CLASS OF SERVICE

This is a full-rate
Telegram or Cable-
gram unless its de-
ferred character is in-
dicated by a suitable
symbol above or pre-
ceding the address.

WESTERN
UNION

A. N. WILLIAMS
PRESIDENT

1220

SYMBOLS

DL = Day Letter

NL = Night Letter

LC = Deferred Cable

NLT = Cable Night Letter

Ship Radiogram

The filing time shown in the date line on telegrams and day letters is STANDARD TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt is STANDARD TIME at point of destination

NBN 348 DL PD=FG NEWYORK NY 21 1215P

MRS MURIEL DRAPER=
322 EAST 58 ST=

1975 NOV 21 PM 2 05

THE COMMITTEE OF WOMEN OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN SOVIET FRIENDSHIP AT MEETING MONDAY NOVEMBER 19 ASKED ME TO CONVEY TO YOU AS OUR CHAIRMAN THEIR SENSE OF PRIDE, ACHIEVEMENT AND ENCOURAGEMENT IN YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL WOMAN'S CONGRESS, PARIS STOP. PLEASE EXTEND WARMEST GREETINGS TO WOMEN OF ALL 36 COUNTRIES CONVENING FOR THIS IMPORTANT CONFERENCE, HOPE THERE WILL COME FROM DISCUSSIONS PLAN FOR UNITY AMONG WOMEN EVERYWHERE FOR WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY=

<table><tr><td>CLASS OF SERVICE</td></tr><tr><td>This is a full-rate Telegram or Cable-gram unless its de-ferred character is in-dicated by a suitable symbol above or pre-ceding the address.</td></tr></table>

WESTERN
UNION

A. N. WILLIAMS
PRESIDENT

1298

<table><tr><td>SYMBOLS</td></tr><tr><td>DL = Day Letter</td></tr><tr><td>NL = Night Letter</td></tr><tr><td>LC = Deferred Cable</td></tr><tr><td>NLT = Cable Night Letter</td></tr><tr><td>Ship Radiogram</td></tr></table>

The filing time shown in the date line on telegrams and day letters is STANDARD TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt in STANDARD TIME at point of destination

N9D207 58 NL PD 6 EXTRA

NEWYORK NY NOV 3 1945

MRS MURIEL DRAPER

322 EAST 58 ST NYK

YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THE INTERNATIONAL WOMENS CONFERENCE TO BE HELD PARIS FRANCE NOVEMBER TWENTY SIXTH NINETEEN FORTY FIVE AS A MEMBER OF AMERICAN DELEGATION STOP IMPOSSIBLE TO PLAN OR MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT YOU URGENT YOU ATTEND FIRST MEETING 163 EAST 78TH STREET NEW YORK TUESDAY NOVEMBER SIXTH AT TWO PM

SUSAN B ANTHONY
ROSE SCHNEIDERMAN
ELINOR S GIMBEL
MRS EDGAR SNOW

830P

THE COMPANY WILL APPRECIATE SUGGESTIONS FROM ITS PATRONS CONCERNING ITS SERVICE

## Inviting Contempt

It now seems clear that Americans persecuted by a congressional committee cannot look to Congress for relief. They must turn, then, to the courts. This is what Mr. Corliss Lamont of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, cited for contempt of Congress at the instance of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, has decided to do. "It is the aim of the council," he said, "in its reasoned opposition to the Wood-Rankin Committee, to establish once and for all the right of Americans under our Constitution to work freely for American-Soviet understanding and friendship." This is a basic right meriting respect alike by those who dislike the purpose for which it is exercised and by those in sympathy, and Mr. Lamont is altogether accurate in referring to it as a "test case important to all individuals and organizations active in the field of education and public relations."

What the Wood-Rankin Committee has attempted with respect to the Council of American-Soviet Friendship, as it did with respect to the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, is to harass the organization out of existence. To this end, the committee has indulged in what seems to us an arbitrary and outrageous abuse of its subpena power. It has made a sweeping and wholly unnecessary demand that the council produce in Washington all its books and records—which would leave it, of course, unable to function,

If the committee has any basis for belie that the council is engaged in un-American activities—and no evidence whatever has been presented in support of such a thesis— it can undertake investigation on a selectiv basis. A court must now determine if the demand made upon the council was a reasonable exercise of the subpena power.

Defiance of a congressional committee is of course, a very serious matter not light to be countenanced by Congress or the courts. There is no doubt that Mr. Lamon like Dr. Edward Barsky of the Joint Anti Fascist Refugee Committee, has been, technically at least, contemptuous of congressional authority. But when congressional authority is used, as the committee is her seeking to use it, to hamstring an organization instead of merely investigating i contempt is invited. The House as a whole has now twice confirmed the invitation t voting to cite Barsky and Lamont for co-

tempt. The disposition of members to support a committee of their own creation is quite understandable; but they would have done a great deal more, we think, to enhance the respect for Congress which they seek to enforce if they had curbed a committee abusing the authority exercised in their name. They can hold the respect of Americans only as they respect American rights.

La Più Vecchia e la Più Moderna

Charge to the account of

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">CLASS OF SERVICE DESIRED</th></tr><tr><th>DOMESTIC</th><th>CABLE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>TELEGRAM</td><td>ORDINARY</td></tr><tr><td>DAY LETTER</td><td>URGENT RATE</td></tr><tr><td>SERIAL</td><td>DEFERRED</td></tr><tr><td>NIGHT LETTER</td><td>NIGHT LETTER</td></tr></tbody></table>

Patrons should check class of service desired; otherwise the message will be transmitted as a telegram or ordinary cablegram.

1206

WESTERN
UNION

A. N. WILLIAMS
PRESIDENT

Send the following telegram, subject to the terms on back hereof, which are hereby agreed to

DAY LETTER

MRS. MURIEL DRAPER
322 EAST 58 STREET
NEW YORK, N. Y.

OCTOBER 7, 1946

WE SEND YOU OUR LOVE AND ADMIRATION. WILL YOU AS OUR CHAIRMAN ESTABLISH CONTACT FOR US WITH SOVIET WOMEN'S ANTI-FASCIST COMMITTEE FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND FRIENDSHIP. PLEASE GIVE OUR WARMEST GREETINGS TO ALL WOMEN ASSEMBLED THERE. HAPPY LANDING.

RUTH W. RUSS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
COMMITTEE OF WOMEN
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP

Chge. to Nat'l Council of ASF, 114 E. 32 St., NYC

["AFTERNOON SESSION", "Parlors B and C 2:30 to 5:30 p.m.", "\"AMERICAN-SOVIET RELATIONS IN\nEUROPE, IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND\nTHE FAR EAST\"", "Dr. Corliss Lamont\nChairman", "Johannes Steel", "Noted commentator and foreign correspondent. Just returned from a tour of several European countries.", "Ralph S. Gordon", "Foreign correspondent for the Toronto Star. Recently returned from the Middle East.", "Israel Epstein", "Far East correspondent for the United Press and various newspapers. Author of \"The Unfinished Revolution in China.\"", "Ample time will be allowed for discussion from the floor.", "EVENING SESSION", "East Ballroom 8:00 to 10:30 p.m.", "\"AMERICAN-SOVIET COOPERATION FOR\nPEACE\"", "Rev. William Howard Melish\nChairman", "Miss Mary van Kleek", "\"Atomic Energy: Opportunity for\nInternational Cooperation\"", "Johannes Steel", "\"An American Policy for Peace\"", "Dr. W.E.B. DuBois", "\"U.S. and U.S.S.R. Cooperation in\nthe United Nations\"", "Dr. Corliss Lamont", "\"The Right to Work for American-Soviet Cooperation\"", "Dr. Harry F. Ward", "\"Soviet Democracy and American\nIdeals\"", "National Council of American-Soviet Friendship\n114 East 32nd Street\nNew York City 16, New York", "Please send me ______ tickets at $1.00 each for the Afternoon Session\n______ tickets at $1.00 each for the Evening Session", "I am enclosing $______", "NAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We have reached a critical juncture in American-Soviet relations. The differences between the two countries are being exploited by alarmists and warmongers, creating an atmosphere which places in danger the welfare of our own country and the peace of the world.

A new beginning must be made in American-Soviet relations; a new approach must be formulated, an approach which will surmount the differences and emphasize the agreements between these two great countries. It can be done, and we can help do it.

For this reason, the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship is sponsoring this Assembly on American-Soviet Relations. Together with outstanding spokesmen of American opinion, we will have an opportunity to participate in the most important task of today: the shaping of American foreign policy.

ASSEMBLY

ON

AMERICAN-

SOVIET

RELATIONS

*

TUESDAY

JUNE 17

1947

HOTEL COMMODORE

42nd Street at Lexington Ave.

*

114 East 32nd Street, New York 16, New York

Murray Hill 3-2080

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-

SOVIET FRIENDSHIP

# THE ATLANTIC PACT

The North Atlantic Pact has been signed and delivered to the American people. We are expected to take it and like it. It talks of peace but it plans for war. World War III becomes a frightening prospect.

## IT COMMITS US TO WAR

The phrases are smooth. But the Pact takes away from our Congress the right to decide upon war. A military clique in Europe, controlled by the big brass in Washington and on Wall Street, can give marching orders to our troops. Once the shooting starts, with A-bombs exploding, Congress will have no choice but to "approve."

## IT MORTGAGES OUR LIVES TO WAR

The U. S. must re-arm Europe to meet Atlantic Pact obligations. The cost will run as high as 30 billions of dollars. Out of your pay-check, out of your family budget, you will pay every cent of it. On top of this you will have to pay the 21 billion dollar military budget here at home.

With unemployment sweeping our cities, these billions could be better used to build new homes, hospitals and schools, to produce all the goods that people need every day.

Do we want to send our unemployed young men to Europe by the hundreds of thousands to make up the 100 divisions the military experts say must be placed there ready for war in order to make good the demands of the Pact?

## IT TORPEDOES THE UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations was organized to maintain peace. This is its business on behalf of all the nations of the world. The United States and its chosen allies have torpedoed the UN. The Pact establishes its own military council, outside the UN, to decide upon threats to the peace. It will have power to use armed force when and where it chooses. This council will inform the UN only after the blood bath has begun, too late to stop war.

## WHO PULLS THE TRIGGER?

Under the Pact's vague definition of aggression and attack, any petty Hitler like Franco can drag the rest of the world into war. Yes, Secretary of State Acheson says Franco Spain may get a chance to join the Pact. The Premier of Greece already cries "aggression" and appeals for troops from the United States or any of the other North Atlantic powers.

## WHO THREATENS US?

No responsible official in the U. S., military or civilian, believes the Soviet Union plans military aggression. This is what John Foster Dulles, leading spokesman for our foreign policy, told a national church conference recently. Yet by the terms of the pact, the U. S. is to help re-arm Western Europe, to surround the Soviet Union with military bases right up to her borders. Dulles warns that the Soviet Union would be compelled to regard such action as an imminent and serious threat on our part.

Give Peace a Chance

"War with the Soviet Union is not inevitable, and we believe that it is improbable, given proper use by the United States of its powerful influence." Four hundred top leaders of the Protestant church in conference in Cleveland on March 10 thus re-affirmed their conviction. "Contradictory ideologies can co-exist without armed conflict," they said. Peace is possible.

But we won't get peace by preparing for war. If we want peace, our government should make peace proposals instead of war alliances. The Soviet Union has agreed to get together with us to settle differences. Peace is up to us.

HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:

(The North Atlantic Pact was signed on April 4. It is now in the hands of the Senate for ratification requiring a two-thirds vote for approval. You can help to stop this war Pact by quick action.)

1. Write or wire your two Senators that you oppose ratification. Give your reasons. Demand that they hold up this alliance and see that time is allowed for nationwide public debate.

2. Write or wire the President of the U. S. that you oppose the North Atlantic Pact. Ask the President to initiate conferences with the Soviet Union to settle our differences.

3. Ask your organizations to apply for time to testify in opposition to the Pact at open public hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Tom Connally, Chairman. Advise your organizations to insist that Senate hearings be extended until all leaders of the people have a chance to voice their opposition.

4. Organize protest meetings in your city and neighborhood against the war Pact.

This leaflet prepared by

114 East 32nd Street

New York 16, N. Y.

264

SPEECH BY MURIEL DRAPER

Mrs. Draper: Madam Chairman, guests of the Committee of Women, and dear known friends of our Committee who have been with us for so long and are so undaunted and loyal and unafraid, Dr. Lamont this morning and Rev. Dr. Melish at lunch both spoke of slamming the door shut, so I'm going to talk to you about the doors that are being held wide open by the people of the United States and the people of the Soviet Union. I have passed through these doors and I have come back to you and I'm sure that all of us will be passing back and forth through these wide open doors as long as there are strong hands like ours to keep them open.

It is so curious since I've come back to hear people say, "Isn't it dreadful - nobody is allowed in to the Soviet Union?" And when I say, "Oh, but I went and I'm just back from the Soviet Union", they say, "Isn't it dreadful that you were allowed into the Soviet Union?"

When they come forward with a request for a one-third disarmament program and the outlawing of the atomic bomb, it is called by Warren Austin, the U.S. appointed delegate to the U.N., and "oriental manoeuvre". And against that "oriental manoeuvre" he suggests what I call "Occidental murder". So whenever a move is made toward peace by the Soviet Union, it is discredited,

p. 2

disbelieved or misrepresented. If they don't make a move they're "intransigent", "uncompromising, monolithic, beyond human understanding". And so deliberate confusion has been created on both sides of an artificial barrier.

But in the minds and hearts of men and women in the greater part of the world this confusion is not present, for they see through this confusion clearly, if I may make it paradoxical. We are apt to believe, as I suppose people in all countries are, that we are seeing the history of the world for the first time, that we are the ones who know how to control it, and with our noses up against the window of a bakeshop, so to speak, hungry to sieze the fruit and the results of history that other nations have been dominating in an ingenious way for so long, We forget that no matter what we tell ourselves (and when I saw "we", I mean the makers of our foreign policy), the people of the world know these things are not true. They know they are not true because they have experienced these things.

When the United States pretends that the "Truman Doctrine" in Greece, and our tentative approaches to Franco's government in Spain, with rumors in the papers which I am sure you have all seen - implying that maybe we had better re-open diplomatic relations with Franco's Spain - that sort of thing-and the policy we have been pursuing in China - it seems to me a great mistake on the part of the makers of American foreign policy to expect that the people who have just experienced the results of fascism, the result of our policies, believe that it is a democratic policy.

Mrs. Draper

p. 3

It is not a democratic policy, and the majority of the democratic people of the world - and that goes for the United States of America too, - know that it is not a democratic policy.

When we go, as we did this year with a delegation of 35 women to the Second Women's International Congress for Peace held by the Women's International Democratic Federation in Budapest, we get the experience there of these millions of people who live in the rest of the world and together we have a unity and an understanding of these issues that is not at all confused.

I spoke this morning of the deliberate and sometimes extremely skilful efforts of the press, the State Department and the public relations people of Mr. Atcherson, who are there in Washington to mislead us and make this question of peace seem to be a complicated matter. To carry it out is complicated and yet the fundamental issues are very simple. That was very clear at Budapest.

As Pearl Lawes told you this morning (and some of you heard reports from other delegates a week ago) you know that the women of the world have united to bring about this peace that we all so fervently desire.

It was interesting to know that the reason the Government of Budapest had to have the House of Parliament back was to discuss their budget. It seemed to me, as I sat or stood on the presidium, that may be they ought to have let us have it for another week and let us decide the budget because no woman in her senses could believe that the budget that President Truman presented to the

Mrs. Draper

p. 4

people of the United States could possibly be a budget for peace. It is an absolute impossibility when you analyze the figures to find any room there for anything but occidental murder, as I called it before, instead of an oriental manoeuvre for peace. We cannot carry on the budget as presented to us as a basis for peace, it means war.

With all these facts clearly before us, there was a clear distinction in the minds and hearts of the women there at Budapest between the people of the United States, even those who are not quite aware of the situation but who somehow instinctively sense it, and the government's policies that are being so hastily and short-sightedly devised. The distinction they make is a very heartening one. Our imperialist policies are attacked and they should be. I see no reason why we shouldn't attack them in Budapest or in the Commodore - attack those policies and policy makers who are leading the people away from democracy toward imperialist goals. There is no reason why the people of America, in every state in this country could not come to an understanding with the people of the rest of the world and let our leaders know that we see through their designs and are not deceived by them, nor are the majority of people in the world.

When I went to the Congress in Budapest I had hoped to go to the Soviet Union, and with this in mind I began to put a bit of pressure on my dear friend MMe. Popova, Chairman of the Soviet Women's Anti-Fascist Committee, Director of Culture and Educational Activities

Mrs. Draper

p. 5

of her trade union and deputy to the Soviet of the Russian Republic. She carries out all these three functions extremely well and in addition she is the mother of a beautiful and highly intelligent daughter who is a militant worker for peace in the world with her comrades in the Soviet Union. Her husband was killed in the war.

When she came to Budapest at the head of the Soviet delegation, I immediately began to ask if I couldn't get into the Soviet Union, because I realized that at this time, with hysteria mounting every minute (and I must add that I think the hysteria is coming more from the enemy than from us). They are becoming desperate, being faced with the people's victories in China and other parts of the world, as to what devices to adopt next to fool us. I felt it would be a very important, both from the point of view of the struggle for peace in the United States of America, where it will have to be resolved in very large part, and for our work in the Committee of Women and the Congress of American Women, if I went to the Soviet Union and tried to find out there, as any human being with eyes and ears and a heart can find out, what the people of the Soviet Union are feeling today and how close we can move in relation to their effort to gain the peace.

At first Nina Popova said, "Well, the delegation is going back to the U. S. and you will have a great deal of work when they get back." I said, "No, they won't get back to the U.S. till the 20th and then there's Christmas."

Mrs. Draper p. 6

mas and New Year's. May be If I take these two weeks
here and then fly back, I won't lose any time, and those
who were in Budapest will be working twice as hard, and
nothing can prevent them from going forward." In short
she finally said, "Well, I hope it can be arranged."

So at the end of the Congress, I went up to Poland,
to Warsaw. I felt that was a little closer to the Soviet
Union and if I got there, it wouldn't take so long to get
in case the visa came.

I won't go into detail about the City of Warsaw
except to wish that everybody who is hoping for war again
and planning for war and investing money in war could
spend 24 hours, or even 24 minutes in the City of Warsaw.
It would be good for them to see what war really means.
It would be good for them to see the courage and nobility
and activity that the men and women of Warsaw are putting
into rebuilding this city. They don't feel as badly about
the destruction as those who see it for the first time.

When I came to the Ghetto in Warsaw, as far as
the eye could reach there was not one brick left upon
another, nothing but desolation and horror and annihilation
wreaked upon the 300,000 people who lived there. These
people who talk so glibly about war would perhaps give
pause.

I had a conversation with the American Vice-
Consul, Mr. Gitt, in Warsaw and when he found that I was
expecting to go to the Soviet Union, he called me into his
office and said, "Would it surprise you to know, Mrs. Draper,

Mrs. Draper

p. 7

that 90% of the Polish people would rather go to war
again now than lose their freedom and independence as
they are losing them at the present moment?"

I said, "Yes, it would surprise me very much. How
can we look out the window and see these people and believe
that the Polish people would go through a war again for
what you call their "freedom and independence". Do you think
that what they have put up with for the last 300 years is
freedom and independence?"

not,

He said, "Well, certainly the last six years were a
cause of the Nazi occupation!"

I said, "What do you mean by 'freedom and independence'?

He said, "Why, private enterprise and getting ahead in
business, having a successful business."

"Well," I said, "Do you suppose that 90% of the Polish people are willing to pay another four years of war for getting ahead in private enterprise? I was reading the government figures and they show that the nationalization of industries has accounted for 24% of the working population."

He said, "May be you're right, Mrs. Draper."

"Well," I said, "if it is only controlling 24% of the population
in the sense of employing them, what is the rest of your 90%
doing?"

He said, "They're afraid to move."

I said, "That hardly represents a desire for freedom
and independence."

He cited figures to show that a pair of trousers
 cost several hundred zilottis or about 3 months' wages

Mrs. Draper
p. 8

and coal was about 5000 zilottis per ton, etc.

I said, "It would seem to me that your story is not too disturbing because on looking out of this window I see smoke is coming out of that chimney, so even at 5000 zilottis per ton they are able to buy coal, and I haven't yet seen a man on the street without trousers and I certainly would have noticed a man without trousers. They must be able to pay their three months wages for clothing."

However, this is only a part of the picture of what some of our diplomats and consular representatives are really believing. At the end of half an hour's conversation, when he warned me about the Soviet Union -- which I found he had never visited, I said, "I would like to ask you two questions: Do you believe what you're telling me? And do you think that I believe it?" Whereupon he said it was too bad I couldn't stay longer and have a cup of coffee.

I did go into the Soviet Union that night, as I received my visa that afternoon. I think one of the best things to do is to be with the couple that were on the train with me from Brest, which was at the border near Moscow. I had had a long and dreary trip to Brest and a wait of fifteen hours there for a train to Moscow. There were seven other passengers in the Intourist Waiting Room. They were very polite - a little preoccupied with bundles and packages.

I've learned to travel with packages. Everybody gave us so many gifts. I can manage them quite well now.

Mrs. Draper
p. 9

This group had about 70 packages around them. One of the men in a desultory fashion picked up one of those publications that you always find in dentists' offices, doctor's waiting rooms and railway stations. He was thumbing through the pages of a magazine and I saw him go over to the rest of the group and point at me and at the magazine and the atmosphere got more friendly. Finally, he said, "Isn't this you?", pointing to a picture in the magazine, and I said, "Yes, God help us! it is." There was a photograph of me in one of the Soviet women's magazines. From then on the rest of the trip was a very happy time. Naturally, they wanted to know what one felt and what one's understanding was about the Soviet Union, the government and its people.

I don't think it was strange that I was allowed to go into the Soviet Union. For the last fifteen years I have been so interested in this great human experiment that I have tried to find out as much as I could about it and to work for it with the greatest pleasure and joy. Therefore I think that it was natural they should know I was coming there in order to know a little more and understand a little more.

On the train there was a couple who had been living in Germany and for three and a half years had been in Germany and were now coming back to the Soviet Union. My Russian is as deplorable as it is limited - I can never use the right prefixes. I can begin a lot of words but I never finish them.

["Mrs. Draper p. 10", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could.\nShe discussed her operation with me and asked me if I had\never had one, and if so, how many stitches I had had. I\nassured her that I had not been operated on and if I had\nbeen, I was sure that she, a woman of the Soviet Union\nwould have had more stitches than I had had. We talked\na great deal, slept a little and woke up in the morning\nagain to share our food.", "The Polish affiliate of the Women's international\nDemocratic Federation had given me many presents and food.\nNow I can eat a loaf of bread in no time. We had bread,\nham, cheese, butter and a bottle of cherry brandy. We\nbegan to share the cherry brandy and got the conductor in\nfor a drink. He began to talk about his difficulties in\nbecoming a Marxist. He said he couldn't seem to understand\nthe ideas. He said, \"I went to a professor and I took 40\nlessons for forty days and forty nights (it sounded quite\nbiblical) and at the end of that time I didn't understand\na thing. So I said to the professor, 'Comrade, you keep\nyour brains in your head and I'll keep my money in my pocket\nwhere it will do me a lot of good.'", "When he left the compartment, I asked, \"Is this\nwhat I understood him to say?\" and they said, \"He has really\na peasant's mind.\" (He and me both!)", "This couple on the train helped me undress; they fixed my\nblanket just right, they ordered tea for me from the con-\nductor. In about half an hour, the woman, (in spite of my\nbad Russian,) and I were on friendly terms, more so than\nher husband, perhaps because he had a more reasonable mind,\nand she could understand me more quickly than he could

Mrs. Draper
p. 11

They gave me an example of German "culture" and began to tell me that that was the thing they had missed the most during their stay in Germany - culture. They were most impressed with the lack of culture in the German people. One of the most frightening things in the present situation is that the culture of the German people, which has been a very great and rich one has been destroyed and the destruction of a culture can happen to any people - any nation. It was not a German characteristic, it was economic necessity that drove them into the enslavement of ignorance, violence and savagery which destroyed their culture. We too must be careful of this.

They said they often talked about the state of German culture and wondered about it. They said, if you go into a German house now, there isn't a clean tablecloth on the table. There is nothing but a bare table. There are no plants in the window. You go to the piano and it is closed. There is no music. They don't sing any songs. They don't say, "Have a little drink." They say, "On the table we will now play cards", and you sit down and start to play cards. They play carefully; if they lose they don't like it. If they win, they pocket the marks. At the end of the game they give you a little drink + a little one if you have lost, but a still smaller one if you won from them. The man said, "This is not culture, because it is mean. A mean people cannot be a cultured people."

He said, "You see, they make a budget". (You know how much we have heard about the regimenting of money, wages and salaries in the Soviet Union.) This man said, "The

Mrs. Draper
p. 12

Germans are so mean that if they make a budget to smoke only ten cigarettes one day and they smoke eleven, the next day they will smoke only nine -that's a little mean."

"I think," I told him, "that it is wonderful if your heart is warm and your head is full and you have money and are able to dance a little, smoke a little, eat a little; but I also think that when you haven't got money, it is good if your heart and your head are full of understanding and love."

He turned to his wife and said, "See! I told you there were democratic Americans!" I thought that was an interesting definition of a democratic American, and showed an understanding of what is real culture.

I arrived in the U.S.S.R. on Christmas Day and it gave me pause. It seemed to me a very suitable day on which to arrive in the Soviet Union, because it is not celebrated by the buying and giving of gifts and the stores telling you to do your shopping early, and there is not the commercialism and pressure that mounts up until it is only with the greatest difficulty that we hold on to what that day means in the celebration of the life of a man who, after all, was full of love and grace in a turbulent and cruel world. We seem to have forgotten that. In the Soviet Union, while it isn't a day of giving and receiving Christmas presents, there is a certain Christian spirit which is closely observed and felt; much more so than in our country where we celebrate it but do not feel it.

Mrs. Draper

p. 13

I was met at the station by some women of the Women's Anti-Fascist Committee and they began right away to say, "Where do you want to go and what do you want to know about?" I said, "I want to know about the people, see them at work; see them dancing. I want to see them singing, shopping -- I'll spare them when they're sleeping. I want to see the children at school. I want to see some of the orphans' homes and the factories and as much of the other sights as I have time for."

I can't give an account of my day-to-day adventures - there isn't time for it all. I just want to give you my impressions - in the first place, of the factories.

I went to a textile factory in Moscow. It was directed by a woman, a most intelligent, tender and brilliant woman. I can't really communicate to you the real sense of equality and freedom that there is in the Soviet Union between men and women. Because it has been achieved for some years, they never seem to think of it; it is only we visitors who observe it and speak of it.

The Director of the factory called into her office a dozen or more workers, some of whom had been in the factory before the Revolution, as this was one of the oldest factories in Moscow. The workers were of various ages, the youngest about 22 years old. I wanted to mention this one incident that took place there. I want to say it again because these workers were so free in their speech and so interested in everything I had to say about American workers and American unions and the American drive for peace.

Mrs. Draper
p. 14

They were so free in all the information they gave me
that it was a remarkable experience.

One old woman, the oldest woman in the factory,
seemed to be a sort of duenna of the workers. She sat
there in her black dress, her hair parted in the middle,
and I said, "You know, there are people in the United
are
States of America who maintain that there no real trade
unions, with freedom of action in the Soviet Union; that
you haven't got real contracts with your employers."
The Russian workers smiled a little at this and the Direc-
tor sent out for a trade union contract, specifying hours,
rates of pay, etc. to show me.

I said, "There's another question: They say, "Can
the workers of the Soviet Union strike?" Whereupon a
laugh went up that would have done your heart good. They
roared with laughter and the old woman said, "Strike against
what? Against myself? Should I strike because I can sit
here and talk to my beloved Director without being spit
in the eye?" "Shall I strike because I have a room with
hot and cold water, gas to cook with and a clean bed, in-
stead of having to get into a dirty bed in a room shared
by ten other workers? Shall I strike because I have
learned to read and write and can go to the theatre and
the ballet? Because my sons and daughter are doing the
work they want to do? What a very silly question! I
have only one worry - I'm an old woman and will have to
die before I have had my fill of this new freedom."

I cite this incident because it is the predominant

Mrs. Draper

p. 15

impression I got on this trip, my third visit to the
Soviet Union - the impression that under existing circum-
stances, the whole man, the whole woman is able to de-
velop to his or her fullest capacities as far as is human-
ly possible. The cultural aspect of their lives is very
well developed in all the factories in the U.S.S.R.

I visited a shoe factory in Leningrad. I was
brought up in a shoe manufacturing town and I assure you
I never found anything there like I found in the Soviet
Union. I noticed that some of the girls looked very
young - about 12, 14, or 15 years old and I asked, "Are
these youngsters allowed to work here?" They said, "We
have apprentices and these girls are apprentices."
I said, "Yes, I understand about apprentices, but in
America an apprentice is apt to stay an apprentice for
quite a long time - until the boss wants to push him
higher. Aren't these girls rather young to work here
or to learn this trade?"

They asked me, "Don't you know about our Appren-
tice schools?" They took me to a school in a five story
building where the girls were having a grammar school
education in languages, music, ballet. They had their
own chorus. There were classes in mathematics, history,
and literature and here also they were learning every-
thing they could about the manufacture of shoes, every-
thing pertaining to the technique of their trade. They
were allowed to work one day in the factory - for they
were very eager to apply what they had learned - and

Mrs. Draper
p. 16

then they went back to school for two days and then spent another day in the factory. That is the way the apprentices were trained and educated. I found this true in every factory I visited.

Another thing I noticed on this trip to the Soviet Union in contrast to my visit in 1934-35, was the age of performers in the arts. For instance in the orchestras, sometimes the most important performers were older people. Most of the important actors and actresses were older people, developed by an earlier training in music or dramatics. This time only 5% of the orchestra players and practically none of the actors and actresses or singers were older people. They were all young people, beautifully educated. You could tell that by the way they sang. I heard the most beautiful and wonderful performance of opera there I have ever heard; perhaps because there was nobody in the audience who didn't know that great Pushkin poem, .................... and there was such a wonderful balance between words and music that it was a truly magnificent and sublime experience.

I'm not going to tell you much about the ballet. I would never stop. I do wish you could see how those "oppressed" slaves dance. They can hardly lift themselves off the floor except in leaps that seem about 10 feet higher than any I've seen before. How robust and full of joy they seem in their dancing!

Everywhere I went in the Soviet Union, in the homes, in the factories, in clubs or backstage, there were certain questions asked: Do the American

Mrs. Draper
p. 17

people want to go to war? My answer was always, "No."
They always seemed to believe this and to accept it.
Then they would say, "Then, why don't the Americans stop
the policies of their government which are leading them
into war? Is it because they don't understand, and if so,
does that mean that those of you who do know it are not
working hard enough to help them understand? What is the
Progressive Party doing? What does Henry Wallace say about
this?" And another question: "What are the young people
doing about Civil rights in America? What about the at-
tack on the Communist leaders in America; does it mean
that the Government of the United States is really trying
to break up progressive groups, or is it only a diversion?"

There were many questions of that kind. I told them
what the picture was here in America. It is hard for them
to understand. They know the principles, but to see it
is something difficult. They are having their own diffi-
culties in other directions. I think perhaps they recog-
nize that we have ours here. They expect great things of
us.

When I went to Leningrad, I found that they were
restoring the city so rapidly that you can hardly tell
where the destruction ends and the reconstruction begins.
I noticed also that the children in Leningrad, most of
them about 7, 9 or 10 looked extremely healthy, well fed,
and very happy. I said to the women who were showing me
through the War Museum, "How is it that these children of
this age survived those 29 horrible months so that today

Mrs. Draper
p. 20

it was an ordinary habit. I can only tell you that this feeling is very spontaneous and seems to me to have accompanied it in the development of the human individual so much that it was a joy according to his ability and capacities, that it was a joy to be with these people.

I see it is getting late and people have to go home to household duties. We are trying hard by one way or another, by state or federal legislation to make some of our women so they can do more of this work for peace. I want to tell you of other things you see there. I feel certain ones, that even with the great dramatic resources of the Soviet Union, they could not have put a whole crowd of thousands of people, well dressed and looking happy and confident, just to fool Muriel Draper. They could not put all these women and children on the streets in order to receive me. After all we learn a great deal about people from the way they look, the way they walk, what they eat, what makes them laugh and what makes them weep, how they regard beauty and the way they treat their children. All those things you see in the streets and they could not have withdrawn millions of people from the streets of their cities, and replaced them with actors who were not ruled to look as if they were happy and enjoying their work. I don't believe for a moment that there is a sane person in this country who has learned anything about the world we will not believe that the Soviet Union wants to go to war. To believe that is sheer insanity or worse. They do not want to go to war. They have had enough, and they know it can be prevented.

Mrs. Draper

p. 21

We were speaking this morning of the fact that generally the UN does allow of a meeting between the leaders of two great powers, President Truman and Premier Stalin, this meeting being a nullacy, if need be, not only could it take place in the UN, but outside of the UN.

There's no pleasing these critics of the Soviet Union; if the Russians took this problem to the UN, they would say it is not within the province of the UN. This is all nonsense. There are agreements going on morning, noon and night between the delegates. But there are delegates working in the UN who are saying, "You must defeat this movement of the Indian people who are struggling to maintain their own independence and their freedom of existence. You must defeat this movement of the people in the world -- or starve." That is what some of our delegates are saying in the UN.

When it comes to a discussion of peace, it doesn't mean it can't take place inside or outside of the UN, because it is taking place in the hearts of all of us, and it is the greatest opportunity the people of the world have ever had to win the struggle. The people of America above all are in the leading position to bring this about. I will tell you that when I got to Stalingrad, -- and if I said earlier that people who are planning for war should see Warsaw, I think the next meeting of our leaders with the leaders of the Soviet Union should take place in Stalingrad. I think they should see what is left of that dedicated and destroyed land; should see the bravery with which the people are rebuilding another city, not restoring the old city. They are leaving it for future generations to look at. One hundred and fifty square yards, in the middle of Stalingrad, where the

Mrs. Draper
p. 22

battle was fought that saved your life and mine - they
are making it into a beautiful park lined with trees and
flowers in which children can play. There are paths which
take them down to the banks of the Volga, where that brave
army stood with its back to the Volga and won the battle
because - as their general said - "We could not retreat."

That is Stalingrad, building on a new site. It has
400,000 people living there, building another part of the
city around the tractor plant, around a food factory.
They are leaving the center of the city as it is and a new
city is rising from the ashes into the greatest beauty of
peace and victory that you can imagine.

I spoke to a woman who took us to our room in the
hotel. The corridors were wide and the room had been re-
 furnished.

The walls were pale blue and the furniture was
covered with a brilliant yellow material. The woman stood
in front of an alcove where the beds were. Draperies were
of a khaki cloth arranged in a way that gave the room an
architectural wholeness.

She stood there and asked us what we wanted to have
for dinner; asked if we had enough blankets on the bed, if
the bath water was hot, enough熱 if she should turn the
heater again.

She stood there looking at me. I looked
at her and then we moved toward each other. I put my arms
around her and she put her arms around me and I said, "Stalin-
grad is a very heroic city." She said, "Yes, There is enough
heroism in Stalingrad to defeat all the enemies in the world.
Tell the brave American women that they need not fear, to-
gether we can be at peace." So with my arms around you,
I give her words to you -- you brave women of America!

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC.

114 east 32nd street

new york 16, n. y.

murray hill 3-2080

CHAIRMAN
Dr. John A. Kingsbury

SECRETARY
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Richard Morford

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Theodore Bayer
Rev. John W. Darr, Jr.
Muriel Draper
B. Z. Goldberg
Shirley Graham
Dr. Harry Grundfest
Dr. W. A. Hunton
Leo Krzycki
Samuel B. Leavin
Howard McKenzie
George Marshall
Rev. Wm. Howard Melish
Lt. Rev. Arthur W. Moulton
Dr. Henry Noyes
Dr. Emily Pierson
R. A. Resika
Curtis Ritter
Dr. Holland Roberts
Joseph P. Selly
Edwin S. Smith
Jessica Smith
Rev. Wm. B. Spofford
Max Weber

January 31, 1951

Mrs. Muriel Draper
322 East 58 Street
New York, New York

Dear Muriel,

Let me address you this morning as the Chairman of our Committee of Women and make response to that letter of greeting and support which you and other women of the Committee handed me on January 5.

As I told you that evening, when we met, before the receipt of this letter I felt pretty much overwhelmed by the size of the job which we faced here in the Council, our constant financial struggle, and the difficulties of moving forward with less personnel than we should have. But I bucked up fast and took new hold on the situation because of this encouraging letter.

I wish you would let the women know, in whatever way is possible, my gratitude for their pledge of support and cooperation.

You already know what happened ten days later when we needed volunteer service to get out a mailing of seven thousand. Seven of the Committee of Women came through with many hours of service. I put their names down on the volunteer honor roll. I knew this was dangerous but I think the danger has to be risked. Virginia Epstein said she was envious (in the right spirit). She wanted to be on a list like that for she had been going to see you to plan work. I suspect Symie had been doing her part in this same period, as she always does. And probably some others. So, honor to all of you.

I know the thing you will strive to do is to increase the number of those taking part in the work. We dare not follow the line of least resistance and over-extend the few who are always faithful.

We are fortunate in having your leadership and the devoted assistance of all the women.

RM:bc
dpowa 65

246

Memorandum

To : Local Council Leadership

From : Richard Morford, Executive Director

Date : May 27, 1947

## TOWN MEETING OF THE AIR

We did not tell you the entire story the other day concerning the next nationwide broadcast of June 5 in which we know you will be interested. Now the arrangements are complete:

Our national chairman, Rev. William Howard Melish, will join Dr. Jerome Davis, Miss Dorothy Thompson, the columnist, and Father Cardinal, Chicago priest, in the Town Meeting of the Air on Thursday evening, June 5, to be broadcast from Des Moines. The subject is, "Are Christianity and Communism Incompatible?" You will know what time this program is aired in your locality better than we.

This promises to be a significant discussion. We should be glad to have the reaction of the leadership of each Local Council concerning this broadcast and the previous one to which we referred - the American Forum of the Air program this evening, May 27th, in which Dr. Corliss Lamont is participating.

The Denver Council has sent me sample post card, evidently a mailing to all of their constituency, announcing both broadcasts. Several other Councils reported an alerting of their leadership.

## STATEMENT ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

We are pleased to enclose the Statement on American Foreign Policy which we promised. It is in tentative form open to criticism. But within a few days, if we can find the resources necessary, we believe it must be put in printed form for wide distribution.

From this basic text you may wish to draw excerpts for the purposes of presenting a more popular and briefer treatment of the subject. You may think it practicable to present the second section alone, i.e. the three positive peace policy proposals. We felt it best to begin with a substantial document which first presented a compelling analysis and appraisal, followed by the constructive proposals. You will note that the program recommended has been put in the broadest terms. Our concern is with policy at this stage, not specific action. A reorientation of thinking and a different attitude must be brought to bear on American-Soviet relations.

Prepared immediately in simple pamphlet form with self cover, at a price say of $4. to $5. per hundred, perhaps to retail at ten cents - how many could you immediately use? If we can find the money to advance for the printing we may be able to go to press on Monday, June 2nd. Low price is dependent upon high quantity so that we must know the maximum distribution possibilities at once.

Needless to say this has had the closest thought and scrutiny of a great many persons here. While one may have criticism of details or see certain desirable editorial changes, we dare to think that the positions taken are sound. From this base we ought to see our way to a constructive education and action program for the next few months, at least.

# # #

uopwa 19-91

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC.
A. M. Baskin & Co. Street,
New York, N. Y.

May 27, 1947

# A STATEMENT ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

## FOREWORD

It is becoming increasingly evident to a growing number of Americans that things are not going well in the international sphere. The general public is viewing with real apprehension the present stalemate in treaty-negotiation and the obvious deterioration in our reliance upon the United Nations. In many quarters the feeling is prevalent that some dreaded and unwanted conflict cannot be avoided.

Those Americans who have gathered around the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship have been convinced for some years that the real key to peace lies in the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Even at this juncture we are certain that the present impasse is not necessary and can be resolved. We have never resented being called "Friends of the Soviet Union" because the peace and prosperity which are in the best interests of our own beloved country have seemed to us increasingly to depend upon the state of our relations with the Soviet Union, and we have felt a responsibility as private citizens to explore as fully as lay within our power the areas of possible cooperation and friendship.

The time is too far-spent for wanton criticism or continued name-calling. We are less concerned with the mistakes made in the past, by whichever side, than we are concerned with attitudes and steps which at this point can prove helpful and constructive. Out of our own group-thinking we have come to certain convictions which seem to us to provide clues to the present deadlock. We have not come to these positions lightly, nor do we now present them without a deep sense of the extreme gravity of the problems before us and the great difficulty of negotiation between two proud peoples with markedly different systems living in a fear-ridden world in the backwash of two terrible world wars.

We make our proposals under two headings: First, an analysis and appraisal of the current impasse. Second, suggestions for its resolution. We do not pretend to either final or dogmatic conclusions. But as American citizens who have long taken an interest in the Soviet Union and have closely followed American-Soviet relations across the years, we feel under obligation to state our findings for public discussion.

We sincerely and earnestly invite consideration of our points. We shall welcome any serious comment, criticism or suggestion. It would be particularly valuable if study-groups in various sections of the country could use this material, as well as discussion-circles and public forums. The hour is late. The issue cannot be avoided. It must be faced by the thinking of the American people, with that creation of policy which springs from healthy public debate. It is because we feel that things have reached a dangerous impasse, that we are urged to speak.

## THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE: INTERNATIONAL IMPASSE

It is a significant fact bearing upon the present moment in American foreign policy that the Truman Doctrine's wreath of victory is already withering into a crown of thorns. Rarely has a measure of high policy been accepted with such reluctance, and rarely has the campaign oratory for it sounded so hollow.

Although our State Department is diligently at work in preparing its application, not only to Greece but to many other parts of the world, more and more representative voices are being raised to question the fundamental direction of America's course.

Henry Wallace pioneered as a critic of President Truman's proposal to organize the world against the Soviet Union. He said it would not work and would end only in dragging our country into a new isolationism - i.e., it would isolate us from the real world that is struggling to consolidate itself in Europe and Asia, and would serve to make us the most hated nation on earth.

Mr. Wallace has been fiercely attacked. Yet a Republican former governor of Minnesota has returned from an extended trip abroad with a critique of the Truman Doctrine that does not differ from Wallace's in its basic aspects. Like Wallace, Mr. Stassen discovered what Wallace maintained - that the Soviet people and the Soviet leaders desire peace and a long era of cooperation. He returned to disavow the very essence of the Truman Doctrine, while continuing to give it a formal support, he, nevertheless, finds it a "negative doctrine". The emphasis on the military features of the proposal, the stimulation of a civil war in Greece and

-2-

and the probability of further disunity among the Greeks would not, in Mr. Stassen's opinion, add up to anything positive as a world policy.

By an interesting irony, the secretary of state who preceded Mr. Marshall, and who had considerable experience in attempting a "firm" policy toward the Soviet Union, has contributed new reflections on the problem. We have in mind Mr. James F. Byrnes and his private address to the Variety Clubs on May 15 - reported in the *New York Times* three days later.

Mr. Byrnes discovers that "there is too much talk about war and too little talk about peace". He denies that a conflict between the two countries is "inevitable," and asserts his conviction that we can make the peace and we can keep the peace. "Granted the difficulties," he adds, "we can overcome these difficulties."

The former secretary of state then gets to the very heart of the problem when he reminds us that having made it clear to the Soviet Union that it cannot dictate the peace, we "must also realize that the United States cannot dictate the terms of the peace..."

"The allied powers must realize that in their peace negotiations there is no place for a 'take it or leave it' attitude. They must negotiate with each other on terms of equality."

And then, in an unmistakable reference to the Vandenberg-Dulles school of thought and deed, Mr. Byrnes emphasizes that we "are not called upon to sacrifice fundamental principles...but to make wise decisions as to what are principles and what are questions of policy."

From his detached position as a man of experience who does not now share responsibility for American policy, the former secretary warns us against a sterile "perfectionism."

It would be misleading to equate the strong fighting position of Wallace with the reservations of Stassen, and the caution of Byrnes - but they emphasize what most Americans who differ on details do have in common. And that is a profound sense of gnawing doubt, of irresolution, of suspicion that the present policy is getting us nowhere - more quickly than we realize.

Thus the great challenge of our time is still before us - an adequate relationship with the Soviet Union. This we do not have. Until we do, we risk enormous dangers, volatile changes, and abrupt disillusionment that can fritter away the national morale and deprive us of the fruits of acting in our best, long-term interests.

A rapid survey of a few problems confronting us points up these dangers, and demonstrates the importance of a speedy return to that intimate collaboration of the great powers that won for us all a decisive victory over fascism.

Consider, for example, our situation in Germany.

For more than half a year, we have attempted to form a bloc with Britain, and to develop a healthy economy in western and southern Germany which would, on the one hand, threaten the Soviet Union with economic competition and, on the other hand, serve as a model outshining the Soviet performance in its zone.

Where is this policy today?

There is an acute shortage of food in the British sector of the joint administration. The consequence is a serious upheaval among the German population combined with a drastic decrease of its productive capacity, especially as regards all-important coal. In turn this affects France, whose difficult situation could partly be relieved by increased coal production, and partly by the import of grain, so much of which is now being shipped to Germany.

British and American administrators are at loggerheads in the Reich, and the current tendency of British policy is to seek a unilateral understanding with Eastern Europe, especially Poland. A larger Anglo-Soviet understanding is clearly maturing. France is naturally reluctant to become a third partner in the Anglo-American bloc in view of its clear instability.

The British complain that the Bavarian sectors of the American zone are hoarding food; they argue that the United States is impeding the socialization of German resources in the Ruhr, without which no real planning is possible and no satisfaction of the German workers in this region is conceivable.

(here)

-3-

On deeper investigation it turns out that very dubious characters - fundamentally imbued with Nazi ideas - are in control of rural Bavaria with its plenty in foodstuffs; it turns out also that the American opposition to the planning of the German economy in the Ruhr on the basis of nationalization conceals the attempt of major American corporations to step into the British province and control it through a revival and extension of cartel relationships.

It is unlikely that mere administrative agreement, new directives, or even larger wheat shipments from the United States will alter these underlying antagonisms. Neither will the sudden change of American policy from one of coddling the least reliable Germans to frightening them with the use of force have any permanent effects.

The situation in western Germany obviously cries out for two major measures: the obliteration of the economic barriers and a thorough de-nazification of the western zone. That is to say, the treatment of Germany as an economic unit and the transfer of governmental power to those Germans who can command respect by practical anti-fascist measures under an overall great-power surveillance.

Federalism, as understood by our AMG, only intensifies the arrogance of Bavarian reactionaries and encourages them to sabotage the AMG by hoarding food. Exclusive Anglo-American agreements do not stimulate production. They merely generate Anglo-American rivalry. And, instead of saving the American taxpayer funds, or foreshadowing that prosperous effective western bloc which is the present stated objective, more funds and more food must be poured into the Reich, and the bloc is farther away than ever.

The solution is obviously an American-Soviet agreement. For the Russians want economic unity, too. They want a centralized administration by Germans who have proved themselves capable of discharging their obligations. All the Russians ask is their indubitable right to secure reparations either from the physical plant of the western zones (which was promised but not carried out) or from current production (an alternative which was definitely projected at Yalta) or a combination of both.

For the sake of a policy which deliberately rejects this legitimate Soviet right to reparations, the United States is risking a crisis for itself and Britain, while in fact the Soviet zone is going ahead and overcoming its difficulties, de-nazifying the Germans, eliminating the Junker class and expanding production both in agriculture and industry.

A similar story could be told of the situation in Austria. It differs only in that American policy has even more deliberately prevented an agreement which could have opened the way to an Austrian treaty. It is now a matter of record that the Austrian foreign minister, Karl Gruber, was fully prepared at Moscow to reach an agreement with the Soviets on the disposition of German assets in his country over and above those which were taken by force and duress from bona fide Austrian nationals.

The chief obstacle to this settlement was not the Austrian or the Soviet position; it was the unwillingness of the United States to permit a bilateral agreement between Austria and the Soviet Union. The American negotiators could not stomach such an exercise of Austrian sovereignty though they claim in our country to be Austria's staunch defender. Thus, our stubborn anti-Sovietism contradicts our own profession of "containing communism", for it is obvious that an Austrian treaty would bring about a withdrawal of Soviet troops from the entire Danubian basin.

It is possible to show any number of other examples where our policy is running contrary to our own interests. In Korea, after a year of deadlock in which we attempted to back the most discredited exiles such as Syngman Rhee and Kim Koo - both of them representatives of the Korean pro-Japanese collaborators - the AMG is compelled to ban demonstrations inspired by these men on the eve of the resumption of American-Soviet discussions for a united Korean government.

In the United Nations' General Assembly on the Palestine issue, the Soviets took a stand on principle in behalf of independence for Arab Palestine, a logical consequence of which is the ending of the British mandate, a step which is clearly in the American interests. On the other hand, our diplomats took a stand which limited the right of the Jewish Agency to express its views, and then had to reverse this position under the impact of the Soviet behavior. Finally, it was the Soviet Union which argued cogently for a trial of Arab-Jewish cooperation, failing which a Jewish state in an independent Palestine should be attempted. Nothing in this position contradicted the prevailing American sentiments. In reality, the statements of Andrei Gromyko at Lake Success were entirely harmonious with the

(more)

-4-

views often expressed by both the major political parties and the President. Instead of taking advantage of this fact to advance an American-Soviet understanding on the Near East as a whole, our position has been, generously speaking, simple paralysis.

In advancing the Soviet proposal for an immediate convention to outlaw the use of atomic weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Gromyko wants us to put into agreement what the vast majority of American and Soviet citizens believe, namely, that both countries do not intend to use atomic weapons aggressively. The force of such a convention, adopted before the working out of the complicated international controls which must deal with the production of atomic energy for industrial uses as well as military, would clear the air of implied suspicions and threats and strengthen international confidence.

In turn, agreement on this important aspect of big power relations would reflect optimism and enhance cooperation in every other area of international relationships. We believe that the Soviet proposal deserves unjudiced examination leading to agreement.

In the meantime, Mr. Dean Acheson, the outgoing Undersecretary of State, revealed in his Cleveland, Mississippi, speech that the Administration is projecting still more ambitious and drastic attempts to divide the world in two. Now expenditures are being planned for "anti-communist" countries, while an economic blockade will be attempted against the Soviet Union and its so-called sphere. And Germany and Japan are to be rebuilt as speedily as possible.

By contrast, the Soviets have undertaken to discuss the liquidation of the lend-lease balances. One country after another, from behind the so-called iron curtain expresses the desire to expand trade relations with us. And if we do not acknowledge this desire, certainly Britain and other European countries will, for none of these wishes to tie itself to an unstable, ill-defined American antagonism to the rest of the world.

Instead of cooperating in the stabilization of the peace, we are hatch-
ing a number of schemes for partial and temporary recovery of Europe under our
exclusive leadership without the participation of the Soviet Union. Such projects
will prove as illusory as all other schemes in the past to isolate the Soviet
Union. These will surely not yield the expected results but will undermine Ameri-
can leadership among the nations and even risk our isolation. Such are the fruits
of the Truman Doctrine, already ripening. And all this is projected against the
panorama of our own mounting economic difficulties, which can be resolved only by a
restoration of world trade and healthy economic relations with the very countries
we are trying to blockade.

This cursory survey has a simple moral: we are on the wrong road. We
risk costly detours and possible crashes unless we return to the main line of
seeking a settlement of equality with the Soviet people. Time is running out.
The problem is not one of retreat nor a question of abdicating vital interests or
appeasing others. The problem is to advance our vital interests in the only way
that is possible, if peace and stability are really our objectives. Such a truly
American course has yet to be tried. The sooner it is the sooner we shall advance
on that highroad which was charted by the late President Roosevelt and still re-
mains the avenue towards a secure future.

AN AMERICAN POLICY FOR PEACE

We have been talking about a new relationship with the Soviet Union which
shall conform to our present and future interests, a relationship that promises
peace rather than deadlock and degeneration toward war.

The elements of such a program are not to be found primarily in the details of a political settlement. It is obvious that a coalition of democratic Koreans, the formation of a united Chinese government or the cessation of civil war in Greece are detailed and practical aspects of an American-Soviet understanding and to these could be added a whole series of compromises within the Security Council of the United Nations and its various sub-committees.

Fundamentally, however, the problem revolves less around these concrete issues, but centers more on broad policies of an economic and political character, transcending this or that specific question.

(more)

-5-

First, and foremost, is the need for the conscious abandonment of the thesis that the Soviet Union is expanding, that her expansion must be contained, and that every democratic development anywhere in the world is a reflection of this expansion and must, therefore, be fought. Until this thesis is abandoned, there is no way out of our present difficulty, and we remain committed to a tacitly undeclared political and economic war, not only with the Soviet Union, but ultimately with a large majority of the human race.

What has been expanding during and since the war against fascism is not communism but a world-wide tide of new democratic forces, which express themselves differently in each country but share certain features in common. There has been a phenomenal expansion of the concept of nationhood and national independence. It stretches from Indonesia to India to Palestine (among both the Jews and the Arabs) to eastern Europe and across the Atlantic to Puerto Rico and Latin America generally. The idea of democratic republics, each with a more or less managed economy, dedicated to the rapid economic reconstruction of a devastated or backward area, is a feature of this same fundamental trend. The nationalization of basic industries, the reform of outmoded feudal landholding systems, the deliberate elimination of fascist ideas, the extension of trade union organization, and a new concept of workers' responsibility in the discipline of expanding productive forces - such are among the features of the current national independence struggle and the new forms of democratic life now arising and fighting hard to consolidate and perpetuate themselves.

A positive program for America's relationship to the world must be based on a fair recognition of those universal post-war phenomena. The Atlantic Charter principle which acknowledges the right of each nation to determine its own affairs needs to be accepted and practiced by American foreign policy.

With respect to the Soviet Union in particular, this means in essence an acceptance of the principle which the Soviet leaders themselves avow; the perspective of long-term co-existence and co-operation between the two major social systems of our time. In his recent interview with Mr. Stassen, the Soviet premier, Joseph Stalin, affirmed as a guiding principle that the Soviets envisage no fundamental changes in the American way of life, so long as our people endorse and support this way of life. The reciprocal idea has yet to be stated by an American spokesman of equal rank; that we are confident of our own system, confident of the stability of the Soviet system, and fully prepared to submit to history - rather than arms - the outcome of a peaceful competition between the two types of society.

Recognition of this principle of the co-existence of socialism and capitalism, coupled with respect for the self-determination of all peoples now seeking new democratic paths for themselves, must be the foundation-stone of a truly American foreign policy.

A second major requirement is the acceptance of the Soviet Union as a great power and as a partner in world reconstruction just as she was a partner during the war. This means that in place of the idea of world leadership exclusively for the United States, we must substitute American-Soviet leadership, as the fulcrum for the full participation of the other powers such as Britain, France and China. Equality of relationship between us and Russia requires a mutual recognition of pre-eminent security interests. It requires a conscious effort to relate our interests in Europe, the Near East and Asia to those of the Soviet Union. It means a constant effort to resolve the differences which have arisen in the United Nations, such as the problems involved in the establishment of a UN police force, or in the first steps toward atomic disarmament and the control of atomic weapons, or in the composition of a commission investigating disputes on the Greek border. This does not necessarily mean acceptance of the Soviet view; it does mean a recognition that the Soviet Union has a view which we do not consider a priori as antagonistic to ours.

A third and decisive part of an American program relates to our economic policies and calls for the wise use of our enormous economic potential. On the basis of cooperation with the Soviet Union for world stability in the United States has the means for launching a program of loans and investments, the conscious purpose of which should be the building up of a series of stable and prosperous allies, including the Soviet Union, the democracies of Europe and the emerging nations of Asia. It is plain that the countries which will be the most able to repay our loans, to exchange goods with us, and to absorb our own goods are those which will have consolidated their independence, democratized their internal life, and expanded and balanced their economies.

The best customers, as we know from the experience of Canada, are those where industry and agriculture are in a developed balance; those whose income per

(more)

-6-

capita is highest; those which are really producing, not merely living on the meager subsistence of semi-feudal standards.

The conscious purpose of American economic policy ought not to be the retention of unstable, feudal and devastated economies on an American dole, but the stimulation of American exports to the Soviet Union, the new democratic states in Europe and Asia where feudal, monarchical, semi-fascist conditions are being eradicated. For this immense task, men like Henry Wallace have proposed international stabilization loans running to fifteen billion dollars - one-third the cost of the war to us. We have no figures in mind but we know that a greatly expanded trade, and the financing of such trade with the very countries we are now proposing to blockade, would secure for our country an era of prosperity and peace.

In this framework there must be a settlement for Germany and Japan with a double objective: first, to maintain their economic life at a point where they do not constantly need the infusion of American emergency measures; permitting the workshops of Germany and Japan to operate at a high level so long as it does not give them preponderant economic power; and, second, at the same time to place their developed industry in the service of the countries which they ravaged, by reparations over a period of years. This will be possible only with the establishment of reliable anti-fascist governments which reverse the course that German and Japanese history have followed until now. In the deeper sense, it will be possible only if we decide that the differential in economic development between these countries and their neighbors must be changed in favor of their neighbors. Only this gives the hope of a European economic plan or an Asiatic plan that does not revive aggressive tendencies again in Germany and Japan.

With such a program, the existing strains in world affairs can rapidly disappear. Issues may arise but they will be adjudicable. In the rebuilding of a devastated world by such an American-Soviet partnership, the strengthening of both nations will contribute to the security and peace of each.

114 east 32nd street

• new york 16. n. y.

• murray hill 3-2080

CHAIRMAN
Rev. William Howard Molish

TREASURER
Michael Nisselson

VICE-CHAIRMEN
William Morris, Jr.
Dr. Arthur Upham Pope

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Harland Allen
Zlatko Balokovic
Cyril Bath
Theodore Bayer
Mary McLeod Bethune
Harvey Wiley Corbett
John O. Crane
Muriel Draper
B. Z. Goldberg
Thomas L. Harris
Raymond C. Ingersoll
Philip J. Jaffe
Leon Kroll
Leo Krzycki
Corliss Lamont
Samuel B. Leavin
William L. McFetridge
Howard McKenzie
George Marshall
John Middleton
Saul Mills
Dr. Emily Pierson
Rev. Adam Clayton Powell
Joseph P. Solly
M. B. Sherman
Herman Shumlin
Dr. Henry E. Sigerist
Edwin S. Smith
Jessica Smith
Dr. Vilhjelmur Stefansson
Craig Vincent
Hudson Walker

Essex-Union County Council of American-Soviet Friendship
45 Clinton St., Room 604, Newark 2, New Jersey
Mitchell 2-8604

January 27, 1947

Mrs. Muriel Draper
322 East 58th St.
New York, N. Y.

Dear Muriel:

The repercussions of our Luncheon this past Saturday are so substantially good that I felt I must share some of this with you. For instance I was told they were impressed by the fact that this was not a mass luncheon, but rather a select work group, and that they felt the responsibility all the more strongly because of it.

Apparently we were able to give the Affair a positive feeling rather than one of disappointment because of the comparatively small turnout. I am happy about that. As you so very well said, "If we are to accomplish anything in the field of American-Soviet friendship we must begin on the other side of fear".

I promise you Muriel that spurred by people like yourself none of us can help but begin at the point you indicate.

Believe me that I have gained a tremendous amount of encouragement and feel the deepest fondness personally for your magnificent being. To say thankyou is so little.

RMF:ez
uopwa/7
enc.