to our society by the personal conduct, the personal beliefs or associations of its creator is to accept the standard of totalitarianism which can only con­Cl'ive of art or any other manifestation of the human mind as tools to hl' used for or against the particular order which they arc enforcing. There have always been individualists and dis­senters among artists and the world's cultural heritage would be greatly im­powrishcd indeed if the work of such artists as lichelangclo, Pcrugino or Courbet had been suppressed because of objections to their personal conduct or affiliations. lt is obvious that the artists of a free society must be responsible to the hm·s enacted by this society created in order to insure its continuation and welfare. If an artist through his work transgrcssC's the law, he should hl' prosecuted and no responsible organi­zation should associate itself with his transgression. But to suppress the presentation of controversial material in the arts as well as any other field of human endeavor is to dcstrcl\ the 'en basis of freedom itself. , · \Vhat greater comfort and cncour­agenwnt can we offer to Communists or Communist sympathizers in and out of this eountry than to give sub­stance to their accusations that we do not practice the principles of freedom a1~cl fair play which we proclaim in justifiable pride as our American her­itage? To appraise modern art and its role in the contemporary world, it is nec­essan to understand its history and what· it stands for. All new move.mcnts grew out of a rebellion against aca- For t:<' 11 1• r f'r clurn f!Ptl " " ·'· 11011~-'JC miud. 1> 111 N lu rnt iou mu/ u11tlPr s t a 1ul ing lw t•e wo11 a lot o f t•ictoril•s, '-' ' '' ' " th o 11 1:h th P)' takP lo nger . - CllAHl.ES E. ' V ILSON, llut 1vor 1ls <trP th i 11 f{s 1u11/ " small tlrop of iuk. Ja lli11g, like tlew. uvon " th oul!ltt . vro1/u.ces tlwt ro1'icl1 m a k e& thmun1uls. />Prlrn/>S millions. th ink. - Lo m> 11, HO'\ demic standards which seemed to the artists confining and oppressive. As a typical product of modern free cnter­p risc , art developed a great and unprecedented variety of forms and strles and gave the individual a free­dom to create as hl' ne\ er had before. It is this variety and individualism in modern art that calls for and should create controvcrsv, as contro\'ersv is maclc possible by freedom of speech. Tlw assertion underlying the articll', that new and unfamiliar art, our art of today, is subversive and un-Amcrican and should be suppressed calls for 'igorous denial. I know no better wa\· of phrasing the need for freedom of the arts than to quote a message sent to the :\luscum of :\lodcrn Art last fall on the occasion of our 25th Anni­versary by President EiscnhO\H'r: To me, in this annin.•rsary, there is a reminder to all of us of an important prin­< ·iple that we should ever keep in mind. This principle is that freedom of the arts is a hasie freedom, one of tlw pillars of liherty of our land. For our Hcpublic to stay fret\ those among us with tlw rare gift of artistry must be ahlc frcdy to use their tal(•nt. Likcwist• our 1woplc must ha\'c unimpaired opportunity to St'C', to undt•rstand, to profit from our artists' work. As long as artists are at liberty to frcl with high personal intensity, as long as our art­ists are free to ('reatc with sincerity and ('Oil\ iction, there will he lwa1thy eontro­vt• rsy and progress in art. Only thus can there lw opportunity for a genius to ('On­edn• and to produce a maskrpiC'e(• for all mankind. But, my frit•nds, how different it is in tyranny. \VllC'n artists arc• made the shtn•s and tools of tlw stall'; when artists bc<.'OllW c
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n006_069.pdf