 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Hardy Berth, noted author and correspondent. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the honorable W. Averell Harriman, wartime ambassador to Russia and former director of mutual security. Mr. Harriman, it's nice to have you again on the Chronoscope. I believe this is your third appearance on our program. Glad to be here again. Our viewers, of course, will remember that you were a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination last year. They recall your long associations with presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and particularly, they recall that you, perhaps more than any other American, have had a closer association with the men who rule Russia. And so, first of all, sir, I'm sure that our viewers would be anxious to know from your long experience with the Russians, how do you interpret the meaning of the present Russian peace offensive? Well, it's a sign of weakness. They must relieve tensions within Russia itself and also in a sign of weakness in their relations with their satellites. The Kremlin is weakened by Stalin's death. It will never be the same. One can't tell what will develop in the future. But the dominating character, that was one of the forceful leaders of our time, whether we like it or not, he was, he had great qualities of leadership. Well, that is gone. Well, now you say that they are weaker, sir. Now, does that mean that there is opportunity for the West and for our own country? I believe there is. One can't foresee exactly what will happen. It looks today as if there's been a rather uncertain deal made between a group represented by Malenkov and another by represented by Beria. They, I think, as long as Beria and Malenkov hang together, they'll probably be able to hang anybody else. But they, and they may be able to cement their control of Russia. Do you believe that Malenkov will become another Stalin? There's no indication of it at the present time. You see, his name is not in the press. They're not building him up. They're making statements that no one man has all wisdom and that there must be a group discussion within the Communist Party. Well, you understand, sir, that you met Malenkov as many as a dozen times when you were a wartime ambassador to Great Britain. What was your impression of him? Well, I want to first say that those were rather formal occasions, criminal banquets and receptions of that sort. He never offered to talk to me freely as some of the others did, and I never got to know him intimately, as I did many of the other leaders. He's a ruthless fellow, determined, gives you the impression that he will let nothing stand his way if he can prevent it. Did you get any idea of his attitude towards Americans, whether he understood or liked them or disliked them? I don't think he understands much about anything in the world. He's never been out of the country, you know, and that's a very dangerous situation. Well, now, sir, you, of course, are a partisan political figure. You're an out-and-out new dealer and a fair dealer. And so, do you have any criticism of the way President Eisenhower has handled our relations with Russia during his first three months in office? Well, I think that he's quite right in attempting to negotiate a peace treaty or an armistice in Korea, and we all hope and pray that that will be successful. I think with the weakening of the Kremlin that exists today, we should press forward with our policies. We shouldn't cut our military budget, and we shouldn't cut the mutual security program, which is helping to strengthen our alliance around the world. You also had long associations with Mr. Churchill. Do you think that there might be something hopeful that could come from a meeting of the proposed meeting of the Big Three? Well, I believe that the administration's right. We should see some indication that there's some purpose in the meeting before the meeting. What did you think, sir, of President Eisenhower's response to the suggestion of Churchill's that there be an immediate meeting between the three great powers? I don't. The administration's position was right. We should see whether they really intend business. If there is some indication, then of course a meeting would be useful. What do you think of the indication so far in the peace offensive? Do you think that there's been any sign of hope whatsoever that they are sincerely looking for some peaceful way out? Nothing but gestures so far one can't predict. Moving on to the field of partisan politics, our viewers have heard a good many Republicans on this program defend the administration, and so I'm sure that they would like to have the opinions of a new dealer evaluating the Eisenhower administration. First of all, sir, what is your first criticism of the present administration? We're discussing foreign policy. My criticism is that we're not trying to maintain the unity among the allies with sufficient care. There are too many ugly words being thrown across the Atlantic and too much preaching, too much lecturing. Well, moving on from the field of foreign policy, sir, are you a critic, for instance, of the proposed cut in Air Force funds? Well, I think that's a great mistake. This is the time for us to build our strength, and we'll have a much better chance of taking advantage of the situation if we develop rapidly our power and our great concern over the cut. How about our atomic energy program, Mr. Chairman? I think that is most unfortunate. Understand the cut suggested about 30% of the Truman proposal, and we must keep ahead of the Russians in atomic capabilities. Do you believe that the Russians can't do constitute today a real military threat so far as this country is concerned? I agree with our president when he said that the military threat is just as strong today as it ever was. Now, first of all, sir, you're opposed to... No, but I'm not afraid if we do build our strength. First of all, you're opposed to the cut in Air Force funds, and then you're opposed to the proposed cut in the expenditures for atomic energy. Do you believe that the Democratic Party in Congress should oppose these cuts? Yes, I do, and I believe they will. And I'm glad to see some of the Republicans in the Congress are doing so as well. How about Eisenhower's statement on keeping our taxes up, do you agree with that? You're a former New Dealer. I certainly do. We can afford our security, and we must pay the taxes that are necessary for our security. Do you think he went far enough? I think we'd better have a balanced budget, and on his own statement, we haven't a balanced budget. I think we must work to a balanced budget. We can handle a small deficit for a short time, but not for very long. Well, you've given us two criticisms now on the domestic scene. Number three, you've made some statement about the proposed air defense. Are you concerned about that, sir? Yes, I'm concerned about the air defense. We're beginning to understand how we can defend ourselves from air attack. And one of the greatest deterrents to air attack is to be able to destroy the enemy if she does attack. How do you like the way the administration today is handling the foreign aid program and the mutual security program? I think it's a great mistake to cut it. We were making great progress in helping our friends and allies build economic and military strength, and that's the way to get political unity and political strength. How about the Point 4 program? The Point 4 program is miracles are still with us in this world of ours, through the technical assistance that we're giving to these countries, and it's the first chance of a decent life, which these people have had through this technical assistance, and a small amount of economic aid we're giving them. It's a great mistake to cut it back, and of course it's a great mistake for us to cut back our trade, the way to have the world prosperous is to increase trade. Mr. Herrmann, what about the voice of America? They are cutting that back very heavily now. The propaganda voice of America. Do you think that the administration is correct in that? No, I don't. I think it's the time to... I don't like to see us stop the Spanish and Portuguese programs to Brazil and South America. Those are very popular programs, and my experience abroad, people listen to our programs if they're in their own language. Do you think the voice of America should be taken out of the State Department and reconstituted? I don't care where it's placed. There's too much talk about that. They must get their guidance in State Department. Well, specifically, sir, now on these criticisms of the administration, and on the... We've had a great deal of discussion on this program of trade, not aid. Do you believe that the reciprocal trade program should be extended? Extended, and we should expand trade, and it can be very much to our advantage in our own country. It can improve our standard of living. I think it's absolutely essential for our friends and allies to be able to buy the food and raw materials they need from us. Now, what you're concerned about, sir, as a whole, is the security of the United States. All of these are security factors, as I got it. Now, do you think that the Russians are any... do intend to start a war with us at any time in the foreseeable future? Not until the free world has become divided and we're very much weakened and very much strengthened. I think we have time, if we use that time well, to build the strength and unity. If we became divided, you think they would attack? They will attack, as they didn't care if. They think they can get away with it. All right, sir. Now, sir, you, of course, have a reputation as a financier, as well as a political figure. And many of our viewers are concerned about the new program to make, which is known as the Tight Money Program, sponsored by Secretary Humphrey of the Treasury. As a financier, sir, do you share Mr. Humphrey's views on government finance? No, I do not. I think we have expanded our economy in the last five years, very materially. I think some $75 billion in those five years and we can continue to expand our economy without inflation. And the way to do that is to have adequate credit. And we already see a good deal of shutdown of business, new homes. Money, people can't get money for new homes. Well, now, our viewers understand, of course, that this Tight Money, the first move is to raise the interest rates on government paper. Now, what does this mean, sir, to the average American family? It means there's less money in the banks to lend, and therefore their loans are on tighter terms. You have to pay 30 percent down on a house, let's say, and pay larger interest. Right, and there isn't money enough for consumer credit, there isn't money enough for the farmer to borrow for his needs. Do you see any chance of a big depression or a recession as a result of this Tight Money policy? No, they can reverse themselves in time if they will do it. I'm concerned about it now, however. As a final question, sir, from all of your experience that you've had, do you feel that there is real hope that we'll get a truce in Korea and that we can't avoid further warfare? I don't want to predict the truce in Korea, but I do believe that we can avoid another world war, but we have to pursue a vigorous policy, give leadership to free men in the world over, and carry on what we're doing now, and then I'm sure that we will be able to bring this to the world. I'm sure, Mr. Harriman and our viewers have very much appreciate these very forthright statements of yours, and thank you, sir, for being with us. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable W. Averell Harriman, wartime ambassador to Russia and former director of mutual security. The worldwide interest in the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II brings to mind that it was in the closing days of the reign of England's last queen, the stately Victoria, that Laun Jean presented to the world a new style in watches, the bracelet watch, or as we call it today, the wrist watch. These commemorative Laun Jean coronation watches of 1953 are the crowning achievement of half a century of experience in the manufacture of wrist watches of finest quality. The beautiful Laun Jean wrist watches of today, whether for a lady or for a gentleman, are worthy of the high honors which Laun Jean watches have won over the years for excellence, elegance, and accuracy. A Laun Jean watch makes a magnificent gift to the 1953 graduate or to the June bride and groom, or for a birthday or an anniversary. And throughout the world, no other name on a gift watch means so much as Laun Jean. For the superlative quality of a Laun Jean watch is the fine measure of its prestige and reputation. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Laun Jean Witner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Witner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Laun Jean and Witner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem, agency for Laun Jean Witner watches. Tuesday nights, they're suspense on the CBS television network.