Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Eastern Europe; Soviet Union; Eastern Mediterranean, Volume VIII

611.61/2–2153

No. 542
Charles E. Wilson to the President¹

New York, February 16, 1953.

Dear Mr. President: Some months before I became Director of Defense Mobilization (December, 1950), I was invited to attend a meeting arranged by the Society of Friends—(Quakers) and Malik, who then headed the Russian Delegation of the United Nations. There were three other U.S. Industrialists present with the Quakers and Russians.

I may say we Americans did not meet with the Russians until such meeting received President Truman’s and State Department approval.²

It would be beside the point, I am here writing you on, to waste your time rehearsing the event of the meeting except to say that within a week after said meeting the Quakers, who were intermediaries, came back to us and inquired if we would go to Russia and outline to Stalin our views on the relationship between U.S. and Russia as we had done to Malik, which latter effort had resulted, we thought, in provoking almost a brawl. Visas were ready for us at the Russian Embassy and Russia was to provide transportation to Moscow from a European airport. President Truman and Dean Acheson were acquainted with the proposal and various meetings ensued, but the approval of Truman was not forthcoming and then I took on the Mobilization job and the Russian Radio and Press played a tune on me as a war monger, etc. so for that, and other reasons, the whole project was abandoned.

Out of the meeting with Malik, I gained one very distinct impression. That was, that the Russians and their Satellites fear the truth reaching the masses of their people. Their lies have been so fantastic, and the truth so satisfying to the average subject of Stalin, that the Slave Masters must necessarily plot to keep the truth from them at all costs.

If the foregoing is a correct summation of the Russian position, then the proposition I desire to call to your notice may well be very difficult of accomplishment.

Briefly speaking, what I am desirous of interesting you in is a new approach to a Peace Front. I have no illusions that this is simple to conceive or carry out.

I may say, parenthetically, that your not lamented predecessor was implored to make a new approach to this problem about two years ago. He finally became intrigued with the idea sufficiently to request that the proposition be outlined to him in quite gory detail. I put in many hours doing this and he was kind enough to say, finally, that the idea had merit and he would try it out. I guess he did—on Dean Acheson. The latter had a plan too. He finally broadcast it from Europe—the one Vishinsky said he laughed at so hard, he couldn’t sleep.

The “plan” proposed two years ago and suggested for your consideration now is as follows:

1) An entirely different atmosphere has to be created, for the World’s peoples’ reception of a Peace Plan by the President of the United States.

2) The State Department must do a tremendous amount of planning and arranging months before the “Plan” is broadcast.

3) The State Department’s first job: Get Russia and Satellites’ acquiescence to reception of an hour’s broadcast message by you, on a given date—and a guarantee, in the name of humanity the world over, of freedom from “jamming”.

4) The State Department to arrange next that, following your world wide message, all the Heads of the Free Nations will immediately broadcast on a pre-arranged schedule, heartily, fervently approving and recommending your message and its solution of the problems heretofore preventing peace.

[Page of source text missing.]

to me, there are “troubled spots” in the world that can be won over to the Free Nation standard by minor economic and wide technical and assistance plans. This conclusion is reinforced by the magnificent results attained by the Ford Foundation’s work in India and Pakistan. Giving assistance to agricultural communities that promise a doubling output of foodstuffs—all with great acclaim by Nationals of these countries for American institutions.

The first and last reaction of the last administration, was that regardless of the Peace Plan proposals, and methods of getting them across to the peoples of the world, you just can’t do business with the Russians and their Satellites. I guess there is much ground for that reaction. But, if the Peace Message were launched to the world’s masses and, if it were of a type and content I am sure it would be, given by you, who really knows if the hackneyed reaction of the last administration regarding Russia and the Satellites would hold true?

One thing I’ve become convinced of, after two years in Government and out, is that the President of the United States has, at this time, the opportunity—nay, the obligation to make a supreme effort in the interest of world peace—from what is now a platform of tremendous military strength that was lacking two years ago. A peace effort, from position of great strength, is obviously something quite different than from a position of weakness. Furthermore, I believe the world’s people or, rather, the great majority of them are tired, frustrated and fed up with wars and the threats of wars. In other words, the time—soon—is the right time.

It can be the greatest effort for World Peace, and mean more to the world’s people than any event since the Prince of Peace came 2000 years ago.

When I literally begged you to accept the nomination for the Presidency, at luncheon on Morningside Heights, I believed you were the man ordained of God to lead the effort to bring peace out of the chaos enveloping the whole civilized world. Now, I’m sure I was right.

In conclusion, suppose it is true that Russia won’t cooperate. If it is made clear that your Peace Plan is to be made known to the world’s people, whether Russia cooperates or not, I just don’t believe Russia will be able to face the consequences of refusal to cooperate in the face of the terms of your proposals that are good for all mankind.

Sincerely,

Chas

1. Sent by President Eisenhower to Secretary Dulles on Feb. 21 under cover of a brief memorandum initialed by the President which reads as follows:

   “Will you please give me a study on this proposal—within the next thirty days if possible?”

   In a memorandum to the President on Feb. 27, Secretary Dulles replied as follows:

   “I have your memorandum of February 21 requesting that the State Department study Charlie Wilson’s proposal.

   “I think this idea, which the State Department considered and turned down two years ago, deserves careful reconsideration. But before going ahead with it, I think we want to have a clear idea of exactly what should be said. I would recommend that C. D. Jackson and Emmet Hughes work on this together with Chip Bohlen and Paul Nitze, from this Department, and give us, first of all, a general outline of what might be in the message, and then proceed to work up an outline draft.

   “Would you let me know if you favor proceeding along these lines?” (611.61/22153)

   No reply from the President has been found, and the matter does not appear to have been pursued further.

2. Regarding the meeting between American business leaders and Ambassador Malik in the autumn of 1950 and subsequent contacts with the Department of State, see the memorandum of Mar. 13, 1951, from Kennan to Secretary Acheson and the memorandum of conversation of Apr. 20, 1951, by G. Frederick Reinhardt, in Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. IV, Part 2, pp. 1557 and 1571.