NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY


like the phrase "restore freedom" and also "choosing own govern-
ments". This latter is an Aglo-Saxon ,phrase and does not apply to
countries whose peoples are not free agents. Mr. Nitze suggested -that
a free election in Czechoslovakia would result in a government diiffer-
ent from the present one. Dr. Conant argued that a very ffavorable case
had been selected. Unless the United States stays in Europe, there is
no one there who can be a, free agent. He pointed out that French
intellectuals are not writing anything at the present time that would be
held against them if the communists took control. He felt that our
war objectives should be confined to containing the Soviet Union. The
one thing we must.not lose is our own freedom. It was for this reason
that he was against the unthinking supporters of world goverment
or a strong United Nations.
  Mr. Nitze stated that if we had objectives only for the purpose of
repelling invasion and not to create a better world, the will to fight
would be lessened.
  Dr. Conant still feared that we might lose in the United States by
such a program. He would prefer to negotiate on atomic energy con-
trol land other matters after a limited-objective war. He conbinued to
be worried at the over-ambitiousness of the overall objectives. In the
next 30 years, the most that we can hope for is to win any possible war.
He feared that if we put our eyes on more than this we might lose all.
  Mr. Halaby ,asked whether the possibility of a decay in the Soviet
system entered into Dr. Conant's thinking. Dr. Conant agreed, stating
that by 1980 -their absurdities and static system would cause them to
grind to a stop. He repeated that if we can hold what we have,
especially the United Kingdom, and avoid war, then the competition
between our dynamic free society and their static slave society should
be all in our favo~r, ,or if not, we deserve to lose.; By that time, Russia
may Balkanize or Byzantinize itself.
  We must avoid a war but, must ask ourselves what is the minimum
amount of land that we must hold. Can we afford to give up Finland
or Indo-China? Perhaps, yes, But France 'would be another matter
because thatt could effectively neutralize the United K.ingdom,. We
cannot bargain away any of these areas, but we must decide on a line,
that they cannot cross. Mr. Nitze indicated that the Atlantic Pact
indicates the present line, which might also include Turkey.
  In Section VIII, Dr. Conant thought that more emphasis should
have been placed on strategic bombing as part of' the analysis of our
present course. He agreed that there, were strong cases against con-
tinuation of the present trends, against a preventive war, and against
isolationism..


179