Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1946)

[NormanStewart]

January 24, 1946

LONDON – In looking at the many Assembly delegates who have been in public life in their countries, often in the diplomatic service, I cannot help feeling that one of the most difficult things to achieve here is going to be frank statements of what any individual really thinks and feels.

However, unless we are going back to the old idea of a balance of power – of one group lined up against another – it seems to me that everyone in open conference must speak his mind and say things so clearly and explicitly that no country has to wonder afterwards just exactly what was meant.

It has not been the habit of nations to deal with each other on the basis of complete frankness. And yet I have a conviction that, only if we come to understand the fears of other people which lead them to make certain demands, and their desire for economic or political power which necessitates certain other demands, will we be able to make each nation face its own situation in relation to similar situations in other nations.

A forum is provided here, but whether men long accustomed to leave much unsaid can now realize that the success of this undertaking depends on complete understanding and frankness, is something that remains to be seen.

The other evening, I stopped in for a few minutes at the English-Speaking Union, where some of the boys and girls who went to homes in America during the war were holding a dance. That they want to keep up and develop their relationship because of the time they spent in the United States is a good omen, I think, for future understanding between our two nations.

Since I have been getting such an enormous quantity of letters, I think you may be interested to know the type of things that people over here write to me about. There are many who ask about the rules and regulations for obtaining visas, how they can get to the United States or Canada, what kind of work they can find there – and some of them, I think, expect me to find work for them!

Then there are many letters from our service men’s British wives who are waiting anxiously to join their husbands in the United States. Some of them have heard nothing from their husbands and are even more anxious. Also, there are letters of welcome and letters of appreciation for what my husband did for the people of the world.

Occasionally, there is a letter such as the one I have before me now, which is somewhat caustic in tone. The writer notes that Secretary Byrnes pledged that the United States would fulfill her obligations to the world, then asks me how that is to be done when “great numbers of United States service men appear to be simply intent on getting back home.”

The gentleman, of course, does not realize that our men are always more than willing to do a job when they know that it is important and that they are the ones who have to see it through. All that our service men are asking today is to know clearly what their obligations are and what real work there is for them to do over here. These men are young, and they feel that life for them at home is waiting to begin. They do not like to be idle – and some of them have been none too busy. By that I do not mean that they have not had work to do, but it has not been the kind of work that they felt was essential.

Young people know very quickly whether work is real or “made.” I remember once when I was trying to teach my own youngsters that they must do something because I thought it was good for them. They looked at me somewhat blandly and said: “Why must we, when there is someone else who could do it for us?”

Our men overseas are not shirking their job – they just don’t quite understand what their job is. It is hard to remember that, as an individual in a foreign country, you are always your own country’s ambassador – making a friend for your country or making an enemy.

In addition, I’m not sure how many of these young men realize that they not only represent the United States, but also the greatest democracy in the world – that they should understand how that democracy functions, what it has achieved, what it can achieve in the future, and how they can use their citizenship to help in that achievement. If they realized all this, they could do a very good job of spreading democracy wherever they are, particularly in Germany.

But I doubt very much whether this is clear enough to them. So often in the United States we take so much for granted that we find it hard to explain to anyone else what we consider our rights, privileges and, above all, our duties.

[NormanStewart]

January 25, 1946

LONDON – On Wednesday afternoon, Lady Pethick-Lawrence and Mrs. Raymond Gram Swing came to call on me.

They evidently want to prevail on the Economic and Social Council to set up a special commission composed of women which would not be considered as a specialized agency but would have a closer relationship to the Council. I have not studied the question as yet, but it seems to me that any such non-governmental group, no matter how strong numerically, should still be considered, under the provisions already laid down, only in a consultative capacity.

I can quite see that a commission representing many women’s organizations throughout the world might speak for a very great number of women, but I think they should be treated on the same basis as other specialized agencies. Otherwise, an infinite number of similar groups would be demanding special recognition and special privileges in their relationship to the United Nations—a situation which would result in chaos.

I think we should make a very great effort to live up to the sections in the Charter which provide for complete equality. I am sorry that governments in all parts of the world have not seen fit to send more women as delegates, alternates or advisers to the Assembly, and I think it is in these positions that the women of every nation should work to see that equality exists.

I feel also that a variety of interests should be represented in every delegation. Business, labor and the professions have a great contribution to make to the questions that will come up before the Assembly. In every field today there are competent women who could be chosen as individuals outstanding in their field and not merely as women.

We completed on Wednesday morning the committee work in preparation for the first meeting of the Economic and Social Council that afternoon. Our work was, not to decide on how the Council shall deal with various specialized agencies, but only to recommend to them the observations of the Preparatory Commission. Our only function was to make any changes that we wished to make, as a committee, in the subject matter or wording recommended by the Commission.

Despite these limitations, it was more than some members could do to resist mentioning various organizations in which they had a special interest – such as the ILO and the World Federation of Trade Unions. Many speeches were made before we voted on the final point under consideration by the committee. Now the real work and arguments on the manner in which specialized agencies – both governmental and non-governmental – shall come into relation with the Economic and Social Council will have to be done in that group itself.

Because of committee meetings and meetings with our advisers, I was unable to attend the luncheon given to the Assembly delegates by the Chilean delegation. I was very sorry as I have always had a deep interest in Chile. Some of my husband’s Delano ancestors, many whom were sailors, settled there and he always felt a kinship to that particular country of South America. But I think that all the South American countries have come to feel what a very great interest we had in the development of understanding and friendly relations between their countries and the United States.

I was amused the other day to have an American newspaper woman come up to me, as I was sitting down at a meeting, and ask me if I had visited what we at home would call the “pound.” She apparently had been told that I was so interested in lost or stray dogs that I was going to take one home with me. I wonder sometimes where these stories start! If I did anything of the kind, I certainly would have trouble with my husband’s Scottie, Fala, who probably will treat me with disdain when I return home because I’ve been away from him for so long, and who certainly would never forgive me if I brought a strange dog with me!

We had our first taste, the other day, of what I call a yellow fog. It wasn’t very bad, but you can really “taste” it, and everybody was complaining and coughing. Ironically, Senator Connally from southern Texas bears up well under the climate of cold and foggy London, but Senator Vandenberg from northern Michigan has had a bad cold.

[NormanStewart]

January 26, 1946

LONDON – Secretary of State Byrnes, in his speech to the UNO Assembly in support of the resolution for creating an Atomic Commission, emphasized the fact that we entered the race to discover the secret of the atom “not to destroy but to save civilization. But if the race continues uncontrolled, the civilization we hoped to save may be destroyed.”

And he concluded with the words, “We who fought together for freedom must now show that we are worthy of the freedom that we have won.”

Those words were a challenge to the Assembly, but particularly, I think, they are a challenge to every individual citizen of every country that fought against Fascism – and nowhere should they be forgotten. I hope very much that, at some time, our President will make a speech to us in the United States calling upon us to understand what responsibilities we assumed through our participation in the United Nations Organization.

In regard to the terms which the Assembly adopted for the appointment of the Secretary General, there is one provision which may deter a number of men from accepting this position. And yet I think it is a very wise provision. Since the Secretary General will be in close relationship with a great many Governments, it is requested that, on retirement, he not accept any Government position in which his confidential information might be a source of embarrassment to other Governments or his own.

Thursday evening, I attended a meeting of about 1,000 young GI brides. Army officers in charge of starting them on their way to the United States told them of the arrangements being made for their departure. There was great applause when they were told that shipping was now available, so that, between now and March, some 16,000 of them could be on their way to join their husbands. Priority number one exists for girls whose husbands are ill in the United States.

Representatives of the English-Speaking Union told them what it had planned in the way of assistance for them through its central office in New York and its branches in other cities.

I think it would be very helpful, not only to the young women who are going from Britain but also to those who are going from other countries, if one of our big national women’s organizations would mobilize all other women’s organizations to help these girls get adjusted to their new homes. In almost every town and village, there are such organizations. Volunteers could be found who could allot two or three “friends” to each newcomer and ask these “friends” to be responsible for helping the young woman in her first contacts. I’m sure this would solve many difficulties.

For instance, problem number one will be to find a home. Also, the newcomer will need to know how and where to shop. She must learn American customs. A “friend” can help to bridge the gap between past and present. This would go far towards insuring a happy future for our young soldiers, who perhaps do not realize themselves that such adjustments are not always easily made.

[NormanStewart]

January 28, 1946

LONDON – On Friday I went to lunch with Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin at the House of Commons.

We walked through the Great Hall, which is the oldest part of that great building built by William Rufus. It was spared much harm from bombing, even though the section of the building in which the House of Commons sat was destroyed. I think this Great Hall is one of the really majestic buildings in the world; the roof, I believe, is the greatest single, unsupported arch of any building in Europe. Senator Townsend and I, walking through together, were wondering how we would find our destination, when a member of Parliament, who evidently was also in the RAF, kindly came to our rescue and took us all the way through the maze of corridors and stairs to the dining room.

I had often been in the House of Commons before, but never happened to have a meal there. Tea on the terrace has always been something I’ve read about in a book, and lunch in one of the little dining rooms was an entirely new experience. I am told that during the bombings the Speaker always sent the members down into these rooms for shelter, but I doubt very much whether they were greatly protected. The windows look out on the terrace, and beyond is the river.

Lunch was very pleasant sitting between Mr. Bevin and Mr. Lie of Norway and talking to the delegate from Mexico across the table. He reminded me of the old days in Washington when he brought his children to the Easter egg rolling on the White House lawn, and we both hoped that the traditional egg rolling would begin again this year, now that the war is over. It is a little hard on the White House lawn, but it does give a great many children something to remember for the rest of their lives.

As we came out from lunch, we saw a baby in a basket waiting with its parents in the hall. For a moment I wondered just why a baby should be there! Then Mr. Bevin reminded me that down in the crypt there is a church, and when Members of Parliament come in and bow to the Speaker they are really bowing to what was once an altar. I remembered then that I had once seen this church, and I think it a rather nice idea that people come to be married and to christen their babies in the same building where the laws of their land are made.

Later in the afternoon I went to the English-Speaking Union for a reception given by the National Council of Women of Great Britain. A great many representatives of various women’s organizations were there. As so often happens, I think a difference of opinion is developing among the various groups of women as to the exact representation or affiliation they desire to have with the UNO. I myself believe the important thing is to stress the attitude taken in the very beginning of the UNO Charter, which reaffirms “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” This really means, I think, that women should come in on an equal basis – not even as specialized groups, unless they are representing some particular objective. Their influence should be felt as delegates, alternates and advisers.

Among the women now here are economists, lawyers and social workers, all leaders and experts in their various fields. With this type of representation, I believe, women really achieve what they want, which is to have on all important subjects the point of view of both men and women who are working together to frame the policies of the organization.

[NormanStewart]

January 29, 1946

LONDON – In a recent column, I compared various conditions in England today with those of 1942. Now I want to compare the situation as to food rationing.

When I was here in 1942, the housewife was allowed weekly 4 ounces of bacon, 8 ounces of cheese, 2 ounces of butter, 2 ounces of lard or cooking fat, 4 ounces of margarine, and 2 ounces of tea. An adult got 2½ pints of milk a week in summer, and 2 pints in winter. All other things which could be bought at all had to come out of a pool of 24 ration points for a four-week period.

Today, the housewife gets weekly only 3 ounces of bacon and 3 ounces of cheese. The allowance of fats is the same as in 1942, though she may take a larger portion of butter, and shredded suet is now on the ration. There is no change in the milk ration. The tea allowance has been raised to 2½ ounces.

But the housewife now has only 20 points as against 24 in 1942. And out of those points must come any canned goods, preserves, raisins or prunes, and golden syrup, which is equivalent to our corn syrup.

The average person gets about 30 shell eggs a year. Powdered eggs are used for omelettes and scrambling.

Meat is governed largely by price. You are allowed to spend one shilling and tuppence per week. So, of course, if you buy stewing beef, you get a little more than if you try for steak. A part of your meat allowance now has to be in the form of a small cube of corned beef.

The price of meat is controlled, but the allotment is barely enough for two good meals, with perhaps corned beef hash making up another. Three small lamb chops would be one person’s meat allowance for a week. The rest of the time, one would have fish, macaroni with a little cheese, or vegetables.

Potatoes are plentiful. But a can of baked beans, for instance, takes 4 of your points. Carrots, cabbage and brussels sprouts are your main vegetables. Each person is allowed ½ pound of sugar per week and 1 pound of jam or marmalade every four weeks. One can of grade-1 salmon costs the whole of your 20 points. Sardines are a help at 2 points. Your candy or sweets ration is ¾ pound every four weeks.

Of course, you don’t have to deal with any of these hardships if you live at a big hotel like Claridges. The actual price of meals is carefully controlled and you are not allowed more than three courses, but you may pay high prices for things that are not rationed, such as lobster and game, for many of the hotels are allowed what we would call a cover charge.

In the ordinary restaurant, you will find yourself eating Vienna steak, which is 50 percent soybeans or other non-meat foods. Sausage is made up in the same way. And the British have become quite clever in cooking potatoes in a variety of ways!

Fruit has always been a luxury in this country compared with what it is in the United States. In the summer now, you might get a peach, but it would cost you two dollars! A friend of mine told me that she offered an orange, which she had brought from the United States, to a child on the street the other day. The child thanked her for the “pretty ball!”

In spite of the decrease in some things, the British people are sufficiently fed even now and the distribution is completely fair – everyone gets the same. But the drabness and dullness of it, I think, is getting harder and harder to bear.

[NormanStewart]

January 30, 1946

LONDON – I’m glad to have discovered that I made a mistake in saying, in a broadcast the other evening, that there were only two women who were full delegates to the UNO Assembly. Besides myself, there are four: Mrs. Evdokia Uralova of White Russia, Miss Minerva Bernardino of the Dominican Republic, Miss J. R. McKenzie of New Zealand, and Miss Ellen Wilkinson, MP, of Britain.

That is really some encouragement, but I can’t say it completely does away with my feeling that there are not enough women present here. I want to congratulate all those countries who named women as full delegates, but I still want to emphasize the point that many more women could be found who would qualify as technical experts, advisers or alternate delegates. When you are planning for things which will affect the lives of people on an international scale, the point of view of both men and women is important.

In questions, for instance, such as the refugee problem which we discussed in committee on Monday afternoon, the point of view of women is particularly important, because the solution of the problem affects both women and children.

An example of this stands out in my mind. A delegate from Yugoslavia made a very excellent speech in which he pointed out that UNRRA already has returned some 11,000,000 refugees to their countries. The total number of displaced persons was originally estimated at about 12,000,000. In view of this, the delegate could not see why the refugee question was a matter of international concern at all. Said he: “UNRRA should certainly be able, in the course of the next ten months to send back the remaining one million.”

Any who did not wish to return to their own country, from his point of view, were either war criminals or people who were out of sympathy with the form of government in their country and would, therefore, form pockets of resistance to the whole democratic movement in the world, in whatever country they were. He said that, naturally, nobody intended to hold the actions of a man against his wife and children but that it must be made certain that the women did not aid and abet anti-democratic movements in which their husbands might be involved.

I can quite see his point that no democratic government wishes to support groups of their citizens who are working to overthrow that form of government while living as refugees in some other country at the expense of the very people whom they are trying to remove from office. However, his arguments seemed to me to strengthen the resolution which Philip Noel-Baker had offered for the United Kingdom, and which, as delegate from the United States, I had supported.

This resolution called upon the Economic and Social Council to appoint a commission to make a thorough study of the whole refugee problem and of all agencies dealing with refugees. During this study, of course, existing agencies would be in no position to move forward on future plans, pending the commission’s recommendations to the Economic and Social Council. Nevertheless, I think the UNO would be ill-advised to act on a question of this kind without having a more solid basis of fact than it is possible to discover at the present time without careful investigation.

Monday evening, I attended what I had been told would be a small family dinner given by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress at the Mansion House. This small family dinner turned out to include about forty people. I walked in to meet many of the financial heads as well as members of the official governing body of the City of London. It was a delightful evening and I deeply appreciated the fact that, because of my husband, they wished to show me this kindness.

After dinner, I was given a glimpse of some of the rooms of the Mansion House. The most unique feature, I think, is the small courtroom where the Lord Mayor each day disposes of cases brought before him. I was told that the famous suffragette leader, Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst, was once held in one of the cells which are under the courtroom.

The office of Lord Mayor of London is one of great distinction. In the old days, kings and queens had to come to the mayor and council when they needed to build a fleet or raise an army. The ornament which is worn by the Lord Mayor was given to a mayor by Queen Elizabeth when the city raised money to build a fleet to defend Britain against the Spaniards. At that time, the mayor was also made an admiral, and so today, while he holds this office, he is not only Lord Mayor but an Admiral of the Fleet.

Of course, every European country has old customs and ceremonies in connection with official positions. These mean something in each country’s history. I hope that those which are founded on situations which lift the pride and hearts of people will be continued at this time, when people everywhere need to feel that there is strength to be drawn from the past, since it will tide them over the hardships of the present.

[NormanStewart]

January 31, 1946

LONDON – A lady who came to see me the other day said she really was ashamed to meet her friends nowadays, since she always seemed to be begging from them. I think that probably is the case with people in many countries today.

Shortages of goods are so great that, in devastated countries, people who ordinarily would not find it difficult to have things find now that buying almost anything is practically impossible. If that is so for people who have money, one can well imagine what the situation is for those who rarely had more than their absolute day-by-day needs and who now are going without essentials and barely keeping body and soul together.

If I were at home, I would have taken an active part, on my husband’s birthday, in the culmination of the annual March of Dimes campaign for funds for the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. I hope very much that the research which goes on in the United States as a result of this foundation is made available to every nation, because this dread disease is contracted throughout the world.

The pooling of every bit of knowledge gained in the fight against infantile paralysis is important. Other countries may not be able to support the kind of research we are doing in the United States, and so this is one more way in which our country can help others.

There are many organizations in the United States for which appeals go out daily, asking for support of charities to benefit conditions in the war-ravaged countries. One small group sends packages to France. It is called Colis de l’Amitie Americaine aux Enfants de France. They try to put individuals in touch with each other so that, besides material help, there will grow up a kindly interest between individuals.

Here is a quotation from a letter which shows what results are obtained by this particular group. “Dear Mademoiselle:—I received safely your package for my little boy and don’t know how to thank you, for he had nothing left, seeing my husband was a political deportee just back and not well yet…Dear Mademoiselle, if you could be near us to offer you a few flowers because I am happy for my little boy. He is already wearing the sweater and underclothes. Thank you again for this fine little parcel, so he can go to school.”

A number of things have been done by groups employed in certain industries in the United States for cities and countries abroad where there are similar industries. For instance, members of the lace trade sent to Calais, center of the French lace trade and one of the cities which suffered greatly in the war, about 1,250,000 francs worth of food and clothing. This could be multiplied many times over and would be a very great help.

I’ve had an opportunity, under the auspices of the Women’s Volunteer Services, to see some of the new housing being put up in the badly blitzed London dock area. Along the wharves here, acres and acres of houses were destroyed.

The housing program was planned in three parts. First, there were erected fairly primitive dwellings, consisting of two bedrooms, a living room, and a kitchen with running cold water. These furnished immediate shelter. The next step was prefabricated houses, which are expected to last ten years and are a little more comfortable.

Final step is well-built two-story houses which, in part, are also prefabricated. The heating units and plumbing all come ready for connection. These houses have a bathroom, hot and cold running water, and a heat duct going up from the first floor to the second. The little living room has a tiny fireplace, without which, I imagine, no British householder would feel really at home. There are three bedrooms as a rule.

These houses rent for about one pound a week. They are in the old slum areas, of course, and it is expected that all of them will be subsidized to some extent, since it is freely acknowledged here that it is not possible for private industry to provide decent housing for low-paid workers without a subsidy. The two-year and ten-year temporary houses are owned by the city government, so there is no danger of their being left standing to form new slums.

[NormanStewart]

February 1, 1946

LONDON – Personally, I am very happy to have a Norwegian hold the post of Secretary General of the United Nations Organization. Norway suffered much in the war and played a valiant part. She has always been an independent country and her people are individualists. Mr. Trygve Lie, of course, will represent many governments and will have to think of the interests of the people of the world, but the characteristics of the Norwegians are a valuable background, I think, for the kind of courageous leadership which all of us hope he will give to the UNO. He is young and energetic, and gives one the impression of being tactful.

Some time ago, Miss Freida Dalen of Norway, who is rapporteur for the Assembly committee on which I have been serving, spoke to me about the possibility of her countryman, Mr. Lie, being made Secretary General. She so evidently had respect for him and felt that his attitude toward women and their aspirations was fair and sympathetic. Now that he has been chosen, I’m sure she is pleased.

The other morning, I went to Waterloo Station to see a few of the GI brides start off for the United States. Some of them had babies that they would have to care for on the trip. And one girl from Scotland had been taken to a spot where she could lie down because, as she said, she was not a good traveller. But I surmised she was already beginning to be somewhat homesick.

What courage these young things have, confronting life in a strange land! It is an adventure and a rather lonely one. I hope they find friends when they reach our hospitable shores.

But we are not always as thoughtful as we might be. One woman sent me a clipping from a newspaper in which it was reported that many girls in the United States looked upon these brides as interlopers who had taken from them the men they might have married. As a matter of fact, when you think what lonely lives our men have led during the years of war, we should be grateful that they found wives to give them devotion during their periods of leave. We can hope that the necessary adjustments can be made and that happy homes will come into being.

The girls were bound for every part of the United States. Some of them want to find jobs. Others already have their jobs in the form of very active youngsters. I wished them all good luck and came away with an inevitable sigh for the heartaches that must accompany any break such as these girls are making with their past.

To my joy recently, when I went to the closing of the American Red Cross center at Rainbow Corner, a young man came up to me and said, “You probably have forgotten me, Mrs. Roosevelt, but I am the young man who lay so long in that bed at the hospital in Oxford and whom your English friends insisted you must stop to see.” I remembered at once my visit with him in the hospital when I was here in 1942.

He had been with the American flyers who joined the British in the days of the Battle of Britain, very early in the war. When I had seen him before, there was very little hope that he would ever walk again. But youth is a wonderful asset, and here he is, not only able to walk but planning to go back to America soon and earn a living.

I cannot close this column without a word about Harry Hopkins, who was one of my husband’s closest friends. When I saw him just before I left home, he was in the hospital. I knew that he had been very ill and might never again be very well. I hoped, however, that there might be some years ahead of him in which he could do some of the work that he still wanted to do, and in which he could enjoy the peace and happiness with his wife and daughter which the war years had not allowed him to enjoy. For many years, I doubt whether he had ever felt really well, and yet he never refused to undertake a mission, no matter how difficult.

He was a controversial figure. People either liked him very much or they disliked him heartily. Some thought him very able, and felt that he had contributed a great deal, not only during the war but in the positions he held before the war. Others disagreed violently. This was inevitable in the role that he played.

I know, however, that he was a completely loyal friend and adviser, telling the truth as he saw it and carrying out his missions for the benefit of his country with very little regard for his health or his own interests. His wife and children can take great pride in his war service, and also in the work he did in the early years of the depression. Thousands and thousands of people in the United States owe to him the chance they had to live again, not on relief, but with the self-respect that comes from earning one’s living. His children will always have as a heritage the record of his service against which to measure their own future accomplishments.

[NormanStewart]

February 2, 1946

LONDON – Some of our committees are meeting at night and, when I met Senator Connally of Texas on Thursday morning, I thought he felt a distinct resentment at being kept up so late! He reminds me of another well-known Texan, former Vice President Garner, who used to tell me, on the rare occasions when we attended the same evening party, that he always went to bed at 9 o’clock. I doubt if many of the delegates here are going to bed at 9 o’clock, and I’m quite sure that none of their advisers or their staffs are getting through with their work until late in the evening.

In the debate on refugees which has continued in the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee, in connection with Yugoslavia’s proposal that no more assistance should be granted to displaced persons after four months’ time if they refused to return to their native lands, I was particularly impressed by a speech made by the Belgian delegate.

He took up the thorny problem which the delegate from Yugoslavia and the delegate from Poland had brought out – namely, that there are a great many categories of refugees. Among political refugees one may find, besides war criminals and outright traitors to their country, groups of men who love their country but are opposed to its present form of government. The Belgian delegate cited the fact that the Socialists and Communists in his country were as far from the right wing as it was possible to be, and yet you could belong to the right wing and still love your country. However, if you were a refugee, you might not want to return to it under its present regime.

He made the point that governments change but countries remain – that it has taken centuries to build up the right of a man to asylum if he left his country for religious or political reasons. He emphasized that we must not forget human rights and the rights of the individual.

Of all the speeches that had been made on the question, it seemed to me that his was the first one that said something really new which required our attention. He received a round of applause.

I have felt, of course, that the delegate from Yugoslavia made a very telling point when he said that it was rather ludicrous for a country to have to support, in some other country, enemies of the existing government in their own country. Imagine, for instance, Franco’s Spain being required to support refugees who were driven out after the Civil War and, ever since, have been working steadily to oust Franco’s regime. That would demand an amount of altruism which one usually does not find either in governments or individuals.

However, I think that all these questions should be left to the consideration of a commission set up by the Economic and Social Council, as proposed in the resolution originally presented by the United Kingdom and backed by the United States. Such a commission ought to sift the various categories of refugees or displaced persons, and it should be allowed the greatest possible freedom for investigation since, in the course of the next few months, new factors may come to light.

All the speeches made in our committee will be available to the members of this commission, and I think they should be read very carefully as an indication of the attitude of various countries, all of which will have to be considered by the commission in deciding on its final recommendations.

I heard, the other day, of a country where some of the people look upon the Nuremberg trial as a joke and think that all they hear about the horrors of concentration camps is pure propaganda. I hope there is no one left in our own country who is so willfully blind and deaf as these people are reported to be. It is only by acknowledging that human beings, when they once accept wrong leadership, can be led far astray that we can guard ourselves from ever accepting it.

We must remember that the hope of the world lies in acceptance of a philosophy which has come down to us through the ages. Love can be stronger than hate, but we as individuals have to see to it that love and not hate is the basis of our action.

Among my callers recently was a very young girl from Sweden who was full of enthusiasm and hope. She was anxious that the UNO, which seemed very complicated to her, should be translated into something simple in which every individual in every country would feel that he had a part. That will have to come, of course, but the way is not yet clear. Young people, however, are the ones to do it and I hope that, the world over, they will band together for better understanding of the efforts made in the United Nations Organization.

[NormanStewart]

February 4, 1946

LONDON – You have probably appraised according to your sympathies the speeches made by Mr. Bevin and Mr. Vishinsky before the Security Council on Friday, when they presented the question of British troops remaining in Greece. My own sympathies, as I read the two speeches, were largely with the Greek representative. A story here said that he sat quite impassive during Vishinsky’s speech, but when Bevin ended with the direct question: “Do you want us in your country or not – yes or no?”, he got up and made a strong plea.

Yes, he said, they did need British soldiers to keep order in the country, but he hoped that the two allies, Britain and Russia, could make peace with each other on this question. Greece, with a very small standing army, has on her borders Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, both with large, battle-trained armies and, in addition, a considerable number of Russian troops. She has a treaty with Britain, since Britain has always had an interest in all these Mediterranean countries bordering on the waters through which she has to pass to reach India and Australia. The plea for peace and soft words to settle their disputes, therefore, would seem to be a very logical thing for a little country like Greece, which can only hope her appeal will be heeded. To a reader on the outside, it looks as though it would be possible to do things on a cooperative basis, and cooperation is the test of our ability to stay together as 51 nations trying in good faith to keep the peace of the world.

At Friday evening’s plenary session we took up the UNRRA resolution, which had been presented in its final form by Sol Bloom. Since Bloom had obtained its adoption by making a very moving speech, everyone felt that he should make a short speech at this session. He was followed by others, many of the speakers praising the help which UNRRA brought to their people. In addition, there were tangible promises of cooperation from some states which had not before taken part. When this item was finally adopted on the agenda, I could not help wishing that Governor Lehman, who has so often taken hard words on the administration of UNRRA, could have heard the praise from all sides. Masaryk made a very moving address in which he spoke of the innumerable children whom he had seen at the age of six looking like old people of 60 and who, without UNRRA’s help, would certainly have died.

One thing strikes me here just as it has done at home. The end of the war has brought a wave of juvenile delinquency in every country of the world. You read of robberies of every kind in all the newspapers, and the same concern is evidenced because so often the offenders are still quite young. Of course, London has been the crossroad for the nations of the world. Soldiers of many governments-in-exile have been trained here and the armies are made up of both good and bad men.

On the Continent they tell me there is a very serious problem with young people who have been in the resistance movements. Many of them have been unable to continue their education and it now seems dull work to go back to school or to learn some trade. One charity in France that has very high backing, and in which young American women have been deeply interested, would like to establish schools where these young people can catch up. They hope that scholarships will be available for them to go and train for a particular vocation or profession that they may wish to take up. They hope that the United States, and other countries where the very best in their particular line is available, will cooperate. I hope it may be possible to interest people at home, because so many of these young men are future leaders of their country, and if they get their training outside their own country they will have a better knowledge of how other countries function and a better understanding of the people of other nations.

Late sessions at the end of the week prevented me from keeping a number of engagements, but I did have lunch at the National Liberal Club with some old friends of ours, Mr. and Mrs. Francis Hirst. There are some very beautiful portraits in this old club which I found quite interesting. In order to see the portrait of Winston Churchill as a young man, we went to the gentlemen’s reading lounge. I was a little horrified because the members present, being gentlemen, all rose and insisted on standing while we were there, and I could imagine their annoyance. My host, Mr. Hirst, however, insisted that I come back after my first hasty retreat and walk half way through the room to see the very beautiful portrait of John Bright. Then someone suggested that I say “a few words” – and there I was, with an audience exclusively of gentlemen except for Mrs. Hirst and Lady Simon. They listened very kindly, but I am sure they also were glad when I finally left them to their coffee and cigars.

[NormanStewart]

February 5, 1946

LONDON – It is extremely difficult for us in the United States to conceive of the conditions confronting the people in the countries of Europe today, and even here in Great Britain.

For instance, it has just been announced that the British Government will not be able to buy any more powdered eggs from us, and that means, of course, that the people will no longer be able to buy them. We in the United States are not very fond of powdered eggs, but this announcement caused consternation among the British.

In my mail is a letter which tells me in no uncertain terms what this will mean to the average British home. I quote from it here:

“I wonder if your ‘folks at home’ know what it means to us to be deprived of the dried eggs they have been sending us. This deprivation is almost certainly one of the worst we have been called upon to face.

“We can now have no scrambled eggs for breakfast (already reserved for men and children only in most households). We can never give the children Yorkshire pudding and gravy on the many non-meat days. We can never serve pancakes for pudding, and there is only enough milk for one milk pudding a week. We can never make any sort of cake. What confectioners will do seems impossible to surmise.

“We loved your boys especially for their wonderful kindness to our children. What they will think of this, I don’t know. They know of our struggle to get fed.”

I think this letter illustrates as well as anything else the little things which affect some nations greatly and leave us completely untouched at home. Though the war is over, the people here and in Europe are hardly as well able as we are to settle down to a normal life.

When an individual here has to make repairs on his house, he is allowed to spend only ten pounds a month, which is equivalent to about forty dollars. If he is in a very bad way, he may be allowed two or three pounds more, but you can well imagine that that does not go far. I think, of course, that big buildings and organizations have a slightly bigger allowance, but it is not enough to achieve major repairs.

Permits for materials are given by the government only under the stress of real necessity. Then, after you have the money and your permit, you have to find labor, and very often your permit, which is good for only three months, runs out before the labor is available. Then you begin the whole weary round again – permit, money, labor, – and it almost seems easier to live among the ruins.

I had a letter the other day from five American Army boys, inviting Senator Connally and myself to have dinner with them, saying that they were on their last leave before returning home. I had a dinner engagement, so could not accept, but asked them to drop in for a talk with me before I went out. This they did, and I found I had two boys from Texas, one from North Carolina, one from Ohio, and one from New York.

All of them, apparently, are planning to go on with their education when they reach home, but one of them said: “We haven’t thought about it very much, for when you are over here, getting home seems so far away that you don’t really make any definite plans.”

I can understand that, but I asked them whether they had had any chance, while here, to study the problems which as citizens they need to understand when they reach home. They said that was difficult to do, since you could never get more than ten or twelve men together at any one time. I regret this. That number seems to me ideal for a discussion group, but I gathered that discussions were not going on very actively in the ranks of our soldiers.

Nearly all the Assembly delegates are beginning to talk about the end of the session, and I think our work is being speeded up. I imagine that the United States delegation is not the only one with statesmen who feel they have obligations at home pressing heavily upon them. Belgium, for instance, will have a general election soon and, naturally, any man in public life wants to get home at such a time.

[NormanStewart]

February 6, 1946

LONDON – Anyone who has had a chance to see what the children living in war areas have gone without cannot help being deeply impressed, not only with the physical side of the problem, but with the fact that these children have long been denied many of the little things that make up the ordinary pleasures of a child’s life.

Here in Britain, the government and mothers and communities have worked together to preserve, on the whole, a very healthy standard of nutrition for their children, and yet I was struck by the way in which my godchild counted over the candies which I had brought her from the United States. She seemed to notice each one as though it were a separate gift and to enjoy it in anticipation. I saw her make up a little package which I think she was going to take back to school for the week, and she carefully left the others behind for future enjoyment. No carelessness about these sweets – they were much too precious!

While one recognizes that being denied such things may be valuable for character development, one also realizes that these children have lost one of the greatest assets of childhood – the sense that tomorrow is sure to bring more of anything that one enjoys today. That carefree confidence in the future will never be a heritage of any of the children who lived in Britain through the war years. And for the children in Europe, the experience must have been intensified. I doubt if any of us can ever hope to erase the effects, but at least we can see to it that they are not made worse in the years to come because of our carelessness or lack of understanding.

The special service for the Assembly delegates which was held in St. Paul’s on Sunday afternoon was very impressive. The dome of the cathedral was lighted for the first time since the war, I believe. I noticed that the repair work on the damage done by a bomb had not yet been finished, but the cathedral looked very beautiful.

Prime Minister Attlee read the lesson, the Lord Bishop of London delivered the sermon, and prayers were dedicated to the successful carrying out of the work of the United Nations Organization. To my joy, Sir Cecil Spring Rice’s “I Vow to Thee, My Country” was sung. Evidently, someone who helped to plan the service must be as fond of those verses as I am.

They carried me back to the years, during the last war, when Sir Cecil was British Ambassador in Washington. I had known him slightly ever since he had come over, as a young man, as a third secretary of the Embassy and had become an intimate friend of my Uncle Theodore Roosevelt, with whom he spent many hours walking and talking. As Ambassador, he and Lady Spring Rice were kind to a young Assistant Secretary of the Navy and his wife, so we became warm friends.

He used to tell me that we Americans were strange people because we read and knew so little about our own history. He knew far more than I did, but my husband could hold his own!

The installation of Trygve Lie as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization was quite an imposing ceremony, with President of the Assembly Paul-Henri Spaak swearing in Mr. Lie with great solemnity. It must be a very real emotional experience, if you have served your country in public office, to take an oath to serve an international organization.

We must all of us, quite naturally, with the best will in the world, continue to feel a great emotional attachment for our own people and our own land. But I’m convinced, both from the seriousness with which Mr. Lie took the oath and from the way in which he delivered his speech of acceptance, that he has a very real conviction that, in serving this international organization, he will be serving the best interests of his own people as well as the rest of the world.

[NormanStewart]

February 7, 1946

LONDON – In regard to the refugee problem, we know that UNRRA comes to an end in Europe at the close of 1946, but no one has made a study of the best type of organization to undertake the handling of the problem in the future and its proper affiliation with the United Nations Organization. In the meetings of the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee this week, there have been several speeches on this question along much the same lines as had already been developed.

The resolution presented by the Russian delegate, Prof. A. A. Arutiunian, brought out the one real cleavage between our point of view and the thinking of the Russians and Yugoslavs. They consider that there are only two main categories of refugees: first, those who wish to be repatriated, and secondly, those who do not wish to return to their homelands because they are “quislings, traitors, war criminals or collaborators.” They acknowledge that there may be a small group of Jewish refugees who have such unpleasant memories of their homelands that they no longer wish to return, but they consider this a relatively minor question.

However, it seems to me essential that we have more concrete information before we ask our various governments to commit themselves on any of the details of future procedure in regard to refugees. It is said that, roughly, there are still a million displaced persons in Europe, but no one is sure that that figure is correct or will be correct three months from now – and no one knows the categories into which these remaining refugees will fit.

Of course, if all the European governments had been stable for years past and if all of them were so secure that they had no fear of opposition, the matter might be as simple as the Russians make it sound. If people holding different views from the present Governments in their countries could live there unscathed and unhampered, just as we do in the United States, waiting and working for the achievement of their particular point of view but meanwhile abiding by the will of the majority, the problem would be easy.

However, you must have a basic agreement on the type of government under which you live. In the United States, when a Republican administration is in power, the Democrats are constantly trying to persuade the voters to return them to power – and vice versa. But our force is all exerted by the ballot under a basic Constitution. It is a long time since the Civil War settled for us once and for all, I think, any question of armed force being used instead of the ballot.

If, however, when the Democrats were out of power, they could not live freely and unhampered within our country, I doubt if they would like to be sent back there against their will. And that, I think, is where the real cleavage of opinion comes in the arguments on refugees that have been presented in our committee debate.

The position of the United States, as presented in our resolution, is that we should ask the Economic and Social Council to set up a special commission to make a comprehensive study of the whole problem and formulate recommendations for action at the next session of the Assembly.

It is evident that speed will be required, but I cannot see how we will help matters by trying to accept a plan now which would not be based on any real factual knowledge. Neither can I see that it would help the special commission if we outlined definite procedures for them to follow, since they will undoubtedly meet new situations in the course of their study. Naturally, they should know how various nations feel and, for that reason, the speeches made in our committee should be “required reading,” but I hardly think it would help them if we laid down any definite premises.

The dinner which the Pilgrims Society gave for me the other evening was a very unique and delightful occasion. In their forty-odd years of existence, I was the first woman to be their guest of honor, but I realize that I owe this to the fact that they wanted to honor my husband. The beautiful letter from Lord Derby, president of the society, proposing a memorial in London to my husband, touched me deeply.

Viscount Greenwood made me a charming speech of welcome and wrote a toast which I should like to keep for future years. Once my own speech was behind me, I enjoyed every minute. Before that, though I enjoyed the great kindness of my hosts, I was nevertheless somewhat oppressed by my own share in the proceedings.

[NormanStewart]

February 8, 1946

LONDON – The interest of the Assembly delegates has been centered in the Security Council meetings, and everywhere you go in London, you hear them being discussed. I am very happy to find that the general feeling agrees with my own. There is a great sense of relief that questions which might ordinarily seethe under the surface and never be discussed openly are now being considered by all nations. Difficulties between people or nations that are not talked out create a potential bitter feeling of injustice on all sides.

The women working in the United Nations Organization met the other day to sign an appeal addressed to the women of every country in the world and to their governments as well. We think it is very important, and so I am quoting from it here:

“This first Assembly of the United Nations marks the second attempt of the peoples of the world to live peaceably in a democratic world community. This new chance for peace was won through the joint efforts of men and women working for common ideals of human freedom at a time when the need for united effort broke down barriers of race, creed and sex.

“In view of the variety of tasks which women performed so notably and valiantly during the war, we are gratified that 18 women delegates and advisers are representatives from 11 of the member states taking part in the beginning of this new phase of international effort. We hope their participation in the work of the United Nations Organization may grow and may increase in insight and skill. To this end, we call on the governments of the world to encourage women everywhere to take a more conscious part in national and international affairs, and on women to come forward and share in the work of peace and reconstruction as they did in the war and resistance.

“We recognize that women in various parts of the world are at different stages of participation in the life of their communities, that some of them are prevented by law from assuming the full rights of citizenship, and that they may therefore see their immediate problems somewhat differently.

“Finding ourselves in agreement on these points, we wish as a group to advise the women of all our countries of our strong belief that an important opportunity and responsibility confronts the women of the United Nations:

“1. To recognize the progress women made during the war and to participate actively in an effort to improve their standard of life in their countries, and participate in the work of reconstruction so that there will be qualified women ready to accept responsibility when new opportunities arise.

“2. To train their children, boys and girls alike, to understand world problems and the need for international cooperation…

“3. Not to permit themselves to be misled by anti-democratic movements now or in the future.

“4. To recognize that the goal of full participation in the life and responsibilities of their countries and of the world community is a common objective toward which the women of the world should assist one another.”

I think you may be interested in a letter to the London Times about the Charter Club, which performed an excellent wartime service in bringing together soldiers of various nations, and whose sponsors now have plans for expanding it in the interests of peace and world unity. The letter to the Times says in part:

“It is now proposed not only to continue forming branch clubs in towns throughout the world, but also to build at least one international center called the Charter College, where young leaders from many nations may get to know each other and learn how to build a new world of friends.

“This college will concentrate on those universal interests which unite mankind – arts, sports, science and civics. This does not mean that dilettantism will be encouraged or that the students will be fiddling whilst the world is suffering. On the contrary, it means that the vision of great artists, scientists and philosophers, together with ‘good sportsmanship,’ will be recognized not only as qualities of one living spirit shared by all mankind, but also as essential to the building of lasting and progressive peace.

“It is hoped that a sufficient sum will be forthcoming to make this college a not unworthy War Memorial of the United Nations.”

[NormanStewart]

February 9, 1946

LONDON – The newspapers here have been ringing with protests because of the announcement that there would be a reduction in the butter and fats ration, and a return to the darker bread that was used during the war.

I am glad that the United States is going to help Europe by reducing its own food supply, and that conservation measures are being planned to increase the surplus wheat we can ship abroad. My mind reverts to the last war, when every housewife was asked to use cornmeal instead of flour for at least one meal every day. Herbert Hoover, as Food Administrator, obtained a remarkable amount of voluntary cooperation. I still have many recipes for different kinds of cornbread which we used not only once a day, but often twice.

The suggestion has been made to me that, if we had smaller loaves of bread, we might waste less, for a large loaf often becomes stale before we have used all of it. Because it is no longer good for table use and because the sugar shortage now makes it difficult to use stale bread for puddings or desserts, we throw it away. I’m sure that, if we were given a really true picture of the situation in many nations – such as Italy, which has been clamoring for a higher bread ration for a long time – we would gladly cooperate by using smaller loaves.

The other evening, I went to a very pleasant dinner party, but I think Americans should realize how much normal life in Britain has changed and what it means when an English family today gives a guest from overseas a dinner. Food being so strictly rationed, there cannot be any great extravagance but, frequently, this one meal takes a whole week’s ration of every member of the family, particularly where meat or fats of any kind are concerned.

Another difference in Britain’s life was pointed up when my host said, “You know, Mrs. Roosevelt, when we knew you were coming, we had to get out our dinner coats. Most of us hadn’t worn them since the beginning of the war, but now that the break has been made, it won’t seem too difficult to dress for dinner again.”

However, I doubt whether our English friends will go back to their old habit of dressing for dinner for some time to come. For one thing, it requires more laundry work to do men’s evening shirts. With soap scarce and labor scarcer, anything which adds to the amount of the laundry is not popular these days.

I had an interesting meeting with the London staff of UNRRA the other day. Most of the staff are British, but there is a sprinkling of other nationalities. I talked for a little while and then they asked me questions, largely about the work of the UNO.

UNRRA, of course, has had very wide experience in working with various nationalities, and I was interested to find that they had many of the same difficulties that we Assembly delegates have because of different languages and the different points of view that result from varying backgrounds. At the end of our meeting, one of the Russian members told me that he was impressed by my remark that working together was the very best medium for gaining mutual understanding.

The language barrier was emphasized in one of our committee meetings this week, because the Secretariat was unable to furnish us with an interpreter. Quite a number of the delegates can understand a certain amount of English but, when they want the fine shades of meaning, it has to be translated. I find this rather a good thing, because you can’t really become excited when you have to say something first in English and then in French. You have plenty of time to think about your meaning, and even to make sure whether you believe strongly enough in the things you are talking about to bother to say them at all.

I have been sent the most wonderful spring flowers. Red tulips, which I’m sure come straight from Holland, mixed with yellow daffodils give me a most cheerful feeling as I come in from the grey outside world. They make my sitting room full of the promise of ever-continuing growth which comes back to the world in the spring, and which is a symbol of our own human possibilities of growth in spiritual and mental life.

[NormanStewart]

February 11, 1946

LONDON – Since we are very near the end of this first session of the UNO conference, perhaps it would be well to evaluate some of its real accomplishments. The greatest, I think, is that at the end we still are a group of 51 nations working together. When I was originally asked to come over, I thought that all we would accomplish would be the organization of machinery and the election of a Secretary-General. I felt that then it would be only wise to let a little time elapse for the Secretariat to be chosen and learn to work together and for the Secretary-General to familiarize himself with his permanent home in the United States, even though it might be in temporary quarters there. It would also be necessary for him to get to know the various people chosen to work for their governments on councils and commissions, since these bodies continue their work even when the Assemblies are not in session.

That is not, however, all that has happened. To be sure, the organizing was done, but what really proved that the organization has life and strength is what happened beyond that stage. The first important thing, I think, is that the Charter stood the test of the implementation period and proved that it is an adequate instrument under which machinery could be set up. Next, most of us were balancing the potential strength of the UNO against the first effort made through the League of Nations. Many of the European countries which had worked in that body, particularly those men who put their whole hearts into it, were hopeful of the success of this new organization but, perhaps because of their experience, a little skeptical. The peoples of their countries in many cases could hardly be aroused to enthusiasm now for anything except where the next loaf of bread is coming from. It would have to be proved to them that this organization affected their daily lives or there would be no glimmer of interest.

It seems to me that the most encouraging thing at the start is the fact that the five great powers who fought and won the war are here together to work out the machinery whereby we will try to create in the world an atmosphere in which a peaceful world might develop. In one very important way, this organization differs from the League of Nations. When the League was suggested the U.S., through its President, was deeply involved. But under our kind of government it requires not only the interest of the Executive but the cooperation of both major political parties in our legislative bodies. They were not present at the framing of the League and took no part in its formation. When it came to be presented to Congress, it was possible for the Republican party to prevent the U.S. from becoming part of the organization. The people of our country were indifferent. War is never popular in the U.S. and, never having had it actually on our own soil since the days of the Civil War, we were always obliged to send our men out of the country, which makes the whole proceeding much remoter from the civilian population. When the losses had been accepted and the men were home again, our great desire in the past has been to forget that war ever existed.

This time, however, I think we have learned the lesson that becoming involved in war does not lie entirely in any one nation’s hands and that therefore we must concern ourselves in the affairs of the world, particularly in working for peaceful solutions of world difficulties. Otherwise, no matter how hard we try to keep aloof, we will wake up some morning to find ourselves involved. Fortunately this time, we now have on the U.S. delegation, and we had in San Francisco when the Charter was written, representatives of our Foreign Affairs Committee in both Senate and House. Both our major political parties are represented and therefore they go back to report to their co-workers and their constituents throughout the nation, and support of the country on a non-political basis is assured. For this reason, I feel that in the organization of the UNO there is a great strength which was lacking in the League, for no machinery to help build peace could be of any value unless the five great powers were involved and had to come to an agreement on whatever measures came before them.

With the end of this session in sight, everyone is anxious to get through now and go home. Since the Security Council is getting on with its work and the other committees seem also to be moving to a conclusion, I think it quite natural we should all have the urge to get back to our occupations at home which we have neglected for so long. My letters from home are becoming very urgent. I broke a great many engagements when I came over here and, quite aside from the fact that the part of my family which lives near me thinks I have been away quite a long time, some of the people who counted on me for various engagements during this current month are beginning to be a little worried as to whether I will really arrive or not!

[NormanStewart]

February 12, 1946

LONDON – Looming above every other accomplishment of the first session of the UNO Assembly, as I pointed out in my column yesterday, is the great accomplishment of having brought together 51 nations, set up an organization and actually seen it begin to function without breaking apart.

The second greatest achievement seems to me to be that, in spite of a very complicated system of election, which caused some confusion, we still managed to elect fifteen judges from all over the world as members of the International Court of Justice. These judges are well distributed geographically, representing the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, Poland, Egypt, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile and El Salvador.

The third great achievement, I think, is the fact that this new organization had presented to it, through the Security Council, some very thorny questions and, instead of putting them off, got down to work and dealt with them. First, there was the question between Russia and Iran. Then came Russia’s accusations against Britain for having troops in Greece. Though heated words were exchanged between Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin and Vice Foreign Commissar Andrei Vishinsky, a solution to both these questions was achieved.

Some people feared that the plain speaking which has gone on in these Security Council meetings would create such rifts that the representatives of the nations involved could not go on working together, but that fear was soon set at rest. At the end of the dispute over Greece, Mr. Bevin and Mr. Vishinsky shook hands warmly. Both of them seem quite able to consider these arguments on the level of any parliamentary debate. We in the United States should be well accustomed to this, for we have seen many a man attack the political theories of an opponent with vitriolic words, then link arms and go out to dinner with him.

Though there are some questions still unsettled before the Security Council, I think the fact that some decisions have been reached shows a healthy strength and, above all, a determination among the five great powers to reach agreement and stand together in peace as they did in war. If that spirit is maintained, any skepticism among European nations in regard to UNO will undoubtedly be lessened and, without question, the interest of the people of the United States will be completely aroused, since they will see in this organization a real instrument for peace.

Personally, I am very glad that it was decided to place the permanent headquarters in the United States. Since European nations are more international-minded, they are not apt to forget that peace requires as much attention as war. But the United States, because of its early isolation, has lived in what many might call a Fools’ Paradise.

In the past, some security was created by our ocean barriers and we were far less dependent on trade with other nations. Today, all thinking people in the United States know that oceans are no longer a protection. Nevertheless, some of our old spirit of self-sufficiency clings to us. That is the reason why I feel that bringing UNO’s home to our nation probably will insure, as nothing else would, the active, wholehearted support of our people for this effort, which is the last and best hope for our civilization.

Our newspapers give much less space to news that comes from faraway places unless it has some sensational value. But with the UNO headquarters in the United States, there should be a constant flow of information about its activities which should receive adequate coverage. Much depends, of course, on the chairmen of the various councils and committees which will be more or less constantly in session. If these chairmen establish good relations with our press and have a sense of the information which should reach the public, I think there is no question that UNO’s activities will get more attention from our nation because they are being carried on in the United States.

I think, too, that everything possible should be done to make it interesting and easy for the average individual to visit the UNO headquarters and find out how the organization works. At this writing, the exact location has not yet been decided upon, but I think a site not too far from New York would be a happy choice. New York, like London, is a crossroads for the world and, if the UNO headquarters were a pleasant day’s excursion from this center, I think people from all over the world would arrange to include this as one of the places they must visit when they are in New York.

[NormanStewart]

February 13, 1946

LONDON – Having summarized the achievements of the UNO conference, I want now to say a few things about the personalities of the people with whom I’ve come in contact.

At the Assembly sessions, our delegation is seated next to the Russians. On the first day, I was delighted to find that next to me was V. V. Kuznetsov, president of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions of the USSR. He greeted me in a most friendly fashion, and I remembered that he had come to my apartment in New York one afternoon to interpret for a group of Russian women who were part of a workers’ delegation sent over from Russia to visit some of our factories. It’s funny how a little opportunity like this of seeing someone in your own home, even for a little while, makes you feel much more friendly with them.

That’s one reason why I had one of my meetings with the other women delegates, alternates and advisers in my own sitting room here at the hotel instead of in a public room. It was so crowded that some of us had to sit on the floor but for that very reason, I think, we felt more at ease and better acquainted with each other.

To get back to the Russian delegation, I had met Ambassador Andrei Gromyko in Washington but had never had any long conversations with him. During this conference, I’ve seen him frequently and once had the pleasure of sitting next to him at lunch. All these little contacts do develop better understanding.

I begin to feel, in regard to my fellow committee member, Prof. Arutiunian, who presented Russia’s side in the refugee debate, that we have a basis from which, with opportunity, we might develop a pleasant acquaintanceship. We have had honest differences of opinion, but I learned a great deal that will help me to understand the reasons for certain attitudes on the part of people who live in different surroundings and therefore have a different sense of values. Neither Prof. Arutiunian nor I has questioned the sincerity of the convictions held by the other, and that is the basis on which understanding can be built, I believe.

In the British delegation, which sits in front of ours at the Assembly sessions, I’ve watched Philip Noel-Baker with particular interest. His old association with and devotion to the League of Nations makes him, I think, extremely anxious for this new organization to succeed but, nevertheless, somewhat jealous for the accomplishments of the League and perhaps, at times, a little too much influenced by the past.

Since there is no language barrier between our delegation and the British group, we have a medium for understanding which greatly enhances our opportunities to reach similar conclusions. For instance, in our work in the Social Committee, we have differed occasionally but never really on fundamentals.

Sir George Rendel, chief British member of the committee, is very apt to find fault, usually quite correctly, with our English. At times, when he wished to change certain wording, I think the Russian delegate suspected him of some deep, nefarious plot to change the real meaning! I was much amused once when the Russian delegate supported me in a wording, which I knew was not very good English, because he said he could understand it better.

The leaders of the French delegation always speak with distinction, and their language in itself is beautiful. I’ve been interested to see Paul Boncour come to the rostrum of the Assembly on several occasions. I think he has one of the finest heads I’ve ever seen and a very beautiful expression. However, because France is one of the nations of Europe that has a long, hard struggle before it, one senses a certain cynicism and weariness in her older statesmen.

I like very much indeed the young French woman who has served on the Social Committee. She seemed, at times, a little over-earnest and concerned, but I think that was because she understood no English and, in trying to follow the discussions, her brows would knit and she’d shake her head as though to say, “I have no idea what you are talking about.”

I’ve seen something of a good many of the women who are here – probably because there are so few of them. Mrs. Verwey from the Netherlands is a most able and attractive young woman. Her mind is keen, she grasps quickly the points which her advisers make, and then puts them before her audience concisely and clearly. This is a valuable gift.

I find that, if anything, the men here take more words to express their thoughts than the women do. The answer will doubtless be that they have more thoughts to express! I’m quite willing to grant that men, on the whole, have accomplished more in the art of oratory than have women, but if you want to get work done quickly, oratory is not half so important as putting your thoughts clearly, taking up as little time as possible, and never speaking unless you have something that really needs to be said.

[NormanStewart]

February 14, 1946

LONDON – From my own personal standpoint – and I’m sure every delegate to the UNO conference must feel the same way – the experience of watching this organization begin its work has been exceptionally interesting. Merely listening to so many points of view is not only good discipline but opens up vast fields of knowledge which most of us need to explore if we are going to meet the needs of the next few years intelligently.

While it is reported that there is not actual starvation throughout Europe, there is hunger practically everywhere. That means people with less energy for work and less resistance to disease. However, the physical factor is not the only thing, nor perhaps the most serious thing, that worries the keenest observers.

We must remember that a good part of Europe was swept by invading armies not only once, but twice. First, the Nazis came and, in every village, town and city that they occupied, they removed leaders they suspected of being unfriendly to them, putting in others. Then, the Allies came along and got rid of those whom they could not trust.

We know, from all we have heard, how difficult it has been to find people to organize and carry on civil government as well as initiate and guide reconstruction. Armies of occupation cannot take the place of a country’s own civilian leaders. However, throughout Europe, many of the former leaders, both men and women, are now gone. That is why I think it will take some time before we see a real tackling of reconstruction problems by peoples who look out on ruined fields and crumbling towns.

In addition, there is a floating population without roofs over their heads, with scant food and clothing, and with no real purpose in life. Is it any wonder that they frequently are driven to desperation? Out of people who fought in resistance movements and for whom the greatest virtue was to lie, cheat, kill and destroy, it is difficult to build a law-abiding community where the old standards of right and wrong, of public and private morality, must exist again.

Someone asked me the other day how it was going to be possible to make the people of North and South America understand the situation in Europe today. For us in the United States, the only real hope of understanding is to think of our own postwar problems magnified far beyond anything we ever imagined. We must try to think what it would mean if our big cities lay in ruins, if our railroads had to be completely rebuilt, if our people had to return to pioneer conditions.

Somehow, we must stretch our imagination. Being a part of this first UNO Assembly has, I think, helped me as an individual to stretch my own imagination.

I’m frank to say it is always a surprise to me to find how passionately men can feel about rules of procedure. Toward the end of our work in the Assembly committee on which I served, we spent three hours one afternoon arguing about rules. I found it hard to grow excited about them when I was unable to see that they affected the substance of our future actions one way or another.

I know that, in parliamentary gatherings, rules of procedure are very important, but I wonder if this has not been built up to unnecessary proportions in our work here because so many of the delegates are lawyers – and legal minds love abstractions. I’m hoping we will always have balance in this organization, including people of various occupations. While legal advice and procedure are essential, it must be kept within reasonable bounds, since it’s human needs that must be paramount.

I liked very much the chairman of our committee, Prime Minister Peter Fraser of New Zealand. He is such a fine person, and one cannot help having real affection for him. There were times, though, when I thought his Scotch convictions (he’s a native of Scotland) found expression, even though he tried to be an impartial chairman!

I also want to mention Miss Frieda Dalen of Norway, rapporteur for our committee. This is an important position because, in the way you write a committee’s report, you can do what we in America call “slanting the news.” Just a little change in emphasis may give a false impression of the way the committee really felt. Considering the heated arguments that went on in our committee and the insistence on diverse formulas and words to express exact meanings, I thought Miss Dalen did a wonderful piece of work.

Among the other women I’ve met here, one of the most interesting to me is Madame Evdokia Uralova, delegate from White Russia. I have a real feeling of friendliness as a result of our few opportunities to talk together. She and Miss Vishinsky, daughter of Andrei Vishinsky, came to tea with me the other afternoon. Miss Vishinsky is pretty and very able, but I was surprised when she announced that she was teaching criminal law in a high school. I discovered that what she meant was a college, which in Russia is known as a “superior school.”

[NormanStewart]

February 15, 1946

FRANKFORT ON THE MAIN, Germany – When I left London, I was not looking forward to this journey to the continent since I feared that, for those of us who knew the Europe of the past, sadness was bound to fill our souls. But sorrow which leads to constructive work and a determination to keep from repeating our mistakes is good for us. It should strengthen us for the battle that must come in these next few years – the battle for peace. And we must pray for victory no less sincerely than we did in time of war.

On the plane flight to Germany, the pilot offered to go down and let me get a look at Aachen from the air. It was difficult, at first, to tell just how much damage had been done, but my eyes grew accustomed to houses without roofs and I realized that, comparatively speaking, there was little life in the city’s streets.

In the villages, life seemed to be going on. And I was surprised to find how universally the fields were planted and how well cared for they looked. These people are thrifty – they use every available bit of land.

When we came to Cologne, we again circled the town. Again, there was very little life in the streets. I saw only one car, a few people on bicycles, and a few on foot. From the air, however, the full impact of the war is hard for unaccustomed eyes to grasp.

Soon after we reached Frankfort, I took a short drive through the city. It has been many years since I was here before, but I remember it very well as it was then. It was a spacious city, with beautiful buildings and a residential district in which many of the richest Germans lived. Now, I cannot adequately describe what the destruction is.

An area around the railroad station is flat. Certain buildings are occupied only on the lower floors. In street after street, there is not one habitable dwelling. The sights are appalling, leave you stunned, almost unable to grasp the misery of such devastation. Only when you drive out to the outskirts do you find a few streets where people still live.

The city’s former population was about 550,000. They say that 378,000 people still live here, but where they live is certainly a mystery.

I remember some of the smaller cities along the line of battle in France after the first World War, where practically all the buildings were shells and where the people lived in the cellars. You would see them flitting, like ghosts, out into the sunlight and then back to their underground dwellings. That may be what they’re doing here, but I’ve seen no evidence of it. As the villages have been very little harmed, probably many of the city’s people are now living there.

On the whole, I think the children here look fairly well. Records show that the men have lost some weight, but the women have gained a little. Rations give each person 1500 calories a day. Fortunately, the winter so far has been miraculously mild.

Here and there, you see smoke emerging from factory chimneys, but these are usually isolated factories some distance from towns. From the air I saw many chimneys from which no smoke was rising.

As you look at this city, first you think of the great material loss – famous buildings destroyed with their probable contents of art treasures and fine furnishings – businesses which disappeared overnight – life savings wiped away. But what really makes you shudder is the amount of human suffering which must be represented in these piles of rubble and crumbling walls.

The Germans are a tough people and the unanimous impression seems to be that they have little sense of guilt. The older people realize they have been beaten – completely beaten – but only the older people will come forward to help the occupation forces. Some of them may think along lines acceptable to us, but the great mass of young people are still Nazis – still believe they can rebuild a strong Germany and German Army!