MIA > Archive > Draper > Militarization
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 1, 2 January 1950, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
|
This is one of a series of articles on the militarization of American government and life, based on the findings of a committee of nationally known liberals. This committee, organized as the National Council Against Conscription, in February, of this year published the booklet New Evidence of the Militarization of America. (A previous booklet, entitled The Militarization of America, had been published in January 1948.) All the information and quotations used in the present series of articles comes from the first-named booklet. The NCAC publications are sponsored by a group including: Pearl Buck, Louis Bromfield, Albert Einstein, Victor Reuther, President James G. Patton of the National Farmers Union, Prof. P.A. Sorokin of Harvard, former Secretary of Interior Ray Lyman Wilbur, President W.S. Townsend of the CIO Transport Service Employees, President C.S. Johnson of Fisk University, President W.J. Millor, S.J., of the University of Detroit, and many other prominent individuals. |
One illustration of bipartisan consent to military planning of foreign policy is seen in the developments surrounding the proposals for a Western European Union and lend-lease aid to its member nations.
The idea of a Western European Union has its roots in the political and economic union of Western Europe which was encouraged by General Marshall’s proposal of economic aid to Western Europe.
The avowed purpose of the Marshall Plan was to stem the tide of communism. It was sold to the American people on its economic reconstruction merits rather than as a military program. The course of events, however, reveals that the military purpose was there from the beginning.
One newspaper columnist, writing about the Marshall Plan, said:
“It has been feared by our foreign policy makers that the Western Europeans would seek to declare their countries neutral in event of war between the world’s two giants ... That attitude has been on the increase since the development of the atomic bomb, guided missiles and other modern postwar means of destruction. There has been a clamor in Britain, France and the Lowlands for a neutral status, similar to that enjoyed by Eire during the late war and against granting the United States bases should conflict occur. By helping those countries to build up their economy, health, trade and business and improve their living conditions, our policy makers believe a fighting spirit can be regained.”
Early in the Congressional discussion the military put strong pressure on Congress and the people to approve General Marshall’s aid-to-Europe plan. Newspapers of January 15 and 16, 1948. carried headlines asserting Draft, Big Boost in Budget Hinted if Aid Is Refused:
“Two top United States military leaders, Defense Secretary James Forrestal and Army Secretary Kenneth G. Royall, told Congress today that if the United States did not go through with the Marshall Plan for European recovery, it would be forced to spend an equal or greater amount of money on military preparedness. Royall flatly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that as he saw the choice it was virtually between the Marshall Plan and a return to Selective Service.”
Less than two months later the United Press reported an effort “to make universal military training a ‘companion measure’ to the stop communism foreign aid program. Defense Secretary James V. Forrestal and his top Army, Navy and Air Force subordinates will go before the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss the need for military might to back up the plan.”
A Congressman, Merlin Hull, at the time of the Selective Service discussion in Congress, recalled the Marshall Plan – or – draft alternatives of the military. He said:
“The presentation of this draft bill is the culmination of months of intensive promotion and propaganda by the Defense Department aided and abetted by General Marshall as Secretary of State ... Only a few months ago the generals were among those who advocated the Marshall Plan as the guaranty of peace in Europe and a certain way of stopping the march of Communism in the Western European nations. Scarcely had Congress accepted their theory and their program than came the demand for ‘military might’ to back up the expenditures.”
While the military men were promoting Marshall Plan legislation in Congress and planning for the draft, they were also quietly preparing for the Western European Union and military aid.
On February 7, 1948, the Associated Press said of British military sources:
“The Anglo-American joint chiefs of staffs, according to these informants and diplomatic sources, will submit proposals to standardize a wide range of military equipment and training for fifteen European countries as the basis of a program of military self-help. The standardization will be according to American and British patterns.”
The military had already worked out an arrangement with Britain which the Washington Post of April 29, 1948, described in these words: “The United States and Britain had agreed more than a year ago to standardize small arms, exchange cadets and cooperate otherwise militarily.” The Post went on to speak of a “Western European military conference” which would meet that week to “extend the joint measures and plans to France and the Benelux states.”
The Post added: “The United States, reliable sources said, has advised the Western powers there can be no American backing for the Western European Union until the states have drawn up joint plans for a unified command, joint operations and standardization of supplies.” As early as May 1948, military spokesmen like General Eisenhower were asking the public to support a program of arming Europe.
After the military had already made its decision and had begun the discussions in Europe looking toward a military union and lend-lease, the bipartisan machinery moved to legalize the plans. The Vandenberg resolution (SR 239) which was passed by the Senate on June 11 by a vote of 64 to 4, was described by the New York Times as “a bipartisan product resulting from close cooperation between Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg and Robert H. Lovett, the under secretary of state. Consequently officials expect it to stand no matter what the political climate may be after November 2.”
In other words, one of the most revolutionary changes in American foreign policy was taken out of the realm of political discussion before the political and electoral campaign had even begun. No civilian proposals receive the same bipartisan respect as are accorded to those made by the military.
As a result of the passage of the Vandenberg resolution, American military representatives openly attended sessions of the Western European Alliance. The military, under the Vandenberg policy, “could reject any aid wherever the military interests of this country might not be served,” the New York Times reported.
This military carte blanche was not only an advance declaration that Congress probably would endorse a military alliance and military lend-lease; it was also a move to strengthen the hand of the military in American foreign policy.
Last updated on 25 February 2023