We need oil from the Middle East, uranium from the Belgian Congo, or anywhere else we can get it, and we need tin and rubber from southeast Asia, plus other important things. But if we are cut off and cannot get them, then we can use our almost unprecedented ingenuity in the department of synthetics. Germany demonstrated what can be accomplished with ersatz.
I agree heartily with Generals MacArthur and Wedemeyer, and others, who have not expressed their views openly, or who have so indicated and been severely reprimanded for it, that we must have areas of operation such as the British Isles, Formosa, the African coast, Philippines, Japan, the Scandinavian Peninsula, Denmark, Iberian Peninsula and Saudi Arabia. These could be held or taken, if need be, with a minimum of manpower, for we know our weapons are far superior to those of our enemy, both in mechanics and quality, while their manpower is far in excess of anything that we can muster. From these so-called “islands” it would be possible for the allied forces to rain ultimate death and destruction on the enemy, and without them we are powerless to strike except from long range.
To those who, like General Marshall, insist that we must have an enormous land army, or armies, to go in and occupy conquered territory so as to be able to control the people, I give this answer, or make this suggestion. Why not establish colonies of people of all nationalities, who would be charged with responsibilities of teaching people how to produce or earn a living and to study forms of government suitable for creating small civil communities that could be transplanted into any conquered territory after organized resistance had been broken by the military? This would be entirely within the realm of possibility, and it would definitely conserve our most precious potential—manpower.
It has been said that: “Every despotism has an especially known and hostile instinct for whatever keeps up human dignity and independence. Materialism is the sister doctrine of every tyranny, whether of the one or of the many. To crush what is spiritual, moral, human in a man by specializing him; to form more wheels of the great social machine, instead of perfecting individuals ... is the dominant drift of our epoch.... The test of every religious, political or educational system, is what it does to man. If it injures his intelligence, it is bad. If it injures his character, it is vicious. If it injures his conscience, it is criminal.”
Expediency is the voice of danger. We must do away with the false idea that immediate and temporary gain is a substitute for moral principle. We can recognize, as did Thomas Jefferson, that: “Whenever a man casts a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” We must become aware that slavery develops in direct proportion as government control becomes a substitute for self-control and responsibility. Search for the solution at the spiritual instead of the material level.
Aristotle, the philosopher, has told us: “There are a million ways to be wrong, but only one way to be right.” A principle is a very tangible “element” that we treasure as an active force of life or nature or—God. If we know, in our hearts, that a thing is right, even though the results of such thought or action may not become evident within the span of our own lifetime, and we go ahead and sacrifice the principle for expediency, ours is a crime far greater than that which was committed by the hand that “all the perfumes of Arabia could not sweeten!”
This is the day of the individual. Only you and I, as independent units, can right the wrongs that have beset our nation and the world. This is encouraging, isn’t it? Dean Russell tells us: “Fortunately for the cause of freedom, it is only as an individual that you or I can do anything at all. This is the voluntary way of accomplishing a desired objective. It is the only method that is in accord with freedom.” The opposite side of the coin is that people who have agreed to accept a bad idea band themselves together to force—by vote or otherwise—their ideas upon other people. It may all be perfectly legal, but it is dishonest. We are at perfect liberty to vote ourselves into serfdom. But it is very dangerous to believe that freedom automatically is safe because the individual vote has become so popular in America, where the “democratic” way prevails. When we vote money into our pockets, old age pensions, farm subsidies, price parities and a million other “props” to lean on, we are voting paralysis to our brains and slavery to our physical beings.
It is a dangerous thing to do, but I would like to make one prediction. Each day we live we draw nearer to a climax in human history. The immediate future is dark. Bitter conflicts at home and abroad are on the horizon. I believe that the armies of all nations will, during the next two years, be drawn inevitably toward the countries in and around the Great Pyramid of Egypt. The crisis precipitated in Iran over the nationalization of her oil industry, makes this highly probable, in my opinion. Let me substantiate further.
Toward the end of 1949, England received warning from Iran on this impending move, for she believed that only a violent act on her part could meet this extreme emergency. London correspondent Kenneth de Courcy, cabling to Intelligence Digest on April 1, 1951, stated:
“More than a year ago, a prominent Persian statesman gave Britain his final confidential warning. He said that only drastic action could save the situation. A Persian statesman flew to America and remained there for several days in an effort to lay all the facts before Mr. Truman. Attempt after attempt was made to arrange a meeting. The envoy, although carrying high credentials, was refused an interview. The Persian statesman had been one of his country’s most important and successful Prime Ministers. His prestige and influence were considerable....”