Radio Interview with Sen. Vandenberg of Michigan
October 19, 1946
Station WJR
Detroit
CUSHING: Welcome home, Senator, when may we hope to see you back in Michigan?
VANDENBERG: Thanks, Mr. Cushing – and thanks to WJR for this privilege. I shall be back in Michigan when the general assembly of the United Nations finishes in New York. I shall stick to this “peace job” to the end.
CUSHING: Let’s get right at these precious peace-hopes of which you speak. You are just back from the Paris Conference. What contribution did it make?
VANDENBERG: Despite all difficulties, it is one more step toward clarifying the world’s number one problem. The 21 allies have now made their recommendations respecting treaties with Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland. These recommendations go to the Council of Foreign Ministers of the four big powers for the final decision. Here there will be new difficulties. But solutions are on their way.
CUSHING: Did the conference agree on recommendations?
VANDENBERG: Yes. But by split votes on major issues, which again underline the world’s supreme peace conundrum – how to find common ground between Eastern Communism and Western democracy. I agree with Mr. Molotov’s statement to the conference that we must take care lest such “labels confuse the issue.” But the facts of life, however disagreeable, are the facts of life. Mr. Molotov’s final declaration that he will strongly contest all conference decisions which went against him is not encouraging. Neither is the withdrawal of Yugoslavia from the final conference. Of course, none of us is wholly satisfied with the treaty recommendations. But here, at least is the world’s verdict on the controversies in these treaties – and that is progress.
CUSHING: Could you give us the high-spots in these treaties, Senator?
VANDENBERG: In the brief time at our disposal, Mr. Cushing, I hardly know where to begin or end such a story. But here are a few exhibits. We agreed upon the principles of a sound statute for Trieste – the cockpit of Europe – a statute which sustains our American view that there can be no peace unless Trieste is free and independent and democratic in fact as well as name.
Again. We agreed upon the principles for a free Danube River, vital to peace and progress in eight nations – principles which support our contention that this major artery of trade in Central Europe shall not operate under selfish discriminations which breed inevitable frictions.
Again. We agreed upon reparations and restitutions – a program which at least partially reflects our anxiety that these ex-enemy states shall pay as much as possible toward rehabilitation of the war damage they have done, but that their burdens snail not become unlivable and therefore uncollectable.
We revised our own demands for 100 percent compensation for American property destroyed in ex-enemy states; and joined the Soviets in supporting partial compensation because there can only be partial, and not full, reparations or restitution.
We agreed upon numerous new boundaries.
One happy omen was that Italy and Austria mutually agreed upon compromises in the South Tyrol.
Then there were countless details respecting all phases of human relations – all parts of one, big jigsaw puzzle. You must remember that a peace treaty is not a simple contract covering a few pages. It is literally a book. Let me give you one typical example. The final meeting of our Balkan Economic Committee, of which I was a member, consumed 28½ uninterrupted hours and involved 88 roll calls. And it is worth remembering, Mr. Cushing, that we had friendly unity 75 percent of the time. I do not minimize the desperate importance of the other 25 percent. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. But neither am I willing to minimize the fact that our minds did meet 75 percent of the time.
CUSHING: You can imagine, Senator, that these complications leave us in considerable confusion here at home.
VANDENBERG: Of course there is confusion. This would be inevitable even though there were no missionaries of confusion here at home. The job is baffling even to those of us who confront it at first hand. Furthermore, our American Communists and their fellow-travelers thrive on confusion.
But we must not forget that hammering out a multiple peace has always been “confusing” and has always taken time and patience. More than a century ago, the Congress of Vienna sat upon a similar, but simpler, job for more than one full year.
After all, it took five years to tear the world apart. It is not surprising if it takes that long to put it together again. The Paris Conference is part of this process. I have no illusions about the perilous difficulties we confront. But I want to make equally plain that I am not surrendering to pessimism. Many of the Paris speeches were in good temper, despite deep disagreements.
I quote one of Mr. Molotov’s comments. Deploring divisions among us, he said: “We need not doubt that we shall meet the desires of all peace-loving peoples.” I join that prayer. In the same connection I also quote the final, significant sentence in a recent, metropolitan editorial: “If Russia is willing to honor in victory what she signed when in need of help, the division which Mr. Molotov deplores will disappear overnight.” We must be sure we, too, are as faithful to every commitment we have made.
CUSHING: Let’s pursue that subject, Senator. Are not these five present treaties only on the rim of our problem? Are not Germany and Austria the paramount concern?
VANDENBERG: Absolutely yes. The German and Austrian treaties will be the key to postwar Europe. We have been pressing for a start upon these treaties for many months. I regret to say there is still no agreement with the Soviets regarding Austria. But there is agreement that the German discussions shall start in November. That, again, is at least some progress.
CUSHING: Could you state, in a few words, Senator, what our own German program is?
VANDENBERG: The German economic situation has seriously deteriorated because Germany is administered in four airtight zones of military occupation, instead of as an “economic unit” as required by the Potsdam Agreement. The French and the Russians thus far have made the latter impossible. But, declining to be stymied, we have now made an “economic unit” of the British and American zones. The French and the Russians are welcome to join when they please. Meanwhile, we move ahead. These new, central, economic controls are indispensable not only to save Germany from early economic tragedy, but also to relieve our own responsibilities, and, above all, to stabilize Europe.
CUSHING: You speak of economic power, Senator, flow about centralized political power?
VANDENBERG: Remember, first, that we all relentlessly insist that Germany shall be permanently demilitarized and denazified – and we are doing exactly that in the American zone. But, within this rigid limitation, the German people must be given some general pattern for their own self-governing future as a goal toward which their democratic good conduct may aspire. We have ably started this process in the three great German states in the American zone – and it is a promising success. We propose to expand this pattern of federalism – always making the central government the servant and not the master of the states. No man has had hope to do with this program than Prof. James K. Pollock of the University of Michigan, who has just returned from long service as political adviser to our Gen. Clay in Germany. I am proud to testify to the great job he has done in behalf of American ideals.
CUSHING: And what about Austria, Senator?
VANDENBERG: Austria has long deserved a final treaty which will permit the withdrawal of our army of occupation, and the much larger Red army of occupation; and thus will end the convenient argument that other Red armies are necessary in other countries to “protect lines of communication.” I regret there is no present progress in this direction, despite every American pressure.
CUSHING: Well, Senator, this brings us to the inevitable question. What about Russia?
VANDENBERG: The Soviet Union of Socialist Republics is a great nation and a great people with whom we have an historic friendship which must be maintained. There is little doubt that true peace does finally depend upon a “live and let live” accommodation between their east ern communism and our western democracy. I agree with Marshal Stalin that this is possible. But I say again and again that this is not possible on a one-way street. I would have America do everything, consistent with her honor, her security and her ideals, to deserve this cooperation and to allay any reasonable Russian grounds for fear, suspicion and distrust.
I think we are doing this today – despite the astonishing and often subversive contentions of some of our own American critics to the contrary.
But the Soviet Union must fully reciprocate in kind. They are far from doing so today. I need but refer, among other things, to the campaigns of reckless vilification which flow constantly from Moscow. I need but refer to the fact that in all these long and strenuous arguments in Paris, I have never heard an American challenge to Russian motives; but I have heard American motives truculently impugned by official spokesman for Russia and her associated Slav powers, time and time again. At one point in the debates I was forced to say: “America declines to plead as a defendant among allies to whom we have given every ounce of co-operation, in blood and treasure, of which a great and unselfish nation is capable.”
No lack of patience or forbearance can be charged to us. Our only offense is that we no longer sign on “dotted lines” and we no longer mute our opinions respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. I sometimes wonder just what our “appeasers” here at home would have us do. Read this from the highly responsible London Times for October 4: “Many times in the long deliberations at Paris, the hand of friendship has been extended by the western powers; but each time it has been ignored or rejected outright.”
I emphatically agree that this is not the “peace climate” we need. Perhaps we fail to understand Moscow. Certainly Moscow misunderstands us. I agree that they need to know that we plan no conspiracies or conquests against them – and God can witness that there is nothing of that sort in our souls. But we need to know that they are not pushing toward a communist world. If there is any way to achieve this mutual understanding and good-will, I will thankfully and prayerfully embrace it. We must all keep on trying. But we will not “sell America short” in the process.
CUSHING: I take it, Senator, you do not think war between us some day is inevitable.
VANDENBERG: My answer, Mr. Cushing, is that it must not be allowed to become inevitable. Russia does not want war. America does not want war. We both are in the United Nations to prevent war. I hear much more war-talk over here than I did in Paris. I’m afraid we have too many American groups which over-zealously seek to make their own peace ideas impressive by using war as the frightening alternative. I wish we could quit talking about “war.” In my opinion, if it happens it will come from some tragically unfortunate incident which may well be the result of somebody’s miscalculation as to how far we will tolerate some policy which either threatens our own security or world peace or which violates our conception of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That is why, in my view, it is so vitally necessary that we should be wholly frank with Russia – say what we mean and mean what we say.
Candor must not be mistaken for ill will. And that, too, is why we must have, so far as self-serving politicians will permit, a united American foreign policy, supported generally by Republicans and Democrats alike, so there will be no delusion abroad that we are vulnerable because we are at the mercy of internal divisions. In other words, we must not be responsible for any “miscalculations.” That way. I dare hope, lies peace – particularly with the “United Nations” to cushion the impact even of “miscalculations.” This much is certain. America’s bipartisan foreign policy today is not a policy of war. It is a policy of peace. In my opinion, it will succeed – unless it is scuttled here at home.
CUSHING: Let me ask you this, Senator. Is it a fair description to call this new, bipartisan American policy a “get tough with Russia” policy?
VANDENBERG: It is not accurate – and I’ll give you two proofs… The Soviets have defended their expansionism on the plea that they must have protection against a third rebirth of Axis aggression. We do not like “expansionism” by anybody in a new world which is pledged to the humanities of the Atlantic Charter. So what do we offer Russia by way of alternative protection? We offer, not only our membership in the United Nations, but also a direct, 40-year treaty promising to come to her instant defense in case an Axis aggressor shall ever rise again. There never was a greater example of friendship and good will. Do you call that “getting tough”? …
Again. Look at atomic bombs. We possess their exclusive secret for perhaps five more years. We offer to scrap them all and abandon our monopoly forever. In return for what? In return for worldwide controls which shall guarantee civilization against all atomic bombs, anywhere, anytime, from any source, anywhere on earth. It is the greatest demonstration of humane and unselfish vision since time began. Do you call that “getting tough”? If so, how do we escape this charge? By immediately giving away our atomic knowhow without dependable guarantees against bad faith? I would consider that to be sheer lunacy. I hasten to add that it also would be lunacy not to persist in striving for a mutual accord, if possible, to prevent an ultimate race in atomic arms… No; “getting tough” is not the definition. "Friendly firmness” is the correct phrase. “Friendly firmness” – and I stive for both. Thus I believe I am striving for true peace.
Perpetual surrender of rights and ideals never did and never will buy peace. Munich did not buy peace; it merely paid the blackmail which bought war.
I like a phrase in the resolutions just adopted by the national convention of the American Legion: “American foreign policy should be neither hostile nor subservient to any other power on earth.”
And if you’ll allow me just one second of personal latitude, Mr. Cushing, I also like the following sentence from the American Legion’s resolutions:
“We strongly endorse and support the positive foreign policy of the Government of the United States as expressed by Secretary of State Byrnes, Senator Vandenberg and Senator Connally.”
CUSHING: We are hearing a good deal from some partisan orators these days, Senator, that the trouble with our new bipartisan American foreign policy is that it no longer follows the Franklin Roosevelt pattern. Any comment?
VANDENBERG: Well – that depends upon what you mean by the “Roosevelt pattern.” If you mean the “Roosevelt pattern” as originally laid down in the Atlantic Charter, I should say that we are earnestly seeking to return to it after it was partially scrapped by the late President himself at Yalta, and after subsequent defaults by its own signatories.
If you mean the “Roosevelt pattern” in the United Nations, I should say that we are tenaciously adhering to it, with every ounce of devotion we can muster.
If you mean we are trying to avoid deliberately dividing the world into two such rival spheres of influence as would defeat every objective the late President ever had, we are the ones who are carrying the flag.
If you mean, however, that the late President, under the grim and inexorable necessities of war, was prodigal in giving way to the requests and demands of our allies, I reply, sir, there is little left to give – unless we give our birthright (which we do not intend to do). It is impossible to keep on signing “dotted lines” as we often – perhaps too often – did in war. And don’t forget this. The “Roosevelt pattern” had its own sterner moments. I remind you of his note to Moscow in 1935:
“The Government of the United States would be lacking in candor if it failed to state frankly that it anticipates the most serious consequences if the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is unwilling, or unable, to take appropriate measures to prevent further acts in disregard of the solemn pledge given by it to the Government of the United States.”
CUSHING: While you are clearing the track, Senator, suppose you spend a moment on the charge that the trouble with our foreign policy is that it represents American “imperialism.”
VANDENBERG: Well, Mr. Cushing, I’ve heard that too. Frankly, I think it’s simply silly. I hope we shall wind up with a few new bases for our national defense, in what I would expect to be agreement with the United Nations – arrangements just as necessary for their defense as for our own. But everybody with a grain of sense ought to know that we plan no conquests anywhere: that we ask only for “justice” and the “open door” and “democratic good will” and peace around the world.
Our kind of “imperialism” has just established the free and independent commonwealth of the Philippines – just as it established the free and independent Republic of Cuba in the aftermath of an earlier war. Our kind of “imperialism” is paying 72 percent of UNRRA’s bills to feed the stricken of the earth. Our kind of “imperialism” compromises billions in lend-lease debts.
I confess I get weary of these libels – especially when uttered against us by our own domestic agitators. Meanwhile, since it is usually the Communists, at home or abroad, who make these charges, I want to record one interesting little fact. Russian expansion, as a result of the war, amounts to more than 250,000 square miles – an area larger than all New England and the Middle Atlantic states – to say nothing of other lands in the new Russian orbit. That’s just to keep the imperialism record straight.
CUSHING: I take it, Senator, that you think a firm and unmistakably plain American foreign policy – always taking care that it is just and right – is not the way into trouble but the way to stay out of trouble?
VANDENBERG: That is my view, Mr. Cushing. Let me remind you of the recent unhappy instance when Yugoslavs shot down half a dozen American fliers. Do you think it would have encouraged peace and a just regard for the dignity and the honor of the United States if we had wiggled and wobbled and stalled in the presence of that challenge? Certainly not. It would merely have encouraged contempt and Cumulative trouble… So we sent Yugoslavia that famous 48-hour note which, in other days, would have been called an “ultimatum”; and Yugoslavia, to her great credit, made prompt and honorable and satisfactory reply. The offense will not be repeated.
This is the road to peace… And I want to call your attention to a glorious fact – a flaming beacon of hope – in this connection. What was the alternative we named as the price of noncompliance with our 48-hour note? Was it war – as it would have been in days gone by. It was not. It was a promise to summon the defendant to the bar of the United Nations to confront the organized conscience of the world… If that doesn’t symbolize progress toward peace, I do not know what could…
Imperfect as the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations may be, Mr. Cushing, they are the justified hope of the world. They provide a medium of contact where we can all come to know each other better; where, perhaps, we can learn to “live and let live”; and where, if the unhappy climax requires, we can mobilize the vast majority of mankind against the next aggressor who threatens peace and security and human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Who shall say that the agencies of the United Nations cannot bridge the gap between the east and west? The United Nations will continue to have plenty of growing pains. But, I repeat, their effective evolution is the hope of the world – and the darker gathering clouds may be, the greater the need for this sunshine to break through… And may I just add this personal word, Mr. Cushing? It is because I think organized security and peace with justice are the supreme prayer of men and women everywhere, emphatically including our own United States; it is for this reason that I am again returning next Monday to sit once more as an American representative in the General Assembly despite the well-known personal reasons why I might prefer to be in Michigan the next two weeks.
CUSHING: I think, Senator, the people of Michigan will understand. You bring us hope even as you bring us warning. I am sure we are all grateful to you for the privilege of this interview.