April 21, 1952

Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
Widener 95
Harvard University

Dear Professor Schlesinger:

On the telephone the other day I promised to give you an outline of the trend of our articles for the second and third issues and also of my ideas for any article you might consent to write. The topic is as you know: Is the Democratic Method Still Adequate for the Solution of Contemporary Problems? We have lined up the following American contributors:

**Don Price** writes on the relationship of democratic theory to the institutions of both Continental and Anglo-Saxon democracy.

**Red Somers** examines the roles of the late President and his relationship to Congress.

**Eliot Janeway** discusses economic mobilization problems in a democracy.

**H. van Buren Cleveland** applies the problem to international relations.

I feel that we sorely need a historian's viewpoint and particularly an article on the impact of the New Deal on the American political scene and the transformation it has brought about. I had hoped that your schedule might permit doing an article of about 3 to 4,000 words along the lines of your book review in the *New York Times*. Could you let me know whether you will find it possible to do so by July 1? Could you give me your answer on this as soon as possible please?

Our next topic will be: The Social Role of Philosophy and Art. Do you have any suggestions for possible contributors?

HAK:jwm

September 29, 1952

Professor A. M. Schlesinger, Jr.
109 Irving Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Schlesinger:

I am writing to you today to follow up our meeting of the Editorial Board of CONFLUENCE in July. As you will remember, the problems discussed ranged from those of circulation and subscription, about which Miss Carney has since written to you, to those involving the more editorial questions of contributors, topics, and the like. My purpose in this letter is to elaborate more fully on the latter part of our discussion and to ask your advice and help accordingly.

To take the most immediate problem. We are now preparing a topic for CONFLUENCE to be carried on through two or three issues on "The Diffusion of Ideologies". We are using the enclosed statement of the problem by Raymond Aron as the nucleus of the discussion and are submitting copies of his statement to various possible contributors. I believe we can count on a satisfactory number of manuscripts for consideration from abroad. As yet, I cannot be as confident about a number of articles reflecting the American point of view.

May I ask you, after reading M. Aron's statement, to advise me of any possible American contributors on this topic? I would not expect that any of our contributors cover all four points outlined on Pages 4 and 5 but rather concentrate on one or two and illustrate them with concrete examples. What I have in mind is a discussion of the diffusion of ideologies together with the sociological and theoretical conditions for it. The discussion would of course involve the whole concept of Point Four as well as an analysis of the apparently great attractiveness of Communism in many areas. I should like, if possible, to include articles from contributors in various fields— economics, sociology, political science, etc. I am enclosing additional copies of M. Aron's article to distribute should you know of a possible contributor.

dissertation should know of a boaspep contrapor.
science, etc. I am encducting additional copies of M. Vrou's article to
from contrapora in airone (fripa—economis, acrofoga), boffier
Commentam in und areas. I should like, it boaspep, to include artifices
born as well as an surface of the abseruily great attractiveness of
it. The discussion would of course involve the whole concept of boas
ideofoges together with the acrofoget and theoretical conditions for
create examples. What I have in mind is a discussion of the discussion of
and 2 put rather concentrate on one or two and illmitrate them with cou-
dist and of our contrapora cover all tom boars outlined on page 4
ot and boaspep American contrapora on fire copy? I would not expect
My I ask you, after reading M. Vrou's article, to advise me
tracing the American point of view.

aprox. Vs def. I cannot be so confident spont a number of artifices re-
we can comf on a satisfactory number, ot numerics for consideration from
writing copies of life statement to airsonn boaspep contripora. I believe
the problem is Raymond Vrou as the models of the discussion and are ap-
"The Discussion of Ideofoges". We are making the enclosed statement of
to do for CONFERENCE to be carried on through two or three fames on
To take the most immediate problem. We are now preparing a
best of our discussion and to ask you advice and help accordingly.

My boaspep in fire letter is to elaborate more fully on the letter.
the more editorial directions of contripora, fabrics, and the like.
spont which I have carried out since written to you, to those involving
problems discussed ranged from those of discussion and superciption,
Efficacy Berg of CONFERENCE in July. Vs you will remember, the
I am writing to you today to follow my meeting of the

Dear Professor Schaefer:

Comrippe, Messrsmett
TOG Ingraham Street
Professor V. M. Schaefer, Jr.

September, 1925

Professor Schlesinger, Jr.

-2-

September 29, 1952

The problem which I have encountered in securing American contributors to write on "The Diffusion of Ideologies" illustrates one of our most serious difficulties — one on which I should also like to ask your advice. Up to now, we have approached most of our contributors on an ad hoc basis and usually from our immediate circle of acquaintances. If CONFLUENCE is to realize its potentialities, we will have to broaden its base, however. I would be very grateful for any names you could suggest to me of people who might be interested in writing for us. If we could build up a group of possible contributors from various fields, we could then call on them when a topic is contemplated for CONFLUENCE which is in their field of interest.

We also have another problem of a similar type. As was discussed at the Board meeting, we hope to develop a book review section in the near future. Here again, I feel we can count on a number of interested Europeans but we lack the necessary contact with Americans who might be willing to contribute. I would like to develop a number of informal correspondents who call our attention to significant articles, significant books, and significant publications together with a brief critical appraisal. In each issue, we hope to review two or three books, each book to be reviewed by one American and one European.

As I have indicated, our most immediate problem is obtaining American contributors on the problem of "The Diffusion of Ideologies". In order that all articles may be submitted to M. Aron for a concluding statement, we will need to have our American contributors lined up within the very near future. Could I, therefore, ask to hear from you on this as soon as possible?

On the general problem of American contributors to future topics and the book review section, the editorial deadline is not as imminent. However, we are most anxious to move ahead quickly here, too. I shall greatly appreciate any advice you may care to give.

HAK:ms
Encs.

September 11, 1952

Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
Department of History
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

109 Irving Street

Dear Professor Schlesinger:

I want to thank you so very much for all your suggestions. I have written to Mr. Williams and Dr. Niebuhr, and we are adding the four names you gave us to our present circulation list. When Mr. Kissinger returns in a couple of weeks he will have your letter with the names of the historians you suggested.

Since I wrote to you it has been decided to start the direct mail campaign at a later date - as yet undetermined - so fortunately we will not have to try to get all that work done this month.

With best wishes, I remain

Marie R. Carney

With best wishes, I remain

Dear Professor Schlesinger:

Cambridge, Massachusetts
Harvard University
103 Irving Street

Department of History
Professor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

September 11, 1933

August 21, 1952

Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
109 Irving Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Schlesinger:

Now that the minutes of the recent meeting of the Advisory Board have been mimeographed, I am able to send you a copy which you may keep.

Several of the members were unable to come, and in sending them copies I am at the same time enlisting their aid in furnishing us suggestions on the problem of circulation. Our recently-acquired underwriting takes care of many expenses, but not that of publishing costs, and in order to meet that most vital item we must raise money through subscriptions in this country now, and possibly later in Europe. We have a nucleus of about 2,000 names of individuals and institutions in the United States who have received the first two issues free. They will also receive the third issue, but we will have to enclose a mailing piece with a subscription blank attached.

One of the first problems is to get outside lists. We have the promise of subscription lists of three magazines - Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, and Sewanee Review - and a few hundred names of personal friends of one of our writers which looks quite promising. Several of our friends here at Harvard are helping us to secure other lists, but we are not finding it easy to get names of persons with the broad intellectual interests that would include a keen appreciation of such an international forum as CONFLUENCE.

Would you have any suggestions of groups or sources which might have the sort of mailing list that we could use? We are today writing to Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the World Peace Foundation and the United Council on World Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Yale Review.

We hope to acquire 15,000 to 20,000 names some time in September, so that we can tie in direct mail with the publication of the third issue early in the month.

Now that we have passed the first hurdles and we see from the response from Europe how great a need CONFLUENCE is filling, we feel that we must put every effort possible into continuing its operation. Its value in providing a means of expression is evident every day - from the mail that comes in and from the response in other forms: in foreign reviews, from visitors, and by the interest passed on through the members of our International Seminar. I would be very happy to answer whatever questions you may have on this, and on our part we would be very grateful for any suggestions that you could give us.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

December 3, 1952

Dear Henry:

I am replying very belatedly to your letter
of September 30th. I doubt whether these
suggestions will now be of any use; but here
goes.

For the fundamentalist liberal answer to Aron,
I would suggest William O. Douglas, Bob Na-
than, or David Lilienthal. For a more soph-
isticated defense of Point Four J. K. Galbraith,
Max Ascoli, or Jonathan Bingham (Deputy Direc-
tor of the Point Four program). For a real-
istic discussion of the capacity of the under-
developed peoples to develop themselves without
social convulsion, Munoz-Marin, the Governor
of Puerto Rico. For an intellectual dis-
cussion of the point on Aron's own level, Adolf
Berle. For a grotesque exaggeration of the
Aron thesis, James Burnham. For a sophisticated
statement of the Marxist viewpoint, Paul Baran
of Stamford.

Mr. Henry Kissinger
10 Weld Hall

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

December 9, 1952

Dear Henry:

Here are some off-the-cuff suggestions on the three topics:

1. **Conservatism:** for a defense of socially responsible conservatism August Heckscher of the *New York Herald Tribune*; Representative Clifford Case of New Jersey; Peter Viereck; Thomas Cook of Johns Hopkins; Raymond English of Kenyon College; Clinton Rossiter of Cornell. For a defense of conservatism as "liberalism" (in the European sense) Felix Morley, Representative Frederick Coudert of New York, John Chamberlain; for neo-fascism, James Burnham; for liberal attacks on conservatism, Sidney Hook, Max Lerner, Bob McCloskey.

2. **Race Relations:** it is hard to get a new angle here, and you have probably already considered the usual run of names -- Horace Cayton (radical Negro); Hodding Carter (liberal in conservative south); Lillian Smith (liberal southerner). For a pragmatic approach you might try Professor Joseph Lohman of the University of Chicago, a man who has been responsible for ending segregation in a number of touchy situations and is now active as a member of a Department of the Interior Committee to end segregation in the District of Columbia; Earl Brown, the Negro member of the New York City Council, might be worth consulting.

3. **Press and the campaign:** James Wechsler of the *New York Post* can give the best statement of the role of the wire services in weighting the play of news. James Reston and Louis Lyons could give balanced discussions of the role of the press. For an all-out defense of the press, I would suggest August Heckscher or J. Russell Wiggins of the *Washington Post*. You might also consider Irving Dilliard of the *St. Louis Post Dispatch* and Mark Ethridge or Barry Bingham of the *Louisville Courier-Journal*.

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Weld Hall

DEC 11 1952

# THE AMERICAN WITCH-HUNT: MYTH OR REALITY?

The image of America in Europe has become increasingly in recent months the image of a land in panic -- a land where police and government vie with each other in the extermination of dissent, where the unorthodox dare not open their mouths or commit their thoughts to paper, and where the pursuit of Communists has led to a wholesale assault on the freedom, not just of expression or of opposition, but of thought itself. Of course, this image is not new; for years, it has been the stock picture of the United States ground out by the Communist propaganda mills. Yet today many non-Communists and anti-Communists, trying to make out the shape of things on the other side of the Atlantic, have been forced to the disquieting conclusion that this picture may not, after all, be entirely false. And no one, however pro-American, can contend, for example, that Senator McCarthy and Senator McCarran are simply the ingenious inventions of Communist propaganda.

How is the fair-minded European to evaluate the so-called "witch hunt" in America? How is he to assess the McCarran Act and the operations of Senator McCarthy and the investigations of the universities and the other manifestations of American alarm and fear so generously reported in the European press? Is this the youthful, brutal exuberance of democracy? Or does it mean that the United States is starting down the long, dark road to conformity and repression?

is starting down the long, dark road to consumerism and repression.

Driftless experience of democracy? Or does it mean that the United States
are generally reported in the European press? Is it the 'bent,'
universities and the other manifestations of American alarm and fear
the operations of Senator McCarthy and the investigations of the
"switchboard" in America? How is he to assess the McCarthy Act and
How is the latter-minded European to evaluate the so-called
unmitigated PROBANGS.

and Senator McCarthy are simply the inventions of Com-
even pro-American, can contend, for example, that Senator McCarthy
this picture may not, after all, be entirely false. And we one, how-
of the Atlantic, have been forced to the diabolizing conclusion that
Communists, trying to make out the shape of things on the other side
Communist PROBANGS miff. Yet today many non-Communists and anti-
has been the stock picture of the United States Ground out by the
of thought itself. Of course, this image is not new: for years, it
assault on the freedom, not that of expression or of objection, but
toiber, and where the benefit of Communists has led to a wholesale
the morthbox are not open their mouths or commit their thoughts
erment die with each other in the extermination of dissent, where
months the image of a fand in benino -- a fand where police and gov-

THE AMERICAN FITCH-HUNT: MYTH OR MYTHORITY?

- 2 -

To answer these questions it is first necessary to ascertain the
facts of what has happened in the United States and to place these
facts in their proper context. The "witch hunt", of course, has been
motivated by concern over the activities of Communists -- a fact
which immediately suggests the loaded character of the phrase "witch
hunt." Whatever else may be said about Communists, it can hardly be
denied that they exist -- a fact which differentiates them markedly
from witches. Nor can it be denied that Soviet Communism seeks to ex-
tend its power wherever it can; or that it regards the United States
as the main obstacle to its hopes of world "revolution"; or that its
agents have already done demonstrable and grievous harm to American
national safety. The theft of atom bomb secrets by Soviet spies was,
unfortunately, no illusion; Klaus Fuchs and Allan Nunn May were not
figments of the capitalist imagination; and the Rosenbergs, though
their sentence may have been excessive, were found guilty of espionage
on convincing evidence after a full and fair trial.

Such matters obviously imposed on the American government the
duty of taking reasonable measures in its own self-protection in the
years after the war. At the same time, these matters inevitably fo-
cussed the attention, and the anxiety, of the American people upon
the activities of the American Communist party. Now the official
measures and the popular anxiety should properly be proportioned to
the nature of the threat; and, in this connection, one fact is too
often overlooked by European critics of the United States -- that is,
the striking and decisive difference between the American Communist
party and the Communist parties on the mainland of Europe,

party and the Communist parties on the mainland of Europe, the striking and decisive difference between the American Communist Party and the European parties is that it is a party of the working class and, in this connection, one that is too measures and the popular anxiety should properly be proportioned to the activities of the American Communist party. Now the official view of the American Communists is that the anxiety of the American people should be left to the attention of the party, and the anxiety of the American people should be left to the attention of the party. At the same time, these matters inevitably lead to the taking of reasonable measures in its own self-protection in the such matters obviously imposed on the American Government by our convincing evidence after a full and fair trial.

their sentence may have been excessive, were found guilty of sabragements of the capitalist imagination; and the consequences, though unfortunately, no ill-fated war and Allenby May were not national safety. The theft of atom bomb secrets by Soviet agents was, as the main objective of itsRobes of world "revolution" or that it should end its power wherever it can; or that it regains the United States from witches. Nor can it be denied that Soviet Communism seeks to exonerate that they exist -- a fact which differentiates them markedly from Communists." Whatever else may be said about Communists, it can hardly be which immediately suggests the loaded character of the phase "with which motivated dy concern over the activities of Communists -- a fact

- 5 -

- 3 -

The Italian or Frenchman who thinks of the American Communist
in terms of his own Communist neighbors is making a fundamental
error. The American Communist party has never been a party in the
same sense as the Italian and French Communist parties. It has
never had a mass membership. It has never been woven into the normal
political fabric. In consequence, it has always been essentially,
not a parliamentary party, but a conspiratorial apparatus -- and
this despite the fact that there have been through most of its ex-
istence no legal bars to Communist political activity.

The Italian or the French situation thus provide no analogy.
The mass Communist parties of Italy or France include a wide slice
of the population -- the shop steward in the factory, the barber down
the street, journalists and farmers, teachers and politicians. To
keep this mass membership, the party has had to make concessions to
national feeling, even to sentiments of patriotism. Many who vote
the Communist ticket in Italy or France today do so for national
reasons. In case of an armed Russian invasion, they would resist
alongside Socialists and conservatives. The Communist party is
thus a plausible party, imposing no blatant choice between one's
own nation and the Soviet Union, discharging local administrative
responsibilities and taking its place in the national parliament.
Its underground activities are well hidden. In a sense, it has be-
come an accepted part of the national life.

The American Communist party has never been anything like that.
Even at the depth of the Great Depression, it never had more than
80,000 members -- a drop in the water in a nation of 150,000,000.
It never could develop a mass base; and it quickly despaired of

It never could develop a mass party and it quicklyrophed its
80,000 members -- a drop in the water in a nation of 120,000,000.
Even at the depth of the Great Depression, it never had more than
The American Communist party has never been anything like that.
come an accepted part of the national life.

Its underground activities were well known. In a sense, it has been
reasonable activities and taking its place in the national parliament.
own nation and the Soviet Union, disapproving local administrative
time a definite party, imposing no distinct choice between one's
foreign Socialists and conservatives. The Communist party is
reasons. In case of an armed Russian invasion, they would resist
the Communist ticket in Italy or France today do so for national
national feeling, even to sentiments of patriotism. Many who vote
keep this mass membership, the party has had to make concessions to
the street, journalists and farmers, teachers and politicians. To
of the population -- the shop steward in the factory, the purger down
The mass Communist parties of Italy or France include a wide slice
The Italian or the French situation these provide no anology.

fiance no legal party to Communist political activity.
this despite the fact that there have been through most of its ex-
not a parliamentary party, put a constitutional appendix -- and
political fabric. In consequence, it has always been essentially,
never had a mass membership. It has never been woven into the normal
same sense as the Italian and French Communist parties. It has
error. The American Communist party has never been a party in the
in terms of its own Communist neighbors in making a fundamental
The Italian or Frenchman who thinks of the American Communist

- 3 -

(50)

- 4 -

making its way through political and parliamentary methods. Accordingly, it dedicated itself to achieving influence through conspiracy. Its members disguised their loyalties and sought to steal into other institutions -- political parties, or trade unions, or progressive organizations -- and to triumph there by intrigue and manipulation. In other countries, deceit has been one of the Communist weapons; in the United States, it has been the exclusive weapon.

This is why Americans have not been able to look on their native Communists with the same tolerance with which some Italians or Frenchmen look on their Communists; for in America Communism has been known only as the instrument of conspiracy, and its operations have been synonymous with subversion and treachery. Of all Communist parties, it is the American which perhaps has best fulfilled the definition given by the late British Socialist, Harold J. Laski. "The Communist parties outside Russia," Laski wrote in 1948, "act without moral scruples, intrigue without any sense of shame, are utterly careless of truth, sacrifice, without any hesitation, the means they use to the end they serve. . . . The only rule to which the Communist gives unswerving loyalty is the rule that a success gained is a method justified. The result is a corruption, both of the mind and of the heart, which is alike contemptuous of reason and careless of truth."

Given the character of the American Communist party the government had no choice after the war but to remove Communists as speedily as possible from the federal service. At the same time, the trade unions began to rid themselves of the secret Communist functionaries who had sought to infiltrate and control them. The independent progressives set up Americans for Democratic Action, an organization of

Expresses set up Americans for Democratic Action, an organization of
who had sought to influence and control them. The independent pro-
unions began to rise themselves of the secret Communist organizations
weভেp from the federal service. At the same time, the trade
ment had no choice after the war but to remove Committees as speedily
Given the character of the American Communist party the Soviet-
party, which is alike contentious of reason and carelessness of truth,
quantified. The result is a corruption, both of the mind and of the
unwerving loyalty is the rule that a success gained in a method
the end they serve. . . The only rule to which the Committee gives
of truth, accuracy, without any relaxation, the means they use to
emphasize, intrinsically, any sense of fame, the utter carelessness
batteries outside the media." In fact, wrote in 1948, "not without moral
Given by the late British socialist, Herbert J. L. Laski." The Committee
If the American which deserves has best fulfilled the definition
anywhere with supervision and treachery. Of all Communist parties,
only as the instrument of conspiracy, and its observations have been
men took on their Committees: for in American Communists have been known
Committees with the same tolerance with which some Illinois or French
that is why Americans have not been able to look on their native
the United States, it has been the exclusive weapon.
In other countries, decades have been one of the Communist season in
organizations -- and to triumph there is intangible and manipulation.
Institutions -- political parties, or trade unions, or progressive
Ita memora distinguished their loyalties and sought to steal into either
dunkly, if dedicated itself to achieving influence through conspiracy,
making it way through political and parliamentary methods. Vice-

(C)

- 5 -

New Dealers which excluded Communists from membership and tried to awaken liberals to the perils of collaboration with Communists.

Because the Communists had operated as an underground conspiracy adn not as an open political party, the job of identifying and exposing them was not easy. The fact of Communist secrecy inevitably raised doubts, created ambiguities and required systems of interrogation and detection. Demagogues saw opportunities in the already confused and anxious atmosphere. The conviction of Alger Hiss in 1950 fostered in the minds of more susceptible Americans the notion that the Communist conspiracy was not only invisible but also omnipresent, if not omnipotent. Senator McCarthy, making his first appearance as an anti-Communist crusader directly after the second Hiss trial, played upon these fears and anxieties with demonic skill.

The serious anti-Communism of President Truman, General Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, Walter Reuther, David Dubinsky, and others was thus paralleled by the demagogic anti-Communism of McCarthy and McCarran. Basically McCarthy was perhaps no more anti-Communist than the Communists themselves had been anti-fascist; he would have little more difficulty in signing up with Malenkov than Stalin himself had with signing up with Hitler. For McCarthy anti-Communism was simply the best issue with which to confuse and frighten the electorate and to whip up hysteria against the Truman administration. When the American commitment to the Korean War after June 1950 intensified national anxieties, a flock of local demagogues sprang up in McCarthy's footsteps, each seeking in his own community to use the natural fear of Communism as a pretext to stamp out all forms of liberal or dissenting opinion.

If general or dissenting opinion,

the natural fear of Communism as a pretext to stamp out all forms of
hat in McCarthy's Tossebehe, each seeking in his own community to use
penitiated national anxieties, a clock of local demagogues among

When the American commitment to the Korean War after June 1920 in-
sultate and to which pretexts against the Truman administration,
was simply the best issue with which to continue and strengthen the evo-
cement had with signing up with Hitler. On McCarthy anti-Communism
little more difficulty in signing up with Mayenkov than with Stalin him-
than the Communists themselves had been anti-Communist. We would have
McCarthy. Basically McCarthy was bereavement no more anti-Communist
was thus bereaved by the demographic anti-Communism of McCarthy and
Power, Albert Stevenson, Walter Reuther, David Duglass, and others.

The series anti-Communism of President Truman, General Ries-
trat, blazed down these taxes and anxieties with demographic skill.

ance as an anti-Communist crusader directly after the second Hie
present, if not omniscient. Senator McCarthy, making his first appearance
that the Communist conspiracy was not only impossible but also omni-
1920 tested in the mind of more successful American the notion
concluded and auxilia atmosphere. The conviction of Viger Hies in
rogation and detection. Demagogues saw others' anxieties in the直接
raked clouds, created amorphities and required exiles of inter-
acting them was not easy. The fact of Communist security inevitably
is not as an open political party, the top of identifying and ex-
because the Communists had operated as an underground conspiracy
awaken lipopolis to the benefits of collaboration with Communists.

New Dealers which excluded Communists from membership and tried to
swallow lipopolis to the benefits of collaboration with Communists.

- 2 -

- 6 -

There can be little question but that this assault on liberalism was McCarthy's basic objective. But it is of no little importance that he could never so describe it -- that it could never become his avowed goal. If McCarthy had tried to rouse the country on the claim that there were 205 (or 80 or 57) liberals in the State Department, he would have been laughed out of court. He has been obliged to speak always in terms of Communists; and, if he has often succeeded in blurring the distinction between Communists and liberals, it is sometimes because certain liberals had themselves too often refused to make a clearcut distinction in the past. For all the ingenuity and ruthlessness with which he has sought to sideswipe liberals, McCarthy's crusade has commanded what popular following it has as a crusade, not against liberals, but against Communists.

It would be foolish to underestimate the successes of McCarthy and his imitators. They have cruelly smeared and slandered many good Americans; jobs have been lost, and reputations destroyed, and innocent men driven to suicide. They have diminished the free expression of opinion which has always been America's pride. Through America today men are less inclined to think boldly and speak without fear lest their words cause McCarthy, or some local equivalent, to denounce them as pro-Communist. University professors, ministers, politicians, journalists have all be intimidated by these fears and pressures. And the McCarthy clamor has increased in shrillness and stridency while the actual political threat of Communism in the United States has shrivelled up to nothingness.

United States has Privileged to me nothingness.

Attribution while the actual political threat of Communism in the
decades. And the McCarthy era has increased in severity and
barriers. Journalists have all be intimated by these terms and
nounce them as pro-Communist. University professors, ministers,
last their words cause McCarthy, or some local equivalent, to de-
to day men are less inclined to think fairly and speak without fear
of opinion which he always been America's pride. Through American
consist men driven to suicide. They have diminished the tree expression
Americana: logs have been felled, and reputations destroyed, and inno-
and his imitators. They have erroneously measured and slanted many good
It would be left to underestimatethe success of McCarthy
campaign, not against Liberals, but against Communists.

McCarthy's campaign was popular following it has as a
and influence with which he has sought to sideWIpe Liberals. Mo-
to make a clearcut distinction in the past. For all the indigent-
sometimes because certain Liberals had themselves too often refused
to pinning the distinction between Communists and Liberals. It is
shock always in some of Communists! and, if he has often succeeded
he would have been laughed out of court. He has been edited to
that there were 502 (or 80 or 25) Liberals in the State Department,
evolved so. It McCarthy had tried to name the country on the claim
that he could never so describe it -- that it could never become his
was McCarthy's base of objective. But it is of no little importance
There can be little question put that this accident on liberdies

- 7 -

I need not rehearse these wretched facts in detail; they have
been fully reported in the European press. But I would suggest that
it would be equally foolish to overestimate the successes of McCarthy;
for these successes are very far from constituting the whole story.
The whole story must allow for the other side of the picture: that is,
for the American opposition to McCarthy. This side of the story,
lamentably, has been largely ignored in Europe.

The impression exists in Europe that McCarthy has carried all be-
fore him. I sometimes wonder whether the source of this impression
does not lie in the picture of the United States which still lingers
in the back of the minds of Europeans who have never been there --
the picture of a frightened, conformist nation, shadowed with violence
and dominated by ruthless capitalists, the picture created by the
novels of Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser, of Upton Sinclair and
Jack London. McCarthy himself, a real Dashiell Hammett hood, backed
by the Babbitts of Lewis and the sinister businessmen of Sinclair,
could quite easily seem to symbolize a situation straight out of *The
Iron Heel*. It is no wonder that to men brought up on this literary
picture of America, the McCarthy reign of terror should seem all too
natural; they thought it was taking place already.

It really should not be necessary to point out that all this
writing describes America before it was fundamentally transformed by
the New Deal, and that some of it, like the novels of Sinclair and
London and Dreiser, go back half a century. Listen to Upton Sinclair
today:

> I have no hesitation in saying to the people of Britain
> that the conditions of the working people of America
> have enormously improved during the past half century.

have enormously improved during the past few years.
that the conditions of the working people of America
I have no realization in asking to the people of Britain

today.

Ponson and Dietzen. Go pack up a country. Listen to Upton Stinefair
the New Deal, and that some of it, like the novels of Stinefair and
writing describes America before it was fundamentally transformed by
it really should not be necessary to point out that all this
natural: they thought it was taking place already.

Picture of America, the McCarthy reign of terror should seem all too
Iron Hard. It is no wonder that men prospect us on this literally
cold, quite easily, seem to anticipate a situation straight out of the
way the Red Scare of Lewis and the Minister phenomenology of Stinefair,
Jack London. McCarthy himself, a real Davidoff Humanist proof, packed
novels of Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser, of Upton Stinefair and
and dominated by ruthless arbitrariness, the picture creates the
the picture of a trifled, concomitant nation, subordinated with reference
in the pack of the minds of Europeans who have never been there --

does not lie in the picture of the United States which still lingers
to this day. I sometimes wonder when the source of this impression
The impression exists in Europe that McCarthy has carried all pe-
 implemented, has been far too strongly imputed in Europe.

for the American opposition to McCarthy. This side of the story.

The whole story must allow for the other side of the picture: that is,
for these successes are very far from constituting the whole story.

It would be equally likely to overestimate the success of McCarthy
been fully reported in the European press. But I would suggest that
I need not reiterate these抹red facts in detail; they have

- 7 -

- 8 -

As it happens, I recently made this statement in a talk which was broadcast by the 'Voice of America' to the people of Germany and other European countries. I mentioned that my old books were being used behind the Iron Curtain for the purpose of deceiving the people of those countries by making them believe that the conditions described in those old books were the conditions which existed in the United States at the present time. . . . [These books] told the truth, and I have no apology to make for them on that score. They reached millions of people, and I am sure they had a great deal to do with the changes which have occurred in our country since that time; changes which so far as concerns the working classes are all for the better.

It is more than a literary tragedy that no one has recorded the post-New Deal America -- the America of social security and full employment and organized labor and increasing equality of opportunity -- in novels sufficiently vivid and memorable to supplant Lewis and Sinclair and London in the European mind. For, when set in the context of post-New Deal America, McCarthy is far morememmed in by various forms of countervailing social power than he would have been a generation ago.

Yet the impression of his invincibility has been further strengthened in Europe by testimony from a special source -- from certain self-pitying American liberals -- the *Nation* magazine can serve as an example -- who write as if a person bold enough to criticize McCarthy was virtually inviting a lynch mob. "The dangers that face us," declared Miss Kirchway, the editor of the *Nation* in an issue devoted to the state of freedom in the United States, "are no greater and essentially no different from those facing a soldier in battle."

This incredible statement roused the liberal journalist Richard H.

This incredible statement roused the federal journalist Richard R.
easefullly no different from those talking a soldier in battle."

to the state of freedom in the United States, are no greater and
classed Miss Kirtley, the editor of the *Huffington* in an famous devoted
was automatically inviting a lunch mod. "The dangers that face us," he-
example -- who writes as it a personجد so enough to criticize McCann
self-righting American liberal -- the *Washng* magazine can serve as an
shaped in Europe by testimony from a special source -- from certain

Yet the impression of his invicibility has been further strengthened
a generation ago.

Various forms of counteracting social power than we would have been
fear of host--New Deal America, McCarthy is far more dangerous in Dr.
Stevenson and London in the European mind. "Not" when set in the con-
fronts sufficiently valid and memorable to subvert Lewis and

ment and organized fation and increasing equality of opportunity.

New Deal America -- the America of social security and full employment.

It is more than a fitterly far-right that no one has recorded the best-

concerns the working classes are all for the better,
country since that time; changes which so far as
of before, and I am sure they had a great deal to
make for them on that score. They reached millions
picks, told the truth, and I have no objection to
United States at the present time. . . . [These
old picks were the conditions which existed in the
to them believe that the conditions described in those
decalsing the people of those countries by making
need pending the Iron Chain for the purpose of
takes. I mentioned that my old picks were being
to the people of Germany and other European com-
talk which we broadcast on the 'Voice of America'
As it happens, I recently made this statement in a

- 8 -

Rovero to the following comment:

Essentially no different? Well, it may take a certain amount of moral courage to denounce McCarthy in New York in 1952 (though I, for one, have been doing it pretty consistently and have found it no more taxing or dangerous than drinking my morning coffee), but for the Editor of the Nation to compare her peril and that of her unenlisted readers to that of a soldier under fire seems to me to betray a grossness of feeling and a willingness to bandy words that dishonors her profession and mine.

Far from McCarthy's exercising such a sway that no one dare speak up against him, the list of his critics begins -- or began until January 20th of this year -- with the name of the President of the United States. Harry S. Truman made no secret of his contempt for McCarthy and expressed it, publicly and privately, again and again. "Slander, lies, character assassination -- these things are a threat to every single citizen everywhere in this country. When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril." Is this some brave and beleaguered Nation subscriber risking safety and livelihood by defying McCarthy? No, it was the President speaking in 1951 before the American Legion, that alleged stronghold of American fascism.

Where the President of the United States would lead, it is safe to assume that there are plenty of people ready to follow. The greatest newspaper in the nation, the *New York Times*, has been consistently and outspokenly anti-McCarthy; so, indeed, has most of the press. One of the most popular plays in New York today is Arthur Miller's *The Crucible*, a play which draws obvious (and, in my judgment,

Miller's *The Grapes* a dark vision draws opinions (and, in my judgment, dress). One of the most sobering pages in New York today is Vroom.

stupidly and outofcharacter anti-McCarthy; so, indeed, was most of the greatest newspaper in the nation, the *New York Times*, but been con- to assume that there are plenty of people ready to follow. The where the President of the United States would feed, it is said of American citizens.

speaking in 1921 before the American Legion, that affected strongly that he should have defined McCarthy. No, it was the President before he had said that he did not think McCarthy should be allowed to speak to him.

Is this some grave and deplorable *Writen* subscriber making a deal to start his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in when even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced to be a threat to every single citizen everywhere in this country. And again, "Stinger"'s character assassination -- these things seem to McCarthy and expressed it, explicitly and privately, again of the United States. Harry S. Truman made no secret of his concern about him against him, the flat of his critics begins -- on pages from McCarthy's exercising and a few that no one can do

protestation and mine. And a willingness to punch holes that diabolical per- under the seems so me to penalty a grossness of feeling that of her unrelenting leaders to that of a soldier for the Editor of the *Wash* to compare per hell and on dangerous ground drinking with morning coffee), put breath coconsistently and have longed it no more talking York in 1925 (strongly I, for one, have been going it amount of money to generate McCarthy in New York City no different! Well, it may take a cent!

Revere to the following comments:

- 6 -

- 10 -

quite misleading) parallels between the Salem witch hunt of the 17th century and the situation today; and one of the most popular movies is the Italian film, *The World of Don Camillo*, which, according to the European theory of America, should have been banned or mobbed because it depicts a Communist as a human being. No magazine in America has attacked McCarthy and McCarran more fearlessly than Max Ascoli's *The Reporter*. What has been the result -- the suppression of the magazine? the imprisonment of its publisher? the prevention of its sale? None of these -- the result has been to increase *The Reporter*'s circulation, in a single year, from 20,000 to 80,000.

I can speak with some authority on the McCarthy matter, because the Senator devoted large parts of two nationwide television broadcasts last autumn to attacks on me as a sinister influence in the entourage of Governor Stevenson. I have never been the recipient of so much free, frenetic and dishonest publicity in my life. And the result? Was I discharged from my job at Harvard? or were my publishing contracts cancelled? or did my lecture bureau refuse to handle me further? or was my passport taken up? or were my children spat upon in the streets? None of these things happened. In fact, the two McCarthy broadcasts failed to provoke even a solitary hostile letter. My fortunes have been unimpaired. On every appropriate public occasion since the election, I have continued to attack McCarthy as vigorously as I did before; and, as Mr. Rovere put it in his rebuke to Miss Kirchwey, it is no more taxing or dangerous than drinking one's morning coffee.

Let us examine the situation in the universities. Communists in the United States, as I explained earlier, are men and women who have

the United States, so I explained earlier, are men and women who've
let me examine the situation in the universities. Committees in
one's morning coffee,

to Miss Knoepfel, if it is no more fixing or dangerous than drinking
generally, so I did before; and, as Mr. Revere says, it is the same
caution since the election. I have continued to attack McCarthy as
My former have been unimpaired. On every appropriate public co-
McCarthy broadcasts failed to provoke even a solitary hostile letter.
In the streets! None of these things happened. In fact, the two
letter, or was my Macsorth taken right, or were my children that then
traces cancelled? or did my feature piece refuse to permit me
Was I discharged from my job at Harvard? or were my publishing con-
trary, logical and honest, sufficient in my title. And the result?
Of Governor Stevenson. I have never seen the recipient of so much
last attention to attacks on me as a minister influence in the entourage
the Senator devoted large parts of two nationwide television precesses
I can see with some authority on the McCarthy matter, because

McCarthy's circulation, in a single year, from $0,000 to $0,000.
of its sales. None of these -- the result -- has been to increase the
of the magazines, the imprisonment of the publishers, the prevention
of the magazines, the imprisonment of the publishers, the prevention
Vасоff's *The Reporter*. What has been the result -- the sublimation
America has attacked McCarthy and McCarthy more fearlessly than Max
because it neglects a Communist as a human being. No magazine in
the European press of America, should have been panned or moped
in the Italian film, *The World of Don Cemillo*, which, according to
century and the situation today, and one of the most popular movies
duite misleading) brazenlese between the Soviet witch hunt of the 1940s

- 10 -

(5)

- 11 -

submitted themselves to what has always been in this country, not a
political party, but a conspiratorial organization. With the excep-
tion of a few generous and high-minded souls who went through the
Communist party in the thirties much like a man going around in a
revolving door, party members have mostly "chosen" the Soviet Union
and conspiracy as against the United States and democracy. They are
to be compared, not to open and naive Italian or French Communists,
but to Italians or Frenchmen acting under the discipline of some mys-
terious and fanatical order, like the Mafia or the Cagoulards.

The question has been raised; should such people be automatically
disqualified from teaching in our schools and universities? Many
veteran champions of academic freedom -- such men as Norman Thomas,
the leader of the Socialist party, and Sidney Hook, the eminent pro-
fessor of philosophy at New York University -- believe that Communist
party membership should be such an automatic disqualification. But
this question is far from a closed one. It has been for years the
subject of healthy and animated discussion. And the man most recently
to declare his conviction that Communists have every right to teach
in our universities, so long as they do not propagandize the students,
is -- Europe's special bete noire, the notorious American reactionary,
Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.

I mention all this to suggest that the situation in the United
States is somewhat more complicated than it looks from abroad. And
the selective reporting of American news in Europe contributes to the
dangerous illusions of simplicity. Thus many Europeans know all about
the "loyalty oath" at the University of California -- all about it,
that is, except that it led to a mass revolt of the faculty, that the
faculty were backed by such public figures as the Governor of the state

Government were powered by an independent bill of rights as the Governor of the state that is, except that it led to a mass revolt of the faculty, that the faculty died out at the University of California -- all about it.

Governors illustrate the simplicity of the selective reporting of American news in Europe contributes to the state is somewhat more complicated than it looks from above. And

I mention all this to suggest that the situation in the United States is somewhat more complicated than it looks from above. And

is -- Europe's special pete were, if the notoriety American reputation, in our universities, so long as they do not propagate the students, to declare his conviction that Communists have every right to teach and teach of health and animated discussion. And the men most recently this question is far from a closed one. It has been for years the party membersubstantially the same as automatic disqualification. But teacher of philosophy at New York University -- believe that Communists the leader of the socialist party, and Sidney Hook, the eminent pacifist champion of academic freedom -- some men as Norman Thomas, disqualified from teaching in our schools and universities? Many

The question has been raised; should one people be automatically terraced and educational order, like the Media or the Californians.

But to Italian or Frenchmen acting under the discipline of some me-
to be combated, not to open and naive Italian or French Communists,
and conspiracy as against the United States and democracy. They are
revolving again. Party members have mostly "opponents" the Soviet Union
Communist party in the countries most like a man going around in a
lion of a few Generals and high-minded sons who went through the
political party, put a conspiratorial organization. With the excep-
submitted themselves to what has always been in this country, not a

- 11 -

- 12 -

and as the war hero Admiral Nimitz, and that, as a result of the popular condemnation, the offending oath was finally repealed.

In short, the situation of civil freedom in America is neither as idyllic as painted by the Voice of America nor as ghastly as the Communists would suggest. It is mixed. No one can deny the inroads which have been made on American freedom, serenity and self-confidence. No one can question the power and influence which the demagogues, like McCarthy and McCarran, exert in the Congress and in the country. But to say this without reckoning the forces mobilized in opposition to McCarthy and McCarran is vastly to falsify the picture. For all their rough talk, McCarthy and McCarran have wholly failed to intimidate the great newspapers of the country, or the trade unions, or the courts, or the leaders of the opposition political party. What mass following they have comes from the impression that they are really fighting the Communists; whenever their real purposes become evident, their following drops off. They present, not a deep-running tide of political fascism, but the ruthless adventurism of political gangsters, managing through sheer effrontery to keep one step ahead of retribution.

The answer to their future rests, of course, with the new administration. There is nothing in the McCarthy problem which cannot be handled by strong and decisive national leadership. McCarthy and his colleagues returned to Washington this time with no overwhelming political mandates. Some of the most noxious of the breed, like Cain of Washington and Kem of Missouri, were defeated in the election; and the rest all ran far behind General Eisenhower. An analysis of the votes suggests that the people would stand firmly and enthusiastically behind General Eisenhower if he ever chooses to wield the mighty power of the presidential office in a showdown with Senator McCarthy.

Perusing General MacArthur, he ever chooses to yield the mighty power
votes suggests that the people would stand firmly and enthusiastically
the rest all but for perusing General MacArthur. An analysis of the
of Washington and Kem of Missouri, were defeated in the election and
political maneuvers. Some of the most noxious of the bunch, like Cain
cooperation resulted to Washington this time with no overwhelming
bundled up strong and decisive national leadership. McCarthy and his
strategy. There is nothing in the McCarthy problem which cannot be
The answer to their trouble rests, of course, with the new adminis-
sler efficiently to keep one step ahead of opposition.

Put the truesties adventures of political maneuvers, managing through
grope off. They present, not a deep-running side of political strategy.
Communists whenever their real purposes become evident, their following
they have come from the impression that they are really fighting the
or the fessers of the opposition political basis. What was following
the Great newspapers of the country, or the true统一union, or the core.
rough talk. McCarthy and MacArthur have wholly failed to intimidate
McCarthy and MacArthur is easily to faultily the picture. For all their
to say this without reckoning the forces modified in opposition to
McCarthy and McCarthy exert in the Congress and in the country. But
No one can question the power and influence which the headquarters, like
which have been made on American freedom, sensitivity and self-confidence.
Communists would argue. It is mixed. No one can deny the influences
as effective as pointed by the Voice of America was as greatly as the
In short, the situation of civil freedom in America is neither
conclusion, the attending cash was finally rechecked.

- 13 -

- 13 -

Will General Eisenhower make this choice? He has thus far disappointed many who supported him under the impression that this would be the best way to dispose of the McCarthy problem. He may well now be biding his time, awaiting the strategic moment to show his hand. Or it may be that he fundamentally lacks moral sensitivity to the McCarthy issue. This can be revealed only by time. But, if he does not take the leadership in dealing with McCarthy, this does not mean that American democracy has succumbed irrevocably to fear and panic. It will only mean that the reserves of decency and valor, which hoped to speak through Eisenhower, will seek alternative leadership. And they will find it. For, despite all McCarthys, America remains, in the words of a national hymn the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

the home of the prairie.

Remaining, in the words of a national hymn, the "land of the free and
and bold. It will only mean that the reserves of money and valor,
not mean that American democracy has succumbed inevitably to fear
he does not take the leadership in dealing with McCarthy. This does
so the McCarthy issue. This can be revealed only by time. But, it
will end. Or it may be that he fundamentally lacks moral sensitivity
well now he is sitting his time, awaiting the strategic moment to show
would be the best way to dispose of the McCarthy problem. He may
undiscounted man who subordinated him under the impression that this
Will General McCarthy make this choice? He has done that.

- 13 -

April 2, 1953

Mr. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
Widener 95

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

I am writing you this letter to follow up our telephone conversation
regarding Stevenson's visit to Europe.

In most European countries there is a great danger that Stevenson will
be "captured" by officials either of the American embassies or of the indigenous
governments who are naturally eager to present as rosey a picture as possible
or at least to present the situation in essentially technical terms. In this
manner he may well miss the profounder psychological currents which are the
real causes of our difficulties in Europe (whether or not we have EDC is only
secondarily a technical question and it has failed primarily because the
psychological climate for it doesn't exist).

I would therefore strongly recommend that an itinerary be worked out
which will permit Stevenson to meet individuals apart from official auspices
and that he be given sufficient time to talk to these people at some length.
I have met very many individuals who had longed to meet some American whom they
respected only to find they were allowed at most half an hour and whose feeling
of impotent frustration need hardly be described. The number of people that
Stevenson meets are much less important than their quality. Interviews of half
an hour or of even an hour conducted through an interpreter tend to be formalistic
and repetitious.

With particular reference to Italy, I think it is extremely important that
Stevenson see Olivetti who is probably the only progressive Italian industrialist.
He is seriously concerned about the state of Italian democracy and has put a great
deal of his money behind a movement which is called Communita and which attempts
to reinvigorate democracy through a program of decentralization and adult education.
To this end he has established adult education centers in all the leading Italian
cities with their own libraries and with non-partisan directors. He is also

Mr. Schlesinger

-2-

April 2, 1953

attempting to reinvigorate civic planning through the medium of several sub-
sidized reviews, etc.

The official version which will be handed to Stevenson is that Olivetti is a naive child. This is the usual reaction of technicians and bureaucrats to non-materialist approaches and is of course the manner in which all great things have been greeted throughout history. As you can well imagine, Olivetti is strongly combatted by the other Italian industrialists and by the fellow directors of his own concern. Indeed, only the fact that he is fortunately an extremely able businessman has kept him in control of his own concern. I think a meeting of Stevenson and Olivetti would have a two-fold effect. It would give Olivetti the feeling that he is not completely alone and also, it might strengthen his position within the industrial community. If Stevenson's itinerary permits it at all, I should strongly urge that the meeting take place away from Rome. Olivetti is a shy man who is most at ease in familiar surroundings. It might be very interesting for Stevenson if he visited Olivetti in Ivrea where Olivetti's plant is located. Ivrea is midway between Milano and Torino and can be reached by car in an hour from either city. This would give Stevenson an opportunity to visit one of the few progressive Italian industrial plants away from the formality and pretentiousness of official receptions.

Since you mentioned to me that the European ADA office is helping out in France and Britain, I will say nothing about those countries. In general, I strongly hope however that Stevenson can get as close as possible to the real currents of European thought.

HAK:ndj

Enc.: Letter to Mrs. Foster

June 10, 1953

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

I thought you might be interested to see various extracts from
letters by Claude Bourdet. They seem to me to prove some of the things
we discussed yesterday regarding European neutralists. I am convinced
that it is extremely poor policy to take the neutralists at their face
value and to attack them in return. This would merely heighten their
reflex action against America of which neutralism is a symptom. Rather
I think we should build bridges for them. In a sense European neutralism
as an assertion of European individuality may be of more use to us against
the Russians than slavish pro-Americanism such as that of the Burnham
disciples.

The results of the Italian election seem to me one other proof of
the futility of conducting foreign policy by gimmick. The electoral law
which we urged on de Gasperi and which only "experts" were certain would
assure an electoral majority of at least 65 per cent has been in my
estimation the chief reason for his very difficult position. Foreign
policy, unfortunately, is different from pleading a case at the bar
where, after the jury's verdict is in, the lies you have told can't come
back to hound you.

Regarding the article on Conservatism I discussed with you yesterday,
I will send you the defining statement we have sent to a number of
Europeans but what I really had in mind for you would be an American
liberal's criticism of American conservatism or if you will, a defense
of the American liberal tradition. I think good argument can be made that
the liberals represent the American conservative tradition along the lines
of one speech of Stevenson's — I think it was in Richmond. We would have
to have your article by September 1st.

HAK:ndj
Enes.

# Un pacte de politique étrangère

Par J.-J. SERVAN-SCHREIBER

Parce que la France se présente sans
doitrine, chaque rencontre internation-
nale nous entraîne un peu plus dans
l'engrenage où notre inertie politique
nous a engagés: aventure en Asie, dé-
penses militaires, contradictions alle-
mandes. Il n'y a pas de vent favorable
pour celui qui ne sait pas où il va. Faute
d'une doctrine, la France ne peut être
que la victime des événements.

Notre-Dame des Bermudes, présentée
par un gouvernement en difficultés
comme une chance supplémentaire de
salut, n’accomplira pas ces miracles
à la recherche desquels semble se ré-
duire notre diplomatie. Nous n’y trou-
verons d’appui que dans la mesure où
nous saurons sur quoi nous voulons
être soutenus. Nous n’en ramènerons
pas d’autres solutions que celles que
nous aurons préparées.

Il serait plus qu'inutile que le futur
chef du gouvernement français se pré-
sentât à cette réunion exceptionnelle
s'il n'y apportait pas une doctrine pré-
cise pour les deux problèmes qui tou-
chent directement la France : l'Indo-
chine et l'Allemagne.

Or il ne pourra le faire que si son
gouvernement, formé d'hommes appar-
tenant à diverses fractions politiques,
s'est mis d'accord sur un programme.
La crise actuelle exige qu'un véritable
pacte de politique étrangère soit passé
entre les groupes qui composeront la
nouvelle majorité.

Quel peut être, dans les circonstan-
ces intérieures et internationales ac-
tuelles, ce pacte de politique étrangère ?

La France dans les derniers mois
semble avoir appuyé sa politique sur
des positions de principe telles que la
recherche de l'internationalisation de
la guerre d'Indochine (au moins dans
la négociation) et la préférence donnée
à un accord général de désarmement
avant de préciser les modalités d'une
négociation sur l'Allemagne.

Ces positions peuvent se justifier dans
l'abstrait, mais elles sont très éloignées

des réalités politiques et n'ont pres-
que aucune chance d'amorcer des com-
mencements de solutions. Elles pour-
raient, puisqu'elles sont surtout théori-
ques, constituer la base d'un pacte de
politique étrangère pour la majorité;
ce qui reviendrait alors à dire qu'on
peut se mettre d'accord seulement sur
le refus commun d'une politique con-
crète.

En Asie, l'Amérique n'acceptera pas
avant très longtemps une négociation
à cinq avec la Chine communiste pour
un règlement général. Même si elle
l'acceptait, la Chine et la Russie n'ont
sans doute pas l'intention d'arrêter
l'action du Vietminh, en supposant
qu'elles en aient la possibilité.

Chaque fois que la guerre d'Indo-
chine devient un peu moins une affaire
française et un peu plus une affaire
internationale elle ne peut que s'ag-
graver. Les meilleures chances de négo-
ciation résident-elles dans l'élargisse-
ment du conflit ou du débat à la Chine
et l'Amérique, ou dans un dialogue
direct entre le Vietnam et le Vietminh ?

Une initiative comme celle que pa-
rait envisager la Thaïlande, avec le
soutien de l'Amérique, et qui vise à en
faire une guerre des Nations unies, ne
peut que rendre plus difficile la recher-
che d'une solution. Or c'est là l'abou-
tissement logique de la politique que
nous avons suivie jusqu'à présent en
« américainisant » de plus en plus la
guerre.

La volonté de la France ne devrait
elle pas être au contraire de conserver
autant que possible sa liberté d'action
au Vietnam, ses possibilités de choix,
done de s'opposer à l'internationalisa-
tion ? Il semble que sur cette position
une majorité parlementaire devrait pou-
voir se rejoindre.

En Europe rechercher le désarmement
avant de négocier sur l'Allemagne,
comme paraît le souhaiter M. Bidault,

reviendrait à repousser une solution di-
plomatique du problème allemand. Re-
noncer à toute conversation, et en mæ-
me temps repousser l'armée européenne,
cela veut dire que l'on crée une situa-
tion d'où pourraient sortir très vite une
souveraineté sans contrôle de l'Allema-
gne occidentale, son réarmement na-
tional sans condition, un accord direct
entre l'Allemagne et l'Amérique et une
aggravation de la guerre froide en
Europe.

Il semble donc clair que la France
doive accepter, et même proposer, une
négociation en vue de l'unification de
l'Allemagne et d'élections libres. Cette
unification entraînerait une victoire po-
litique certaine pour l'Occident par une
défaite électorale du communisme. La
Russie ne peut l'accepter que si elle
obtient des garanties sur les nouvelles
frontières (reconnaissance de la ligne
Oder-Neisse) et contre un danger
d'agression (contrôle commun du niveau
du réarmement allemand).

L'Amérique n'acceptera ces conditions
que si cette Allemagne peut s'intégrer
politiquement et économiquement à l'Eu-
rope occidentale.

Aucune de ces deux séries d'exigences
n'est contraire aux intérêts de la
France. Il appartient à la France de
les réunir en une politique. Il n'est pas
certain que sur ces bases la négociation
aboutisse, mais il y a une chance sé-
rieuse à tenter. Là encore il semble que
l'on doive trouver une majorité politi-
que au Parlement pour accepter ce dé-
nominateur commun.

Si la crise actuelle n'est pas l'occa-
sion de mettre sur pied ce minimum de
doitrine diplomatique concrète, la pro-
chaine conférence à trois aggraver nos
difficultés et nos contradictions.
L'échéance des Bermudes domine la
crise française. Elle commande de né-
gocier entre les partis une politique
étrangère positive. Elle est un impéra-
tif de plus, et non pas une drogue mi-
racle.

deux.

» J'ai une grande expérience des coalitions, ayant rempli des fonctions de responsabilité comme chef d'une armée de coalition. C'est toujours difficile. Certes il y a des situations où un seul — un seul pays ou un seul chef — pourrait agir plus efficacement qu'un chef de coalition, qui est obligé d'assurer l'unanimité des membres de la coalition à force de compromis et de concessions.

» Mais il est impossible de réaliser une action conjointe dans les grands événements qui se passent actuellement en la limitant à une partie du globe ou à certains problèmes particuliers qu'on choisit. Si vous agissez pour votre propre compte dans une partie du monde il faut que vous le fassiez partout. Quand on cherche à établir une coalition ou une entente basée sur les principes moraux, sur les idées de justice ou sur les notions de gouvernements libres, il est indispensable de faire des compromis. On doit alors, au milieu des considérations partisanes qui s'opposent, chercher la voie qui correspond au bien commun.

» Telle est la situation aujourd'hui, car toute notre politique est basée sur le principe qu'une nation libre ne peut vivre seule dans le monde. Force nous est d'avoir des amis. Il faut se les rattacher d'une manière ou d'une autre. Il est obligatoire d'établir l'unité des principes de base qui découle de la communauté des intérêts. Là est notre tâche.

» Je ne suis pas un homme particulièrement patient et je partage le sentiment d'irritation et de frustration qu'on éprouve en travaillant pour un but qu'on estime honnête, trouvant ses efforts entravés par des amis apparemment mal informés.

» Je comprends cela, et je vous dis que ce n'est qu'avec de la patience, avec de la résolution, avec de l'optimisme et une foi profonde qu'on fera progresser l'Amérique.

» En politique intérieure aussi, nous avons nos divergences de vues, car nous sommes cent soixante millions d'habitants. Mais je pense que nous ne devons pas abandonner la grande tâche que nous poursuivons et pour laquelle nous travaillons.

» Je vous demande pardon pour la longueur de cette réponse, mais je pense que la question avait besoin de quelques celaireissements. »

En le président Eisenhower vient de réitérer son scepticisme à l'égard d'un contract personnel avec les leaders du Kremlin, et s'il est toujours aussi contraint d'apaiser la vieille garde républicaine, les chances qu'il finisse par « suivre le mouvement » lancé par le premier ministre britannique paraissent un peu meilleures. Toujours est-il que les Anglais se félicitent de la fermeté avec laquelle le président s'élève aujourd'hui contre les manifestations isolationnistes du sénateur Taft. Sans doute cette palémique concerne-t-elle l'Extrême-Orient et non pas l'Europe. Mais rien ne pouvait mieux raffermir la confiance des Anglais que cette substitution à la passivité présidentielle d'une contre-offensive en face de tous ceux des Américains qui n'envsagent avec leurs alliés qu'une coopération à sens unique.

Londres, 29 mai. — La conférence des premiers ministres du Commonwealth commencera immédiatement après le couronnement, mercredi 3 juin au 10 Downing Street, et se terminera le 9 juin.

Le dernier jour, le 9 juin, sera réservé à la discussion des problèmes économiques déjà évoqués lors de la dernière conférence, à savoir la libéralisation des échanges commerciaux et des moyens de paiement mondiaux.

lemagne occidentale. Si Mostou entend la voriser une reprise des négociations, M. Se-

## « Vos hypothèses sont aussi valables que les nôtres »
**répondent aux journalistes américains les porte-parole gouvernementaux**

Washington, 29 mai (A.F.P.). — La décision de nommer un haut commissaire soviétique en Allemagne ne fait que régulariser un état de fait, estime-t-on dans les milieux officiels américains. Depuis longtemps déjà, dit-on dans ces milieux, M. Wladimir Semionov pouvait être considéré comme le seul et véritable représentant de l'Union soviétique en Allemagne. Il avait, ajoute-t-on, le pas sur le général Tchouikov.

La question qui se pose donc aux experts du département d'Etat et de la Maison Blanche est la suivante: « S'agit-il d'un prélude à une offensive diplomatique des successeurs de Staline sur le terrain allemand ? Les journalistes de Washington n'ont pas manqué de la poser aux porte-parole gouvernementaux. Leur réponse a été : « Vos hypothèses sont aussi valables que les notre. »

# LA FIN D'UNE DIPLOMATIE

Par J.-J. SERVAN-SCHREIBER

Il n'est pas impossible que les responsables de notre diplomatie aient très bien compris comment se posent nos problèmes, mais qu'ils s'appliquent à rester muets et immobiles sachant que dans la voie où ils sont engagés la moins mauvaise solution pour le moment est de ne plus faire un geste ; en attendant la relève.

Les trappes les mieux conçues dans la jungle sont celles où l'animal, une fois pris, resserre lui-même ses liens de plus en plus avec chaque geste qu'il tente pour s'en dégager. Les événements, les petites lâchetés quotidiennes, la difficulté d'agir, ont préparé l'ancienneté par l'ancienneté un piège de cette nature pour la France ; et maintenant nous y sommes.

L'objectif que s'était fixé en priorité

la diplomatie française était la préparation de la défense de l'Europe devant la menace soviétique. Cet objectif impliquait également de ne pas livrer le territoire national au pourrissement intérieur par la décadence économique. Le pacte atlantique — dont le principe est simple et nécessaire — a été aménagé de manière à résoudre ce double problème. Dès lors une première contradiction s'est introduite grâce à une première lâcheté. Les dirigeants français pour obtenir plus d'aide financière ont accepté des plans militaires disproportionnés en pensant ainsi faire plaisir aux Américains. D'où cette inconséquence : l'aide américaine destinée à permettre une certaine santé économique devenait une simple contribution à un déficit de réarmement bien supérieur à elle. Mensonges diplomatiques, inefficacité militaire, stagnation économique.

Cependant une deuxième étape vient d'être parcourue. La stratégie politique américaine s'oriente vers l'Asie. Les événements récents, les décisions de Washington, le Conseil atlantique de Paris, le choix des chefs militaires, indiquent que l'Amérique ne croit pas à la paix en Asie et ne croit pas à la guerre en Europe. D'où l'orientation croissante de sa politique et de son budget vers l'Orient. Comme la base de notre diplomatie est de « coller » à la politique américaine pour justifier nos demandes de crédit, nous avons accentué nous aussi la priorité à l'Asie ; et le rôle essentiel assigné à la France par son gouvernement est devenu la guerre d'Indochine, tout en conservant les mêmes plans militaires en Europe.

(Lire la suite en 3e page, 2e colonne.)

se justifiait dans une certaine mesure
déclare M. Oatis

New-York, 19 mai (A.F.P.). — Le journaliste américain William Oatis, libéré de Tchécoslovaquie, est arrivé hier par avion à New-York, où l'attendaient plus de deux cents journalistes.

Au cours de la conférence de presse qu'il a tenue immédiatement, M. Oatis a paru quelque peu déconcerté par les questions directes que lui posaient ses confrères.

Il a déclaré que les méthodes d'enquête utilisées par la justice tchèque étaient « efficaces et adéquates». Il a refusé de répondre à un correspondant qui lui demandait s'il avait travaillé pour le département d'Etat.

Ces réponses ont produit tout d'abord une impression assez pénible sur les journalistes assemblés autour de lui.

Par la suite, M. Oatis a parlé plus librement, et l'atmosphère s'est détendue.

M. Oatis a fait alors observer qu'un journaliste américain travaillant en Tchécoslovaquie, en utilisant les mêmes méthodes qu'aux Etats-Unis, ne tarderait pas à être arrêté. Citant à ce propos un des cas qui l'ont mis en difficulté avec la justice tchèque, M. Oatis a rappelé qu'un jour il s'était rendu au ministère de l'information à Prague pour demander si les Russes contrôlaient effective-ment les gisements d'uranium de Jachinov : « Si je posais une pareille question à Washington, lui répondit le fonctionnaire tchèque auquel il s'adressait, je serais mis en prison le lendemain. »

Quant à la raison exacte de son arrestation, le journaliste américain a déclaré: « Je ne sais pas. C'est une question très compliquée. »

Finalement, M. Oatis a déclaré qu'une grande partie de ses activités à Prague constituaient des infractions à la loi tchèque, et que du point de vue tchécoslovaque son arrestation « se justifiait dans une certaine mesure ».

Plusieurs correspondants lui ayant demandé si des méthodes spéciales d'interrogation avaient été utilisées sur lui au cours de l'enquête, William Oatis a affirmé qu'il n'avait été soumis à aucune pression autre que psychologique.

Répondant à une autre question, il a déclaré qu'il avait reçu une dizaine d'injections d'une solution qui, d'après les autorités responsables, contenait du sucre et des vitamines pour faire grossir. « Je suis convaincu, a-t-il ajouté, que ces injections contenaient ce qu'on m'a dit. Je n'en ai ressenti aucun effet. »

Le journaliste a ajouté qu'il avait été également exposé aux radiations d'une lampe à rayons ultra-violets, pour lui donner l'air d'avoir été tanné par le soleil. « Je pense qu'ils voulaient que j'aie bonne mine au procès. »

REPRISE
DE LA CONFÉRENCE DE BERLIN

September 15, 1953

Dear Arthur:

I am writing to you today about the topics we are currently considering for
CONFLUENCE and would very much appreciate your suggestions of possible contributors.

The topic in which we are most immediately interested is "The Role of Science
in the Twentieth Century." Here I have in mind the contribution of science to the
various disciplines and the impact of science on the modern crisis. There are just
suggestions, however, and a contributor would be perfectly free to concentrate on
any aspect of the problem he considers significant.

The second topic is "The Role of Religion" ("The Influence of Modern Religion"). I do not think that much need be said to clarify this. In general, the effort in all our discussions is to have each article deal with a specific aspect of the problem from the point of view of a special discipline or position as an aspect of a more general position. We try in each discussion to include a treatment of the topic from the point of view of philosophy, politics, and the humanities. In this way we hope that CONFLUENCE can make a small contribution towards reintegrating Western thinking. Perhaps you could keep this in mind when making your suggestions.

I shall greatly appreciate any help you could give me on this. One of
CONFLUENCE's continuing problems (aside from the ever present financial one) is to
attract the most vital thought to its pages.

I should also be very grateful for any suggestions of possible topics for discussion.

HAK:ndj

September 28, 1953

Dear Arthur:

I found your article upon my return and much appreciated your sending it in. I very much liked its basic idea and I am sure it will be of great interest, particularly to our European readers. But I would like to make a few suggestions: As you agree, our really critical audience is in Europe and the experience of our Seminar has confirmed me more than ever in the belief that their knowledge of basic facts of the American scene is insignificant or non-existent. They may well consider the discussion of the New Conservatism a little vague. Similarly, the discussion of why American Conservatives usually feel at home in the Democratic Party is so brief as to lose much of its force. May I therefore suggest this? --- that you expand your Pages Two and Three explaining the nature of this New Conservatism. I would have no objections if you leaned somewhat on August Heckscher's piece in the last issue of CONFLUENCE. This would give you a good bridge to a discussion of the roots of this New Conservatism in American society. I have nothing to add to that part of your discussion except perhaps adding a paragraph or two with some specific examples. Finally, I would expand the section of why the equivalent of the European Conservative types have found their home in the United States in the Popular Party. In other words, I like very much the basic line of your article. I fear merely that it is not specific enough for maximum force. We have found our most useful articles to be those which combine a theoretical position with an empirical base.

I am sorry to be putting this on you because I know how busy you must be at the beginning of the term. I would appreciate getting it back as soon as possible but no later than October 10th. I will call your office during the week to find out your reaction to my proposals. Thank you for your patience.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

WIDENER 95
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR.

ES61 621300

OCT 29 1953

UNIVERSITY 4-9710

October 27, 1953

Dear Henry:

I read these letters with great interest and am returning them, in case you wish to circulate them further. They constitute really impressive tribute to the seminar.

I note no letter from the ineffable Feenberg (?) Did his idiotic piece in the NEW STATESMAN exhaust his reactions to his Cambridge experience?

Mr. Henry Kissinger
Weld 10

24 Norham Gardens, Oxford

29th January 1954

The Editor
CONFLUENCE
Harvard Summer School of Arts, etc.

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

I was interested to read Mr. Schlesinger's analysis of neoconservatism
in your December issue. Liberals such as we are required to study the new
phenomenon with the utmost care in order to defeat it; but I doubt whether
Mr. Schlesinger's analysis will help us much to do the job.

For a professional historian Mr. Schlesinger makes some curious statements.
Herbert Hoover, he says, would "trace his antecedents to the British Liberals -
to Cobden, Bright, Gladstone, above all to Herbert Spencer." I am not sure
that Mr. Hoover would do anything of the sort; but I am quite sure that if
he did, no British Liberal and few historians besides Mr. Schlesinger would
support such a claim. Cobden and Bright fought and won a campaign for Free
Trade: does this remind Mr. Schlesinger of the Republican Party of the
twenties? Gladstone is, after Asquith, the British Prime Minister with the
highest reputation as reformer; surely Mr. Schlesinger would agree that in
any such competition among American Presidents Mr. Hoover would come very nearly
at the bottom of the list. It is strange, too, to see Mr. Schlesinger make a
present to the Conservatives (who can certainly use benefactions of this sort)
of three recognized liberal worthies, Burke, Tocqueville and Acton. European
Liberalism is as rich in great names as other political movements are poor, and
it is the most natural thing in the world that the Conservatives should try to
steal a few, but why should any Liberal acquiesce in the theft?

2.

Mr. Schlesinger's view of modern Liberalism is equally eccentric. For
him there are two political parties in the United States, "the party of the
people," which apparently goes on being the party of the people even when, as
at present, the majority of the people have rejected it, and the party of
business. Businessmen, of course, are not people. This, it seems, is because
Mr. Eisenhower's Administration is composed of businessmen, and Mr. Schlesinger
disapproves of the Administration. I hardly need to add that British Liberals
share his warm preference for Mr. Adlai Stevenson. But our preference is
based not upon the fact that the Eisenhower Administration is composed of
businessmen (and others) who are conservatives. Both Mr. Schlesinger's
party and mine include businessmen within their ranks, and I am sure he will
agree with me that it should be so and that no man should be debarred from
political office because of the social class to which he belongs. And I
hope he will take thought of British Liberalism which, like his own movement,
is a growing force and young in membership. Believe me, it is not the ideals
of Mr. Herbert Hoover that have made us so.

[I'm sorry my typing is so erratic. I am, by the way, the representative of
Oxford University Liberals on the Co-Ownership (Industrial) Committee of the
British Liberal Party.]