 It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, a presentation of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor and analyst, and Mr. Hardy Burt, author and correspondent. Our distinguished guest for this evening is His Excellency Camille Abdul Rahim, Egyptian Ambassador to the United States. Mr. Ambassador, our viewers are tremendously interested in the great political struggle now going on in the Middle East. And you, sir, with your long and distinguished career in the Egyptian diplomatic service, are particularly well-qualified to give us some authoritative information. Now, first of all, sir, your country and Britain have just reached an important agreement over that great area called the Sudan. It's about a third the size of the United States. Now, sir, will you tell our viewers first just what the significance of this agreement is over the Sudan? This agreement on the Sudan is one of the most important events, and one of the perhaps the only happy news that we have received for a long, long time in the Middle East. What does Egypt gain out of the agreement? We gain only solving a long-standing problem. Sudanese have been given the right to self-determination, either to unite with Egypt or to be independent. In other words, in about three or four years from now, the Sudanese that's almost, that's a third the size of the United States, that great area will choose to be either independent or to become a part of Egypt. Is that correct, sir? Yes, in three years they will have full self-government and they will be either choose to be independent. Now, has this agreement eased the tensions between the West and Egypt? Has it made Egypt perhaps friendlier to a Britain than the United States? I think it has eased the conditions tremendously and it's only, not only that, but I think it paved the way for a final solution for the Suez problem. If the Sudanese do decide after this three-year period to become independent, what does it mean economically and a loss to Egypt? Does it mean some economic loss? Not at all. There is no economic loss at all except that we only united with the Sudan by the River Nile, which is the life-giver of both countries. Does it mean any loss to the British economically? Because the British get quite a good deal of cotton from the Sudan, I understand. Well, they get the cotton everywhere now, from the United States, from Peru, from everywhere and no more now. There's a great shortage of cotton. We want to sell our cotton, but we find some difficulty. What would be the reaction in Egypt if, after this three-year period, the Sudanese decided to join up with the British? Well, I really don't know if they're going to do that. I think this is a very academic question and the British themselves, they do not feel as the Sudanese going to join the Commonwealth. But they have the right to do that if they want to. Well, if they are independent. Well, sir, now that you've gotten over this first hurdle, the Sudanese hurdle, this week you began conversations with the British over that thorny problem of British troops leaving the Suez. And of course, Britain has about 50,000 troops there. Now, your country wants those 50,000 British troops to leave, doesn't it? Well, surely, because these troops have been in Egypt since 1882 and they came by force and they still remain there. When do your negotiations start? Well, we're hoping to negotiate very soon, perhaps this week. We hope so. Do you think that the agreement, would you make any predictions as to how it might come out, that the agreement will be that the British troops will leave the Suez? Well, if the agreement on the Suez Canal is negotiated on the same spirit that we negotiated the Sudanese question, I have great hopes and I'm very optimistic of the result. Well, you want the British to leave and then does Egypt want to take over, assume the sole responsibility for the protection of the Suez area? Of course, we are ready to assume the sole responsibility for the Suez area. We have an army of 100,000. We need some equipment. With this equipment, we could be ready to defend our country. And I can assure you, the country can and defend its territory better than any other foreigners. Do you plan to expand your military power in Egypt? Well, this is limited to our possibilities of budget and so forth, but you know, with our population of 21 million inhabitants, we could raise up to 1 million soldiers. Well, that brings us to perhaps the most interesting point, sir. Here in America, our policy for a long time has been to expand the military power in the Middle East. The Middle East is a power vacuum. It's an immensely rich area. 60% of the oil reserves of the earth. And we, of course, as we as an American nation, we want to create a powerful military force in the Middle East and we want it to be Egypt. Now, first of all, sir, you've said that you're a country with 21 million people. You can support an army of a million people, can't you? We can support, but you know, the expenses of a new army is so... Well, you can supply the manpower for such a thing. We can supply the manpower and we could, through our budget, also help in deferring the expenses. Mr. Ambassador, do you see any signs that American policy will be to equip your troops with arms if you expand your armed forces? Well, I really can't speak on the American policy, but... I say, do you see any signs that that might happen? Well, if the United States finds it for its interests that will have a strong Egypt, well-equipped, as they have found for its interests to have a strong Turkey, well-equipped in the northeastern military... Egypt would like to have that kind of aid, though. Well, we are ready to have this aid, no doubt about it. Well, I believe it's the announced policy of our State Department now that we want to help create such power, as you suggest. And the questions that are in our viewers' minds, I think, are these. First of all, how dependable would a strong Egypt be in the conflict between the West and Russia? Would you be a dependable ally? We have been always dependable during the last two world wars. In the first world war, we rendered great service to our friends, the Western powers. Of course, I suppose... In the last world war, we did the same thing. I don't find anything to the contrary for any future war. Your primary need is airplanes and tanks, I assume. Airplanes and tanks and anti-air defense, because... This is a difficult question to ask you, because you can't answer it that one way that I can see. Do you think that the Egyptians are mechanically... Do they have mechanical abilities to handle this technical equipment, the average Egyptian soldier? The British Sue's base is mainly run by Egyptian mechanics. And they have a special capacity in mechanics there, and we can find the people there who can do this job very easily. Mr. Ambassador, just looking ahead a little bit, suppose you have your army of a million, and suppose they are equipped and supplied by the Americans, and maybe you get your training, some of your help in that way. Is there any chance at all of this big arm force being used aggressively against Israel? I don't think there is any chance at all of that sort, because we need the army for our defense, for the defense of our country. And we have no aggressive intentions whatsoever against anybody. And you know that in 1950, there is a joint declaration of France, Britain, and the United States, guaranteeing the whole status quo there, and nobody could attack the other. Well, one of the things most Americans are proud of how Turkey has developed as a military power in that area. We feel that we've gotten more for our money in Turkey than anywhere else, and we feel that the Turkish army divisions are the best ones facing Russia. Now, do you think that an armed Egypt could cooperate with Turkey in that area, or are you an ancient enemy of the Turks? No, we are not ancient enemies. We are tied and allied always with the Turks. And we are ready to cooperate with our friends. We call them our cousins, the Turks, because there are strong relations between Egypt and Turkey for a long history. How are your relations with Russia today in Egypt? Are they better or worse than they were, say, a year or two ago? Well, I think the same relations with all countries. Well, coming back to the Turks, sir, the Turkish plan, where they used a dictatorship of Attoturk after the First War, and then they finally evolved into a relatively free nation. Now, do you think you see Egypt evolving somewhat on the Turkish plan? Do you see this dictatorship now and perhaps becoming a free nation in three or four years from now? As a matter of fact, we have now in Egypt started on the way of a real democracy. We have a committee now discussing the principles of a modern constitution for Egypt. And we have now a provisional constitution for Egypt, which is governed. And we hope after this period of transition, we will have a full parliament and a modern constitution. Well, sir, now as a final question, Egypt has always been a land of cruel extremes. Great wealth for a few, and then perhaps the oldest and poorest peasantry in the world. And you have now begun, I believe, the first land reform in the Middle East. As a final question, sir, will you tell our viewers how that land reform is progressing? Well, this land reform is progressing very quickly. And today, if you go to Egypt, you will find a new look in Egypt. You will find that there is a creating a new middle class of eight million people, higher wages for agricultural laborers, landless peasants are receiving lots from three to five acres, those who lease the land are receiving lower rents. So the result that you will have a higher standard of living for at least eight million people in the country with internal economic conditions and consumers' goods and metal trade and industry inside the country. Well, thank you, sir, very much for being with us this evening. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Gene Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was His Excellency Camille Abdul-Rahim, Egyptian Ambassador to the United States. A priceless attribute of every Long Gene watch is the pride of possession which it brings to its possessor. And every owner of a Long Gene watch knows exactly what I mean. The Long Gene watch brings you more than the delight of a beautiful possession, more than the unsurpassed timekeeping of a remarkable watch. You have the pleasure of knowing that you own the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of the world. Long Gene is the only watch in history to win 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. Truly, when you own a Long Gene watch, you know that it is, in fact, the world's most honored watch. So, when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or as a gift, remember these facts. And remember, too, that if you pay $71.50 or more for a watch, you're paying the price of a Long Gene. You should insist on getting a Long Gene, the world's most honored watch. The world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Long Gene Wet-Nor Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us for the Long Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wet-Nor, distinguished companion to the world's honored Long Gene. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Long Gene and Wet-Nor watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Long Gene Wet-Nor Watches. Wednesday nights, the big fights on the CBS television network. The Long Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important dishes of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Long Gene Wet-Nor Watch Company, maker of Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wet-Nor, distinguished companion to the world's honored Long Gene. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Long Gene Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Hardy Burt, author and correspondent, our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Robert S. Kerr, United States Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Kerr, it's a pleasure to have you with us again, sir, on the Chronoscope. Our viewers, of course, know that you're one of those old-fashioned Democrats in the Indian country who get your Tommy Hawk out every now and then, and I just wonder if there's somebody down in Washington you're gunning for now, sir. Well, Mr. Huey, I'm very much opposed to what the Secretary of Agriculture is doing to agriculture in this country. Well, now, what's your case against Mr. Benson, sir? My case against Mr. Benson is that while he is fiddling and talking about things which have no connection with reality, the producers of beef in this country are gradually being squeezed into bankruptcy. Well, now, obviously, I mean, you're not objective about this. You come from one of the great cattle-producing states, don't you? Yes, I do. And are your cattlemen putting the heat on you to put the heat on Mr. Benson? Well, the cattlemen are saying this, that the price of their product is below the cost of production, that if it continues, they're going to go into bankruptcy. When they do, they've suffered a great loss, and the consumer population of the country will find that they likewise have inflicted upon them a tragedy. How much has the price of beef been reduced from their level, from the level of the cattlemen themselves? Well, the price of beef on the hoof has gone down in the last 12 months, 50%. How much has it gone down at the markets where you buy the meat? In the meat market, it had gone down very little until the first of the year. I'd say it has since gone down probably half as much as the price has been forced down to the producer. Now, something that you're stating to our viewers is a matter of fact that the beef industry, the beef producers, are really in trouble, that they are going bankrupt if something isn't done. That's very definite. How much of a subsidy do you think they should get to keep them from going bankrupt? Mr. Burt, they don't want a subsidy. They want an opportunity to produce at a reasonable profit. You see, we have a program of supports in with reference to basic commodities. The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to support perishables of many kind at 90% of parity, and the average cattleman feels that since the price of beef on the hoof has gone down now to less than 80% of parity, that the Secretary should use the authority which he now has under the law and support that product at what the law permits him to do. Isn't that just a matter of labels, Senator, not calling it a subsidy? In effect, it is a subsidy. The government's giving them money. No, no, not at all. If he would move to do that, he wouldn't have to buy a lot of beef. In my judgment. But if it would still be if you bought even a dollar worth, it would be a dollar worth of subsidy. Well, it would be a dollar worth of investment in the welfare of one great segment of our country, and in the continuation of the supply. I know that agriculture represents a very great industry in this country, but so does the clothing industry, and so does the automobile industry. Why should agriculture have any more right to a subsidy which the taxpayer pays than the clothing industry or the automobile industry? Because the consumer has an equal interest in an abundant supply of food and fiber, as does the producer. You see, the only way that the consumer can have an abundant supply of food at a reasonable price is for somebody to produce it. If economics are handled and forced the producer back onto the law of supply and demand, all he'll do is just retreat in the matter of production, produce less food and get more money for it. Well, I gather you don't believe in free enterprise, particularly so far as the farmers are concerned. Sure, I believe in free enterprise, but I don't believe in the law of the jungle. Senator Kerr, our viewers have heard a great deal of discussion about this in the last few days. And now, sir, to simplify, Mr. Benson is buying butter, is supporting the price of butter at 90% parity, isn't he? Yes, sir. And that means that the government has butter and supports the price, and you are saying in effect that you'd like to see him do the same thing for beef. Yes, only there's this difference. In supporting the price of butter, which is in great overproduction, he's accumulated probably 2 million pounds of butter. I think there's many things that this country could do with that butter that would make it a good investment, but that's another question. I think if he moved to support the price of beef, that it would result in the packers paying an amount equal to 90% of parity, and I don't think it would raise the cost at the meat market opinion. And you're telling our viewers that unless that is done, that the beef producing industry is going to be hurt and hurt bad. That is correct. The average beef producer is going to continue to produce at a loss until he's broke, and that's going to mean that the producers are going to gradually be going out of the market. In one or two years, the supply will be less, and then the consumer will be penalized by having to pay more for less beef. Senator, what did you think of this two days' supply for the whole country of New Zealand beef coming over and selling at 35 cents a pound from New Zealand? That recently happened, you know. Do you think that was a good thing for the cattlemen or a bad thing? Were you opposed to these imports of beef? Well, yes, I'm opposed to the imports of beef when we have competitive, unsupported, similar products. Now if the Secretary had moved to put a support program under the price of beef, then when imports imperiled the price of beef, he could have moved to cartail imports. But until he moves to support the price of the domestic product under the law in which he operates, he can't move to cartail imports of a competitive product. That brings us to the second, your second major interest, I believe, in Congress, which you're interested in the reciprocal trade agreements and in foreign trade, that's correct, isn't it? I am keenly interested in reciprocal trade. Well now, does that mean that you are in favor of what our viewers have heard a lot of discussion about? You believe in trade, not aid? I believe in the promotion of trade to the greatest possible extent for the mutual welfare, both of the buyer and the seller, which is our country and our customers. You believe in the lowering of tariff barriers? Where, on a reciprocal basis, it promotes greater trade between those that make the adjustment. I would go for cattle too, beef too. I mean, if there were any barriers against beef, you were against the importation of beef, just now. I'm against the importation of beef when it tends to add to the destruction of an unsupported domestic agricultural product. Yes, that's correct. How much are we selling abroad now, sir? We're selling at this time better than $15 billion of American products per year. And how much are we buying? We're buying about $9 billion. So there's about $6 billion there that we have to make up one way or the other. We have to make it up with gifts or loans. And you are in favor of making it up by buying an additional six? I'm in favor of making it up by creating an environment that will result in our buying enough to offset what we sell. I think it's far better to increase our trade rather than our aid. Well, you're a supporter of President Eisenhower in this because I think he believes the same thing, doesn't he? He does. Yes, sir. Now do you concede, sir, that there will be some segments of American industry or American producers who will be hurt by our buying an additional $6 billion worth of foreign-made goods? There will be times when it will hurt some domestic industry and when the time comes that the damage to a domestic industry is greater than the overall good, then I would favor a readjustment. You think that the national welfare, however, is so important that it overrides those... Yes, I do, because you see the economic strength and the power of our allies to defend themselves and help us in the common cause are all tied up in the strength of their economy, which is dependent on their trade, mostly with us. I don't suppose you've ever made any studies, sir, of exactly what tariffs on what industry should be reduced to, Lord? Well, I have, but it is such an endless compilation of figures that I'd get lost and we'd all be terribly confused if we went into those details in a very few minutes. Well, Senator, our viewers will recall, sir, that you were one of the... were a candidate for the Democratic nomination last year. Well, very kind, if they recall that. I thought you made such a little impression... Would you be a candidate for us from now? Did you say Senate? I have no plan at this time to be a candidate anything other than reelection to the Senate from Oklahoma. Well, you, of course, are a very influential member of the Democratic Policy Committee in the United States Senate. Now, sir, Mr. Stevenson, I believe, is on a trip around the world, so I'd like to ask you this, who's making policy for the Democratic Party now? Is it Stevenson or is it the... you're the Policy Committee in the Senate? Well, I would not say that it's exclusively either. Mr. Stevenson is the titular head of the Democratic Party. Do you think he should run four years from now? If he wants to. But the policy of the Party is being made more by the membership of the National Congress today than by anybody else. Well, sir, as a final question, our viewers will also recall that you were very outspoken on the Korean War. And what do you think of Senator Taft's proposal for a general investigation of the Korean War? Well, I think Senator Taft spoke before he thought. I think he's trying to be a general again. I think that we've got a great defense department. I think that I didn't support Eisenhower, but certainly he's a great general, and I think he's in better shape to determine that than Taft is. I've just got more confidence in the general in the White House than I have in any of the generals we've got in the Senate. Well, Senator Kerr, I'm sure that our viewers very much appreciated these outspoken sentiments of yours, and thank you, sir, for being with us. Thank you. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Hardy Burt. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Robert S. Kerr, United States Senator from Oklahoma. Confidence, said William Pitt, is a plant of slow growth. Now, confidence in Lone Gene watches has been growing slowly, but very solidly for almost a century. But without a doubt, the confidence of others in Lone Gene has been stimulated by the confidence of Lone Gene in itself. Yes, the makers of Lone Gene watches have been ever willing to compete with the finest watches of the world, and from such competitions at world spares and international expositions and in the observatory timing contests, Lone Gene watches have won countless prizes, awards, and medals. Now, a Lone Gene watch brings you more than the delight of a beautiful possession, more than the unsurpassed timekeeping of a remarkable watch. You have the confidence of knowing that you own the watch of highest prestige among the finest watches of all the world, for Easter, for an anniversary of birthday, or for any important gift occasion. Throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Lone Gene with Lone 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 Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Lone Gene. This is Frank Knight, reminding you that Lone Gene and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jurors who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Lone Gene Wittner watches. Tuesday night thrills danger on the CBS television network. Stop washing your nylon. This is the CBS television network. It's time for the Lone Gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lone Gene Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lone Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world's honored Lone Gene. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lone Gene Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Eliot Hain, of United Nations World, our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable J.H. Van Roy. Ambassador to Washington from the Netherlands. Van Royen, you, of course, represent the Dutch nation, which has always been extremely friendly to the American people, also for centuries, the most world-minded people in the world. You're great traders in your attitudes toward what's happening. Now, first of all, the New York, the New York Post-Russian expansionism, namely the North Atlantic pre-de-organization. Are you supportive of it? We certainly are, Mr. Huey. As a matter of fact, the NATO North Atlantic pre-de-organization is a cornerstone of our foreign policy. And do you also, are you also in favor of creating a European army? We are. Strong defense of the European army. We are doing all in our power to come to a ratification of the European defense of the European Republic. That means that you are not afraid of the Germans being subordinated. So do we. We would welcome German military defense of the European country. Mr. Ambassador, the first European nation to sign this European agreement has been Germany. That means? Ratify. Do you see any possibility of your country ratifying being sued? I do indeed. I think that either immediately before or immediately after the summer recess of parliament, the second chamber, the lower chamber of our parliament will ratify the treaty. That would mean about four or five other countries to ratify. Yes, it would. Do you see any possibility of their ratification, early ratification? Well, we in Holland are very hopeful of an early ratification and until it does, it will come soon. Well, that's particularly interesting, I think, because your country shares a common boundary with Germany and our viewers will recall that your country perhaps suffered more from German invasion than the western nations. Yet, are you saying that you welcome the economic revival of Germany and you even welcome the military revival? We are realists, and I think that we welcome both the economic revival and the military participation of Germany in a concerted European effort. Mr. Van Royen, for the last month and a half or more, the Russian government has been speaking peace, talking peace, and generally behaving peacefully. Do you think that military arrangements designed to combat possible communist aggression are as important now than they were, say, four months ago? They are certainly just as important if not for psychological reasons, even more so. We in Holland feel that the worst possible thing we could do would be to let down our guard just at this moment. And we feel that on the one hand military preparedness, on the other hand, unity among the nations of the free world is an absolute prerequisite. Do you believe that the risk of war is less today than it was six months ago, sir? I wouldn't say that. I think it's probably about the same. It looks on account of the new Russian tactics, although the danger was receding. But I should say there's about the same possibility of a Russian blunder or a Russian miscalculation and a third world war as a consequence of such miscalculation. You're not afraid of a similar blunder in the part of the West. You don't think we would set off a third world war by mistake? I think that possibility is much less, but I think it's human to make mistakes. We have to watch out for it, too. But I think it's negligible. Moving on, sir, this subject of trade is something that our people are very much interested in. And since you are the world's great traders, we'd like to have your views on what you're doing about trade now. Now, the Dutch are, of course, dependent on world trade, are they not? We certainly are. We always have been, I don't know, we're a trader and seafaring nation. And what is the state of your trade? Is it greater this year than it was last year? Has the volume been increasing? Our total trade is increasing and our exports this year for the first time have equaled and slightly surpassed our imports. But not as far as this country is concerned. You still have a dollar gap. We certainly have. In other words, the number and amount of products and articles which we import from this country are a great deal larger than those that we can export to your country and pay for them. What do you want to buy from Americans, sir? We want to buy machinery and we want to buy agricultural products. In other words, the necessities of life, necessities for our economic apparatus. And in order to do that, you need dollars and the only way you can get those dollars is to sell us something. We haven't yet discovered another way except by age. And what do you want to sell us in order to earn those dollars that we can buy our wheat and our machinery? We also have farm products, dairy products of a different nature than those that we want to import from you. But as you know, lately there have been certain restrictions clamped on to our cheese exports this country. And that has not been encouraging for the buildup of the line of exports. Well, Mr. Van Royen, if we keep on prohibiting you from selling cheese to us and so forth, would you be forced to turn to the East Europe and Russia and the general communist area for the wheat and the machinery that you need? Would you be forced to trade with the East? I wouldn't put it so strongly as that, Miss Haynes, but I think that if the countries of Europe as a whole are prevented from trading with the United States the temptation to trade with the countries behind the Iron Curtain in goods which are not strategic would become very great. Mr. Van Royen, a number of Americans are beginning to think that that might not be so bad that perhaps instead of letting all these European goods in let's let Europe trade with the East to some extent. Do you think that East-West trade is necessarily a bad thing? Putting it that way, no it's not necessarily a bad thing it depends which side benefits most. If it's the free world that is benefited by that more than the countries behind the Iron Curtain and if the free world therefore gets into a stronger position, it's all to the good. And you think it's possible that the free world might benefit more by such trade than communist countries would? Undoubtedly, depending on the kind of goods which we trade in. Of course, the very fact that you're a great trading nation you are handicapped more by the Iron Curtain than any other nation would be, aren't you? The fact that the world is divided and that there is an Iron Curtain handicapped holland doesn't it? We certainly are unless we can find another outlet for our goods. What do you need to buy from behind the Iron Curtain? Among other things such necessities as coal, wheat lumber things which we need for our national economy. Mr. Ambassador, do you think that in exchange for those, if you got them from those communist countries, you could sell them goods which would not help their military power, which would not aid their war effort. You could give them things which wouldn't help them to fight a war? That is certainly what we've been doing all along. But naturally, they are inclined to make higher demands on us all the time and inclined to demand that we ship goods which are strategic which we have constantly refused. So if you could, you would rather trade the dates and get the things you need and trade with communist countries? Far rather, without any doubt. Our people, of course, remember the disastrous floods that your country has suffered in the past few months. Now how is the rate of recovery owned from those floods? The rate has been very encouraging up to the present. We have repaired about 80% of the dykes that were breached and reclaimed almost the same proportion of the area that was enundated. And is that going to affect your commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? In fact, it is such a disaster. Unfortunately, we are not. Our government has formally stated that we will honor our commitments to the nature of physical. Moreover, as you may know, we had the 10 days before the flood of our country renounced economic aid from the United States. And our government has also given it a stand in Washington that we will not again offer economic aid during the 750 years. And Ryan is the standard of living of your country. It is recovered from the floods, a decent life, where people won't turn to communism and fear and distress. Presidents of our country of living is quite satisfactory. Although, of course, there is a certain amount of unemployment though not only in people's case. As a final question, one of the things that we are concerned with in our country now is what other people in the West think of us. Unfortunately, Americans were in Holland during the Second War and I wonder if there is a substantial feeling of anti-Americanism in Holland today. I don't know. I think you will find less anti-American feeling, according to the Princess America in the Netherlands than in any other country in Western Europe. We as a people know that you are our friend. We are grateful for what the United States has done. We are grateful for your participation and for the liberation of our country from the Nazi oppression, for the martial aid which we received and for which we were able to get back to our people at chance when we had done our own effort. Well, thank you, sir, for being with us this evening. You're welcome, sir. The opinions that you have heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Lawn Jean Conestope was Mr. William Bradford QA Our distinguished guest was the Honorable J. H. Van Roy Ambassador to Washington from the Netherlands. We're pleased that the Lawn Jean Conestope is one of the television programs collected by Washington for re-broadcast for armed forces around the world. And wherever in the world the Lawn Jean Conestope may go, it's virtually certain that Lawn Jean watches are already there on the wrist of many members of our armed forces as the citizens of these foreign countries and in the windows of their fine jewelry assemblies. Such is the name of Lawn Jean, truly the world's most honored watch. For among the world's finest watches, only Lawn Jean watches have won ten World Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy from the great government of Beverly. And Lawn Jean watches are sold and serviced in the capitals and major cities of more than thirty years throughout the world. Now someday soon, you may wish to purchase for yourself or as an important gift just about the finest watch made anywhere in the world. Then you will choose well to choose Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch. And unbelievably, you may buy and own or proudly give a Lawn Jean watch for as little as seventy-one-fifty. Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Lawn Jean Wittner 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 Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion watch for the world's honored Lawn Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Lawn Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from close to close, by more than four thousand leading jurors who proudly display this emblem agency for Lawn Jean Wittner watch. Next Monday night be the fourth fiftieth anniversary show on the CDS television network. 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's honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Edward P. Morgan and Bill Downs, both from the CBS television news staff. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Val Peterson, administrator of the Federal Civil Defense Agency. Governor Peterson, on Chronoscope, as a matter of fact, a few months ago, you yourself made a very alarming statement. You said, as I remember it, that Russia was capable now of mounting an atomic attack which could cripple all the important industrial centers of the United States in one blow. Since then, Mr. Malenkov says that the Russians have the H bomb. Now, it would be helpful, I think, if you could sort of tell us what has transpired in your shop since then. Is the situation better or worse? Well, I think we're making progress in civil defense across the United States all the time. So far as the announcement made by Mr. Malenkov, I assumed, as have the people in my agency, that anything that we could do, the Russians eventually would be able to do. You would not dare to make any other assumption in a matter that involves the safety of the United States. I used to coach football years ago as a young fellow, and I found that whenever you underestimated the fellow, the opponent you were playing, you were in trouble. And of course, that's one of the first rules in military activity, too. So I would say that nothing has changed. There's no positive evidence that the Russians have an H-bomb. You would not have positive evidence until they explode an H-bomb. On the other hand, there's every reason to believe that their scientists would be able to create some type of a thermonuclear device as time goes on. Well, Governor Peterson, isn't it true that if they do have an H-bomb, which is, they say, 20 times more powerful than an A-bomb, that our problem is much more acute? In other words, it would take 20 less airplanes, for example, to do the job you say that they are capable of doing. Well, if it were only 20 times any bomb of that type that they had, we're only 20 times more destructive than an H-bomb, our problem wouldn't be quite so bad as it probably is. The fact of the matter is that if and when the Russians have devices of that type and have enough of them to mount an attack against the United States, certainly it makes our problem much more difficult. It's a matter of degree, however. That type of a bomb would only will destroy a greater area, damage a greater area, kill more people if they happen to be in the area. But the A-bomb is bad enough. Governor, is it correct to assume that one of your biggest problems is a sort of a psychological one? I mean this. It's the problem of awakening people to the danger without crying wolf. Assuming that it's true, how do you do it? Well, I think the only way in the world to arouse the American people is to give the American people the facts just as closely as it's possible to do so. Now no one would propose that you give military secrets away. Certainly I wouldn't do that. But the people must know all that there is to be that they can know about enemy capabilities, about enemy weapons, and the effects of those weapons. And knowing that truth, I think you can believe that the people will take the action that's necessary to protect themselves. Well, Governor, you said that between 8 and 20 million people would be killed in event of an all out attack, atomic or nuclear attack on our country. Now don't you believe that this concept is hard for the people to grasp? And isn't that one of your sort of things? Over awesome. I mean myself, for example, I have no feeling what could I do about it. Maybe I'm one of those. There are many things that the individual can do, and of course there are many things that we can do as a nation to minimize the effects of an atomic attack upon the United States. Now the fact of the matter is we are dealing with a new problem because the atomic weapon is only 8 years old and the idea of intercontinental bombers that can fly from country to country dropping bombs has completely revolutionized military strategy and the figures that are involved are stupendous. However the fact that the problem is tough does not mean that we do not have to meet it and as far as I'm able to figure in my own mind as I understand Americans we will be equal to the occasion when it arises. Governor, I want to go back if I may to something you said just a moment ago which was that you thought that the American people could arise to the situation given the information. President Eisenhower said not so very long ago rather urgently that he thought that the people by all means should have more information about the atomic situation and I want to interrupt myself just a little to dig into my notes if you'll permit me and read something that I jotted down from the New York Carol Tribune which says this was printed a few weeks ago and it's really impossible to plan proper shelters against atomic attack in this country because the relevant information has not been released to the Civil Defense Administration by the Atomic Energy Commission or the military. Now the question is after that rather cumbersome buildup has anything perceptibly been loosened up? Well now as a matter of fact and with new respect for that great newspaper which I have a personal liking the fact of the matter is that my agency is well briefed by the Atomic Energy Commission all of the time and by the Department of Defense. We do have the information. However we haven't done as much research as we should do as a matter of fact we've done very little research with respect to the effects of bombing upon civilian type of structures. The research that we have done has been largely in connection with the effects of atomic explosions upon military installations and military instruments upon battle ships and upon airplanes and we need to do a great deal more research as that editorial or article suggests. Well who's fallen on their face then Governor because this is not a strictly military weapon this is a weapon that strikes at the civilian population that is the chief value. Why aren't you getting this information? That's simply a shift in military strategy the attacks now are made upon civilians and armies. We are getting that information we have not done as much research as we should have done primarily because we have not had the funds. Some of the information that the military has is valuable to us and we're in the process of transcribing it but bear in mind that that becomes a very detailed an intricate engineering and technical procedure and we haven't done as much of it as we should do however I want to say this about shelters it's entirely possible to build shelters that will protect people against any kind of an explosion atomic or any other type of an explosion if we wanted to take if we wanted to take America into the ground we could protect ourselves against these attacks however we would do it at a cost of billions of dollars a fantastic amount of money and so far there's been no dispensating upon the part of the American people or upon its representatives in the American Congress to take Americans under the ground. Do you feel Governor that since we happen to be the major targets of this new weapon H and A bomb that we should have more information about it and the reason some of the apathy is that we don't realize what's going on? Well I think generally I believe that whatever is the public's business is best handled by the public and by the public directly based upon sound information and my agency has attempted to give the public all of the information it possibly could and I know that the prevailing sentiment in Washington is to give the people all of the information that is possible short always of course of giving the enemy information which nobody would want to do. Governor that brings up another point the actual organization of civil defense on the part of volunteer workers I've had the impression in talking to some friends of mine who have done some volunteer work in civil defense here in New York City and other cities that an awful lot of people if you will pardon the expression go into it out of boredom they're tired of bridge or scrabble or whatever and they go into it just to see what can be done what about this public apathy? Well I think that there is a failure on the part of the public to realize the danger in which America lives and I think there are several reasons for that and if you permit me I would try to outline them very rapidly first most of us do not like to do today what we should do in order to prepare for tomorrow we procrastinate we're a little bit lazy that's true in our private lives secondly any one of intelligence and information is hoping and praying that we won't have a third world war because in this age of the atomic weapon war would be a third world war would be a catastrophe for all mankind and some people in that connection and I offer this as another reason that there will not be a third world war and they're wishing so hard that they've wished it into a reality and then in addition to that there are two other things that are quite important some people say well the destructiveness of modern atomic of atomic bombs and of these thermonuclear devices that may come into play will be so great that there isn't anything you can do about it and then finally and this is quite significant about 60% of the American people revealed in the study which we made through the University of Michigan a year ago that they believed that the military could stop the atomic bombs from falling upon the United States well I'm sorry to have to tell you that the military will tell you that as of today they cannot stop a successful Russian attack that can be corroborated rather dramatically and we didn't plan it this way Governor but the floor manager has just handed me a bulletin saying quoting Pravda as saying that the Russians have just exploded a hydrogen bomb now as a final question and this we might say a loaded one very quickly with that information could you tell us in about three words what we should do with that in mind I should say that we should step up our civil defense program and we should step up our military defense program thank you very much indeed Governor Val Peterson the opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own the editorial board for this edition of the launch in chronoscope was Edward P. Morgan and Bill Downs both of the CBS television news staff our distinguished guest was the honorable Val Peterson administrator of the federal civil defense agency if you're contemplating the purchase of a very fine watch it would be profitable to you to compare the facts about Laun Jean with the facts you have about any other watch and you'll find that the facts about Laun Jean are convincing proof of surpassing quality factual evidence that in a Laun Jean watch you have one of the world's very finest timepieces for in competition with the world's best watches Laun Jean watches alone have won for excellence and elegance 10 world's fair grand prizes and 28 gold medals for accuracy highest honors from the leading government observatories for dependability a position of leadership in sports aviation and in science yet though Laun Jean is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world a Laun Jean watch is not excessively expensive because you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50 and this is important whatever the price every Laun Jean watch is manufactured to the high standards of quality which have made Laun Jean the world's most honored watch the world's most honored gift Laun Jean premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner 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 Wittner distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean this is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem agency for Laun Jean Wittner watches this is the CBS television network it's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday a presentation of the Laun Jean Wittner watch company maker of Laun Jean the world's most honored watch and Wittner distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean good evening this is Frank Knight may I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope Edward P. Morgan and Bill Downs both of the CBS television news star this evening's guest is one of the most distinguished ladies in American life Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt some nights ago I had dinner with a man and his wife in Spokane, Washington quite sincerely but quite seriously they asked me two questions they said do these foreigners hate us as much as they seem to and are they ever going to be grateful for the things that we do for them now you've just come back from one of your latest trips in far parts of the world could you answer those questions well I would not say that foreigners hated us I would say that many of them were a little suspicious that they did not like to feel that everything they wanted to do they had to ask us for our help or some of it would come from the United Nations and they liked that better because they were members and they felt they got it by right and there was no one individual nation that they had to depend on but I would say that it was always hard to be grateful for something which you felt you would like to be able to do without asking anyone well Mrs. Roosevelt we've heard a lot about criticism of American policy and what we have done or tried to do is this something new or is this something to do with this administration or perhaps even your late husband's administration is this I think it began probably when the war was over and we began to have to help people to build up again and we were the ones who had not been bombed and who had no homes destroyed we had difficulty in getting new homes but we didn't have to clear away acres of rubble of old homes that once existed and we had a whole production unit intact and practically no other nation in the world was in that fortunate position in other words this is history rather than policies this is history rather than politics and I think of course that there is some envy in it there is when people say will they never be grateful for what we've done I think there is gratitude but gratitude is sometimes swamped by the sense of why was this done was it done in the long run so we could we who just freed ourselves from political domination be dominated through economics now that's not unnatural because the history of most of these countries in Asia and in some parts of Europe is that people who do things for you expect something in return and I suppose if we do things as we are supposed to do in enlightened self-interest that we are not necessarily expected to anticipate gratitude well of course it is enlightened self-interest because getting them back on their feet is necessary for us because we need markets you spoke of the United Nations Mrs. Roosevelt and that brings up a most topical point and before we get into the heart of it let's explore a public reaction to it here there seems to be a great deal of suspicion among our own people about the United Nations and its effectiveness what is your reaction to that I think that's easily explained because you see we are a very big country in a very strong country we have not needed any of the programs carried on by the specialized agencies which are the action part of the United Nations we've not needed those programs in our country because we were all right India has needed to have land cleared of malaria other nations have needed help to get rid of tuberculosis there are a thousand and one things that less fortunate nations can see have happened and be grateful for from the United Nations we don't happen to have been in that category it matters to us what the United Nations does elsewhere because again where people are ridden with malaria they will never buy our goods well Mrs. Roosevelt do you think that the United Nations as an instrument of world political opinion and operation has lost ground in the last say five six years in this country I think like everything else that we started out expecting that the United Nations would solve every difficulty right just by being the United Nations we didn't realize that the United Nations was only all the nations gathered in one place but all the troubles remained just as they were before and therefore we had to work to make the United Nations work and we didn't want to work and we didn't expect to have to do this work and now we know we have to which is healthy I think that brings up another point Mrs. Roosevelt Secretary of State Dulles has just made an important speech before the American Bar Association in Boston the essence of which was that the United Nations Charter I think he put it was a pre-atomic age Charter and therefore not flexible to the times and he recommended that the Security Council be stripped of the veto and said that in some future assembly in 55 I believe it was that the United States would consider sponsoring such a move what do you believe about that that's a great change for the United States because we felt that unless we had the veto we would never get the Charter through Congress and that was one reason why the veto was put there of course the fact that the Soviets have misused the veto used it for a great many things that it was not intended for what it was intended for was to make it possible for a nation to prevent the discussion of domestic affairs which they considered were no business of anybody else's in the world whether we now are ready to submit the discussion of our domestic affairs is a question that the people will have to decide aren't we in effect or isn't Secretary Dulles in effect asking for a showdown though when he says all right leave us split the United Nations or let people line up on our side or their side with no veto and we carry this by majority vote do you think that is a possible consequence I would hope that perhaps just as we trust our people in the United States we were trying the experiment of trusting the nations of the world I hope we would do nothing however so definite that we really hurt the United Nations because I think this is the one great hope for eventually building peace and to do anything like making a pronouncement of a policy which you cannot change if you find it is unwise in the future and today heaven knows you are being met constantly with new reasons and you ought to be able to be flexible Mrs. Rothefeld excuse me as build downs did a moment ago of lining up on one side or the other what is your view as to our position regarding India and the issue of her representation at the Korean peace conference well last year I was in India and I wrote a book called India in the Awakening East as just trying to explain some of the problems of that area of the world in very simple fashion because you only give impressions it's not a learned treatise my feeling is that when you insist on lining up people what you do is put our friends with the Soviets if you insist that that's the only place they can sit I feel it's very unfortunate Mrs. Rothefeld this is a you have been become known as the leader of what is loosely called a liberal movement in this country or what used to be called a liberal movement in this country and some people call them do-gooders and the rest of it could you define a liberal for us I mean it's very hard to put in a few words what a liberal is but I would feel that a liberal was a person who kept an open mind was willing to meet new questions with new solutions but you could move forward you didn't have to always look backwards and be afraid of moving forward and that's what this national issues committee that's your... national issues committee is going to try to look at the issues to put them in simple terms so that the people can understand them as objectively as possible and to feel that they can as the liberals do move forward quickly a final question Mrs. Roosevelt I'm sorry Bill we've been told by our experts that we may have to live in this world of uncertainty and indecision short of war in a cold war for x number of years to come what is your recipe for us to face up to it? well I think the study of our history certainly the people who settled this country didn't have any great security and it's hard for the young people to live in uncertainty they love to be sure of the future but I really think that we have the stamina particularly if we look at what we came from and to live through uncertainty thank you very much 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 Edward P. Morgan and Bill Downs he has television news stuff our distinguished guest for this evening was Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt there are many many watches which sell at prices equal to or higher than Laun Jean so if you wish to be sure of getting a watch of truly fine character what should you do? well just compare the facts you have about any other watch with the facts you have about Laun Jean and the facts about Laun Jean prove it to be one of the finest of all the world's watches for in competition with the world's best watches Laun Jean watches alone have won for excellence and elegance 10 world's fair grand prizes and 28 gold medals for accuracy highest honors from the leading government observatories for dependability a position of leadership in sports, aviation and in science yet though Laun Jean is one of the very finest watches made anywhere in the world a watch is not excessively expensive because you may buy and own or proudly give a Laun Jean watch for as little as $71.50 and this is important whatever the price every Laun Jean watch is manufactured to the high standards of quality which have made Laun Jean the world's most honored watch the world's most honored gift Laun Jean 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's 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 jewelers who proudly display this emblem agency for Laun Jean Witner watches Thursday nights enjoy the Lux Video Theater on the CBS television network