=

Roosevelt was furious at the British be-
havior in Greece. “Greece,” he said, “British
troops fighting against the guerillas who

ae HE demand for return to Roose-
velt’s peace policies, dramatized by.
Henry Wallace, is Powertully reinforced

- , Three

by Elliott Roosevelt’s new book (As

He Saw It.)

This volume by the late President’
son lashes the betrayal of EDR eee

small group of wilful men in London ||
On the Am-

and Washington.” He calls
erican people to exert sufficient
pressure “to ensure our govern-
ment’s return to the path that
was charted by Franklin Roose-
velt.”

Elliott Roosevelt Speaks au-
thoritatively on two counts.
Hirst, he attended as an officiaj
presidential aide the key con-
ferences of Roosevelt and Chur-
chill on the Atlantic and at
@asablaneca as well as the Big
conference at Teheran.
Second, as the son and respect-
ed friend of PDR, Ellictt shared
the president's most intimate
thoughts and listened to his as-
pirations for the postwar world.

Elliott doubts that “we have
only drifted away’ from the
Roosevelt program; he believes
that “we are beings shoved away
from it.”

He names WVandendere and
Byrnes; “the reactionaries of
both major parties in Conegress;”
“the career men in the State
Department whom father never
trusted;” and “our guardians of
the free press’—the press that
bereically contends for freedom
of irresponsibility.”

And he warns that “the mili-
tary have taken over the task
Of postwar diplomacy” with the

result that this non-warrior democracy has
“to depend on brass and braid’ for information
and guidance in international affairs.”

@he role of the “economic royalists” as the
major driving power behind the present war
policies unfortunately does not emerge in the

book.
But Elliott does emphasize that
“it was the United States and
Great Britain who first shook
the mailed fist, who first ab-
rogated the collective decisions.”
The solemn agreements arrived
at by FDR have not been violat-
€d by the Soviet Union but by
the United States and Britain.

The veto issue

[ veto issue is a key ex-

ample. At Teheran, FDR told
Elliott that he favored the una-
nimity or veto principle, in view
of the “hard-rock necessity” for
continuing Big Three unity in
the postwar period. And it was
Roosevelt who at Yalta propcs-
ed the veto principle: “Father
Was categorically insistent on the
heed for maintaining the ut-
Most integrity among the na-
tions, and especially among the
Big Three. And this approach
te the veto principle preserved
that integrity.”

Supporting FDR’s view, Elliott
points out that “Saboteurs of in-
ternational unity are headed by
the men who insist that the
Principle of the veto power is
wrong.” ;

These same saboteurs will at-
tempt to smear HEilliott Roose-
velt for prying the lid of the
facts. They will not readily for-
Give him this book which sup-
ports Wallace’s contentions’ up
to the hilt. But the facts will
€onfirm the fears ang Suspicions
of the American peopie.

They will be interested to
learn about Roosevelt’s difficul-
ties with the State Department.
“You know,” he told his zon,
“any number of times the men

The great

betrayal

the

or a third world war?

LE The Roosevelt tradition

too

cord with what they know Tf
think. They should be working
with Winston. As a matter of
fact, a lot of the time they
are 3?

China and France

OOSEVELT felt that Chiang

Kai-shek had “little excuse
for the fact that his armies are
mot fighting the Japanese.” At
Gairo the president expressed
his displeasure that Chiang was
keeping “thousands and thous-
ands of his best men up in the
northwest—upon the borders of
Red China.

What are the American mar-
ines doing in China now sup-
porting Chiang’s Civil war
against the Chinese Communists?

HDR saw through de Gaulle
and spoke to Elliott “about how
the British owned him, body,
soul and britches ...” Said the
president: “Elliott, de Gaulle is
out to achieve one-man govern-
ment in France. I can’t imagine
a man I would distrust more.
His whole Hree French move-
ment is honeycombed with police
spies—he has agents spying on
his own people. To him, free-
dom of speech means freedom
from criticism . . -.of him.”

What is America’s policy to-
day with respect to de Gaulle’s
agitation for a “one-man gov-
ernment” led by de Gaulle?

Admired Stalin
IN the other hand, Roosevelt
deeply respected and admir-

in the State Department have ed Stalin. At Teheran, Elliott
tried te conceal messages to me, asked his father: “You like
delay them, hold them up some- him 2” And the president
how, just because some of those ‘noddead an emphatic affirma-
Careéer diplomats aren’t in ac- tive.”

AITOTLUTILOUUEA ET TOETUUEUOUUUOOOOOEOO UDO

@ Feature Section

SEE,

CHINA‘S ‘DOUBLE TEN’

Page 10

Page 12

G. Samuel Sillen

EDR said of Stalin: “He gets
things done, that man. He really
keeps his” eye on the ball he’s
aiming at.” Father spoke slow-
ly and thoughtfully. “ABET sah
pleasure working with him.
There’s nothing devious. He out-
lines the subject he wanzs dis-
cussed, and he sticks to it.”

Elliott himself comments on
Stalin’s “tremendously dynamic
quality - inside of him there
seemed to be great reserves of
patience and of assurance.”

What a contrast to Churchill:
“A real old tory, isn’t he?” said
FDR. “A real old tory, of the
old school.” And again: Winnie
is a great man for the status
quo.. He even looks like the sta-

tus quo, doesn’t he?”

ROUGH this book, we see

Churchill maneuvering against
real aid to ‘the Russians, re=
peatedly blocking the plans for
a@ eross-channel invasion. At the
conference where the Atlantic
Charter was drawn up, Churchill
and his advisers hammered away
at the idea that shipments sent
to the USSR would fall into
Nazi hands; they held out little
“hope” for the Russians hold-
ing out.

Churchill kept putting off the
Second Front. FDR told Elliott:
“I gather that Marshall and
King are discouraged to find
that a plan, twice agreed on
already, has to be fought out
all over again.” HElliott rightly.
eoncluded that Churchill’s mot-
ives were political.

peace and
word scale

In North Africa he exclaimed: “Wealth! Im-
perialists don’t realize what they can do, what
they can create!
tinent of billions, and all because they were
short-sighted to understand that their

fought the Nazis for the last four years.”

Elliett tells us that FDR “made no attempt
to conceal his anger.” EDR exclaimed: “How
British
The lengths to which they will go to hang
on to the past.” And he went on:
be surprised
it clear he was backing the Greek Royalists.

Can dare such a thing!

“I wouldn't
if Winston had simply made

That would be only in character.
But killing Greek guerillas! Us-
ing British troops for such a
job!”

What would FDR say today
about an American ship bearing
his name being used to support
the British? Or a Truman ad-
ministration rejoicing in the
bayonet-enforced victory of the
Royalists ?

Roosevelt spoke a great deal
about the problems of the co-
lonial world and international
trade in the postwar period. He
emphasized repeatedly (to GChur-
ehill’s discomfort) that the
United States was not going to
Prop up anybody’s empire.

That Roosevelt had his own
motivations linked with the in-
terests of American capitalism
as he saw it is beyond question.
His program of advancing U.S.
Capitalists demanded what he
called a “twentieth century” atti-

tude. He wanted “tne utmost
freedom of competitive trade”
and the industrialization of co-

colonial areas. Roosevelt envis-
aged a program of American ec-
onomie penetration, but he be-
lieved that this could succed
only within a framework of

improved living standards of a

They've robbeq this con-

billions were pennies, compared
to the possibilities! Possibilities
that must inelude a better life
for people who inhabit the land.”

Big Three unity
BS - his conclusion, ~~ Hilliott
Roosevelt cities all the key
instances in which Roosevelt’s
perspective of Big Three unity
has been negated: Greece, Iran,
the Dardanelles issue; China, the
German reparations questions,
and above all the atom bomb,

which “we hug to our bosom,
safe from our ‘untrustworthy’
allies . . . and give it over rath-

er to the control of men in
army uniform, just as though we
were a militarist state and not,
thanks to the Founding Fathers,
a civilian democracy.”

This is in a sense the voice
of FDR ealling upon every one
of us to continue his fight
against the “saboteurs of inter-
national unity.”

ii Nazis - who
Nurem-

the
executed at
week prepared for

Ee as
were
berg last
their rendezvous with death,
actionaries in the United States
freely continued to adyocate the

re-

commission of a crime of ag-
gressive war as monstrous as
that for which the top Nazis
must die. This is their demand
for a so-called preventive Amer-
ican war against the USSR.

The substance of the demand
for a “preventive war’ against
the USSR would be for the
United States, without previous
notice or provocation, to sudden-
ly make war against the So-
viet Union and to atom-bomb
its cities and industrial centres,
for the purpose of ruining that
country and making it militarily
impotent for an indefinite peri-
od. Lhe warmongers are quite
hopeful that such an atom bomb
offensive would cost the lives
of scores of millions of people.

The advocates of a “preven-
tive war” try to justify their
proposed program of wholesale

By WILLIAM Z. FOSTER

Atom maniacs seek more death|

Slaughter by arguing that by
such a war they would nip in
the bud an eventual Soviet mil-
itary drive to conquer the world.
This allegation is a Hitler big
lie.

e!

E USSR is firmly commit-

ted to a policy of peace, and
all its diplomacy is directed to
this end. Preventive war would
be to remove the most decisive
obstacles from the path of the
Wall Street imperialists, who
are determined at any cost to
make their capitalist wili pre-
dominate all over the earth.

Such a “preventive war” as
the jingoists are now advocat-
ing would by no means be the
one-Sided massacre that its ad-
voeates hope for. Tt would un-
leash a Third World War, from
the point of generar destruc-
tiveness, would make World War
It look like a minor struggie.
Yet, this frightening event is
precisely what the advocates of
a “preventive war” against the
USSR are freely proposing daily,

sg
without let or hindrance, in the
United States. _

A disgusting feature of the
“preventive war” plot is that its
advocates base their whole hopes
for a blitz victory on the basis
of the supposed Amerfcan mon-
opoly of the atom bomb. They
think they could cold-bloodedly
butcher a people unpossessed of

decisive atomic weapons with
which to defend themselves.
e@

WHEN Hitler and his minions

developed their war orfen-
Sive against the democratic peo-
ple of Europe, the tatter pre-
sumably had qualitatively weap-
ons equal to those of the Ger-
mans, and they had an even
greater military potential But
the cowardly advocates of an
atomic “preventive war” by. the
US. against the USSR are
grounding their whole monstrous
scheme upon a supposed tre-
mendous advantage in quality of
arms on their side, on their
Supposed ability to slaughter
with immunity a peaceful people.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1946