Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956
File 008
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 008. 1956-06. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 27, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/77.

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 008. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/77

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 008, 1956-06, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 27, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/77.

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 008
Transcript I I { J a months' wartime expenditures, not to take into consideration the element of human life which would be destroyed 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 are infiltrated, improve morale in foreign countries by making them feel that they are earning their own way, and provide greatly needed dol- lars to our allies in payment for the goods they produce. These dollars are used to balance their international payments and to raise their standards of living, thus easing 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 are obtained more cheaply, that purchases of ammunition are 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 and economic objectives such as the provision of dollars tei countries in bal- ance-of-payments difficulties, the reduction of unemployment, the combatting of local communism, and encouragement of free enterprise, etc. Even though these are worthy objectives, the goal of better military preparedness through off-shore procurement has not been attained. Many of these critics urge that offshore procurement be restricted according to internal unemployment in the United States. They claim that offshore purchases should be redirected toward pockets of unemployment in the United States and that this would mitigate the decline in the American standard of living which necessarily accompanies foreign aid. A fall in the American standard of living occurs as off-shore procurement makes possible greater exports of American goods, reducing the goods available for domestic use, but this would not be so pronounced if aid money were used to liuv American goods produced by men and machines who would not be producing goods for domestic use be- Page 6 cause demand was 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, thev 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 stay ahead of the Soviet Union in terms of special weapons and in the general technological progress which is necessary for military success. It is pointed out by critics that aid recipients clo not give sufficient cooperation to justify our giving them continued military assistance for purposes of our own national security. In 1955 we used 10.9% of our gross national product for defense whereas France used only 8.5%, Denmark 3.5%, Germany 5.2%, Italy 4.3%, Portugal 3.8%, Spain 4.8%, United Kingdom 9.8%, Turkey 6.7%, Greece 6.5%, Belgium-Luxembourg 5.7%, Netherlands 6.6V. and Norway 5.1%. There has not been the continuous military build-up which proponents had expected. Many 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 thev can hope to avoid this only by demaining neutral. As a result of missile developments they may seek reduction in defense expenditures and many feel that conflicts will develop 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 receiving military assistance, judging From the record of the past. They cite, for example, that America carried the burden of fighting in Korea. Those who disapprove of military assistance charge that our allies have favored the casing of restrictions on strategic trade with the Soviet bloc, and have pressured us into recent extensive relaxation of such restrictions. In line with this argument, Senator Joseph McCarthy stated, "The Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, having completed an investigation of cur- rent, U. S.-authorized strategic trade with the Communist nations, finds that the long and short of the matter is that you, the American taxpayer, are subsidizing the construction of the Communist war machine. "The Committee discovered that in August, 1954, our government made secret concessions to our 'allies' as regards what they could ship to the Communist bloc without losing American aid. As a result of these conees sions, over 200 highly strategic item* — such as machine tools, metals, and electronics, transportation and electrical equipment—were removed frOB the anti-Communist embargo. "The American people were not in] formed of these secret concessions W our 'allies'; indeed, deliberate an1 (until our Committee got on the track) successful attempts were mac'1 to conceal them."1' Many people in the United State'' while not opposed to all military V' sistance, are very much opposed W furnishing military aid to Yugoslav'"'1- In recent years Tito has shown I many signs of moving into the Sovi''1 fold that many feel it to be the hei; of folly to continue sending militafl equipment to a nation that max' o\ cide to use it against us. These pfI' sons object, as a matter of principle' to giving assistance to a CominiiU'' nation even if it is not within fl Soviet bloc, while proponents feel tffl our aid to Yugoslavia is evidence'' the rest of the world that the UniW States will assist those satellites wfl break with the Soviet Union. Critics also deprecate the militj assistance program because it is ed toward building up ground ford abroad, which thev' feel would l» ii n higl "His,,,. l'l ■ causes inflationary pressure. ' nents contend that the red"1' of living and inllati"11' ■A «orjS; "ties Ps to affective in meeting a combi"' ground and atomic attack from ''* Soviet Union. DIRECT FORCES SUPPORT, DEFEN*{ SUPPORT, AND COUNTERPART FUNDS Higher military expenditures by "' allies divert their resources from ** 7sceptib production ol goods lor their civiH; (.Srn; an( markets into the production of >nL r,„e ecor tarv goods and services. The siii*( supply ol goods available for civil 'lie aid- be used hinds v ampl,., t lie worl "neniple living 1 Wonomi Which a country While, al Critic mat the; »ate th. economi. .d"e to hnds, tl v'ention i %1 stat *U1 i,It "lent. Tl '-Ment o Qv'er to receivin substiti,t gent of ''•'t the "fefense - ^sire te •"el-reee-i *« est '"nal de wdget. TECHN DEV Those ,"",'" tha "(1 there Slope, mi, ■ Hs >i, firs ol pone standards pressures within allied countries j1' arelize their internal political stab'1',, with adverse effects on their will*: niss to carry the military effort | with enhanced opportunities fof tenia! subversion. Since no COSD I fight unless he has something w° fighting for, economic assistant' necessary to ease- the burden 0s\ civilian population. Certain special advantages are' >l by proponents in counterpart f"1 ,i which result from the provisii'" direct loiee-s support and de-lens''.' port. Because these counterpart »J are under the control of tlie I "'( States government, we obtain ".. gree of control over the ccoin'1"- 'Manchester iX.ll.i Union Leader, April •>■ .r"ll ti„;"","K 111,] gover "H'oat 'Weal s I've is Font \i \ivvs. June, Sf show tW co< "'IS,- Kdual "D ' xv|> D|,'"-"i,th to 'act-. SFn
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n006_008.jpg