Address by Secretary of State Byrnes
October 3, 1946
American Club
Paris
I am not in Paris today by accident. While in Moscow last December, when the question of the place of the Peace Conference arose, I at once thought of Paris and France.
I telephoned to Mr. Bidault suggesting that if the French government would invite the conference to meet in Paris, I felt confident the invitation would be accepted. The invitation was extended and unanimously accepted.
Mr. Bidault and his associates and the people of Paris have left undone nothing that would contribute to our work and our comfort. The longer we stay – and we have been in no hurry to leave – the more the French people have made us feel at home. They not only want to be hospitable, but they have the knowhow.
Because of the many duties devolving on Mr. Bidault, I am amazed at his ability to find time to show such interest in the work of the conference. He is a man of great intelligence, charm and industry. And this intelligence, charm and industry he always uses to promote the welfare of the country he serves and loves so well.
In this company I will not speak of the long and firm friendship which has existed between the people of France and the people of the United States – a friendship which existed before we attained our independence. That friendship runs so deep that we do not have to talk about it. Differ as we may from time to time, our two peoples always have stood and always will stand together in time of crisis. Liberty, equality, fraternity – the rights of man – are our common heritage.
Twice in my generation the soldiers of Prance and the soldiers of America have fought side by side in defense of their common heritage of freedom. America is proud of her contribution to our common victory in 1945. America is proud of her contribution to our common victory in 1918. But America is not so proud of the course she followed after the victory of 1918.
In 1918, I was a follower of Woodrow Wilson. I gloried in his ideal ism and in the magnificent effort he made to build the peace upon the covenant of the League of Nations.
But the American people expected too much from Woodrow Wilson and supported him too little. While he was in Paris working for peace, political opponents at home bitterly criticized his course and questioned his motives. They exaggerated and exploited the shortcomings of the Treaty of Versailles and they belittled and besmirched what Woodrow Wilson had accomplished.
America failed to join the League of Nations. America refused to guarantee the defense of the French frontier. America allowed other countries to believe that she had no interest, and would not seriously concern herself in what was happening in Europe, in Africa or Asia.
But wars started, first in Asia, then in Africa and then in Europe. Then came Pearl Harbor. America learned too late that this is one world and that she could not isolate herself from that world.
America is determined this time not to retreat into a policy of isolation. We are determined this time to cooperate in maintaining the peace.
President Roosevelt this time sought to avoid the political opposition which had defeated the peace after the first World War.
Then President Wilson neglected to invite the leaders of the political party in opposition to his administration to participate with him in making the peace.
President Roosevelt, on the other hand, asked the congressional leaders to participate in the peace studies being made by the Department of State shortly after our entry into the war.
At Yalta, immediately after the heads of government had agreed to call the San Francisco Conference to draw up the charter for the United Nations, President Roosevelt advised Secretary Stettinius and me that he would appoint on the delegation to the San Francisco Conference Republicans as well as Democrats and would name Senator Vandenberg as the ranking Republican member of the delegation.
Even before our entry into the war, President Roosevelt repudiated the idea that the United States was not interested in what takes place in Europe. Knowing from the start that the war was a war of aggression, he never asked the American people to be neutral in spirit.
Before we entered the war, he inspired the declaration of principles known as the Atlantic Charter, which was proclaimed by him and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of August 14, 1941.
It was President Roosevelt who at Yalta presented the declaration on liberated Europe which Generalissimo Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill accepted and which imposed a responsibility upon the three governments to continue their interest in the Balkan States and up hold the basic freedoms embodied in that declaration.
The policies inaugurated by President Roosevelt have been consistently followed by his successor, President Truman. He has consistently urged the carrying out in the liberated and ex-enemy states of Europe of the policies agreed to by the heads of government at Yalta at the instance of President Roosevelt.
President Truman continued the practice of seeking the cooperation of the leaders of both major political parties in the making of peace.
It was with the approval of President Truman that I invited Senator Vandenberg as well as Senator Connally to assist me in the drafting of the peace treaties.
And President Truman reinforced this bipartisan policy by appointing Senator Austin our representative on the Security Council of the United Nations.
The President has recently made known to the world in the most convincing manner possible that the foreign policy which was started by President Roosevelt and which has been consistently followed by President Truman will continue to be the policy of the American government.
Because that policy is supported by Republicans as well as Democrats, it gives assurance to the world that it is our American policy and will be adhered to regardless of which political party is in power.
Because today we have such a policy I was able to cay recently, with the approval of the President, and I am happy to be able to reaffirm here in France – that so long as there is an occupation army in Germany the armed forces of the United States will be in the army of occupation.
I would not want you to believe that our course in this regard is entirely unselfish. It is true that the United States wants no territory and seeks no discriminatory favors. The United States is interested in one thing, above all else, a just and lasting peace.
The people of the United States did their best to stay out of two European wars on the theory that they should mind their own business and that they had no business in Europe. It did not work.
The people of the United States have discovered that when a European war starts, our own peace and security inevitably become involved before the finish. They have concluded that if they must help finish every European war, it would be better for them to do their part to prevent the starting of a European war.
Twice in our generation doubt as to American foreign policy has led other nations to miscalculate the consequences of their actions. Twice in our generation that doubt as to American foreign policy has not brought peace, but war.
That must not happen again.
France, which has been invaded three times in the last 75 years by Germany, naturally does not want to be in doubt as to American foreign policy toward Germany.
To dispel any doubt on that score the United States has proposed that the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and the United States shall enter into a solemn treaty not only to disarm and demilitarize Germany, but to keep Germany disarmed and demilitarized for 40 years. And the treaty can be extended if the interests of international peace and security require.
On June 5, 1945, Gen. Eisenhower, Zhukov, Montgomery and de Tassigny entered into an agreement providing in detail for the disarmament and demilitarization of Germany.
The treaty I proposed on behalf of the United States contains all the provisions of that agreement. It provides that all German armed forces, all para-military forces, and all the auxiliary organizations shall be kept demobilized. It provides further that the German general staff and the staffs of any paramilitary organizations shall be prohibited and no German military or paramilitary organizations in any form or disguise shall be permitted in Germany. It provides for the complete and continued demilitarization of her war plants and for a continuing system of quadripartite inspection and control to make certain that Germany does not rearm or rebuild her armament plants or reconvert her civilian industries for war.
So long as such a treaty is in force the Ruhr could never become the arsenal of Germany or the arsenal of Europe. That is a primary objective of the proposed treaty.
The United States is firmly opposed to the revival of Germany’s military power. It is firmly opposed to a struggle for the control of Germany which would again give Germany the power to divide and conquer. It does not want to see Germany become a pawn or a partner in a struggle for power between the east and west.
The United States does not oppose but strongly urges the setting up of effective Inspection and control machinery to see that Germany does not rearm, does not rebuild her armament industries or convert her civilian industries for war.
We propose that the Allied occupation of Germany should not terminate until a German government does accept the required disarmament and demilitarization clauses. Even then the proposed treaty envisages the need for limited but adequate Allied armed forces, not for occupation purposes, but to insure compliance with the treaty.
To keep watch over war potential in this industrial age engineers are more important than infantry. Engineers can detect at an early stage any effort upon the part of a manufacturer of motor cars to convert his machinery to manufacture of tanks or other weapons of war. Engineers can probe the mysteries of a chemical plant; infantry soldiers cannot.
If violations are discovered they must be immediately reported to the commission of control. If the commission of control finds that the violations are not immediately corrected by orders of the engineer inspectors, the commission should at once demand that the German government close the plants and punish the violators of the treaty.
If the government does not comply, the Allied representatives in 24 hours should order the necessary forces to enforce compliance.
If the Allied representatives deem it necessary, they should be in a position to call for bombers from France, Britain, the United States or the Soviet Union. These planes could fly to Germany to enforce immediate compliance.
After the last war, the great French war leader, Clemenceau, hoped to secure a guaranty that the Allies would come to the aid of France if Germany violated her frontiers. But President Wilson failed in his effort to get the American people to join in such a guarantee.
This time the American people propose not to wait until France is again invaded. They offer now to join with France, Britain and the Soviet Union to see to it that Germany does not and cannot invade France.
Mr. Bidault on behalf of France and Mr. Bevin on behalf of Britain have accepted in principle the treaty we have proposed. I hope very much that the Soviet Union, which thus far has regarded the treaty as unacceptable, will on further examination and study find it possible to join with us to prevent Germany again from becoming a menace to the peace of Europe.
The military representatives of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and the United States easily reached an agreement providing for the disarming of the German people and the demilitarization of German plants, to continue until the peace settlement. The United States proposed to continue this disarming and demilitarization for 40 years after the peace settlement.
If the Allied nations will enter into the treaty which the United States proposes to keep Germany disarmed and demilitarized for at least a generation, the people of France and the people of Europe need not fear the efforts of the German people to rebuild their devastated country and rebuild a peaceful Germany.
We do want to give encouragement to the peaceful, democratic forces of Germany. We cannot do this unless we do give them a chance to govern themselves democratically.
For our own security as well as for the welfare of the German people we do not want to see an over-centralized government in Germany which can dominate the German people instead of being responsible to their democratic will.
In the American zone, we have placed great emphasis upon the development of a sense of local responsibility and have taken the lead in creating Laender or states so that the people will look to the states and not to a central government on all matters that do not basically require national action.
We want to see the federal government of Germany created by the states and not the states created by the central government. If we so proceed we do not think we will find that the responsible representatives of the states will want to give excessive powers to the federal government.
We want a peaceful, democratic and disarmed Germany which will respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all her inhabitants and which will not threaten the security of her neighbors.
We want such a Germany not because we want to appease Germany, but because we believe that such a Germany is necessary to the peace and security of France, our oldest ally, and is necessary to the peace and security of a free and prosperous Europe.
After every great war which has been won by the combined efforts of many nations, there has been conflict among the Allies in the making of peace. It would be folly to deny the seriousness of the conflict in viewpoints among the Allies after this war.
To ignore that conflict or minimize its seriousness will not resolve the conflict or help us along the road to peace. To exaggerate that conflict and its seriousness, on the other hand, only makes more difficult the resolution of the conflict.
I concur most heartily in the view recently expressed by Generalissimo Stalin that there is no immediate danger of war. I hope that his statement will put an end to the unwarranted charges that any nation or group of nations is seeking to encircle the Soviet Union, or that the responsible leaders of the Soviet Union so believe.
I do not believe that any responsible official of any government wants war. The world has had enough of war. The difficulty is that while no nation wants war, nations may pursue policies or courses of action which lead to war. Nations may seek political and economic advantages which they cannot obtain without war.
That is why, if we wish to avoid war, we must decry not only war but the things which lead to war.
Just because war is not now imminent, we must take the greatest care not to plant the seeds of a future war. We must seek less to defend our actions in the eyes of those who already agree with us and more to defend our actions in the eyes of those who do not agree with us. But our defense must be the defense of justice and freedom, the defense of the political and economic rights not of a few privileged men or nations but all men and all nations.
It is particularly appropriate that here in the birthplace of the doctrine of the rights of man I should reaffirm the conviction of the government and the people of the United States that it is the right of every people to organize their own destiny through the freest possible expression of their collective will. The people of the United States believe in freedom for all men and all nations, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of assembly, freedom to progress. The people of the United States have no desire to impose their will upon any other people or to obstruct their efforts to improve their social, economic or political conditions. In our view human freedom and human progress are inseparable.
We want to give the common men and women of this world who have home the burdens and sufferings of war a chance to enjoy the blessings of peace and freedom. We want the common men and women of this world to share in the rising standards of life which science makes possible in a free, peaceful and friendly world.