FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1950, VOLUME I


   The gist of the above comment is that the first paragraph appears
 to be over-simplified as a stagtement of what happened.
   II. In the statement of fundamental purpose it appears that we
 are saying that the United States will stand or fall as a democracy
 and that we do not anticipate United States survival as something
 other than a democracy. I have no doubt but that our policy should
 be stated that way and that present action should be based upon that
 policy. I see no particular point in our debating now what alternative
 forms might develop in the event of a fatal shock to "our free and
 democratic system"--but we can be reasonably certain that 150 mil-
 lion people will not perish and that, before doing so, they will bring
 about basic changes in both ideology and political structure.
   III. I am not at all sure that we have forced the Soviet Union to
confess to its own fundamental design. It would obviously be a major
diplomatic effort to drive them into such a corner that they would be
compelled to confess their true purpose. But if we are to mobilize the
strength and spirit of the "free world", it should be our objective
to
force such disclosure by the Kremlin which would be just as clear
and understandable as the designs of Hitler came to be.
   ,IV. This section on the underlying conflict in the realm of ideas
and values is a first-class job and should be used as the basis for a
nationwide statement by the Secretary on the elementary principles
of our foreign policy. Since I understand it will undergo further
revision, I will not comment upon details at this point.
                                                        DEAN RUSK

Policy Planning Staff Files
Record of the Meeting of the State-Defense Policy Review Group,'
   Department of State, Monday, February 27,1950, 3 p. m. to 6Cp. am.

TOP SECRET
Present: Department of State
             Paul H. Nitze
             R. Gordon Arneson
             Carlton Savage
             George Butler
             Harry H. Schwartz

  'The State-Defense Policy Review- Group, organized to draft the study re-
quested by President Truman in his directive of January 31 (p. 141), first
met
on February 8. At its second meeting, February 10, the Review Group decided
that until completed, the work of the group would also represent the contribu-
tions of State and Defense to NSO Action Directive No. 270 on Objectives,
Risks,
and Commitments (for text, see Rusk memorandum, January 18, p. 138).. (Policy
Planning Staff Files)


16 8