810.20 Defense/4–1747
The Secretary of War (Patterson) to the Acting Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: In my letter of March 27th on the subject of military assistance to other American states I set forth certain factors in support of our conclusion that prompt action should be taken in sponsoring legislation.
I am taking this opportunity to outline, as briefly as I can, the basic reasons why no further time should be lost, as we see the situation, in introducing legislation along the same lines as the bill offered in the last session of Congress.
- 1.
- The first and foremost factor is that the furnishing of training and the transfer of military equipment to other American states will promote the national security of the United States.
- In the case of Canada, on the northern flank, there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the value of the proposed legislation. We already have a program underway with Canada for standardization of equipment, training and organization, and the proposed bill will implement and facilitate this program.
- In the case of states to the south, the advantages in providing training [Page 111] and equipment of our type and design, as contrasted with the situation in which European nations would be furnishing such training and equipment, would seem to be manifest. The advantages on the affirmative side are substantial. On the negative side, in the exclusion of training and equipment derived from non-American sources, the strengthening of our national security would be very considerable.
- 2.
- One of the chief objectives of communistic propaganda in the Latin American states is to prevent the extension of military assistance by the United States to those states. It would seem that we are playing into the hands of the Communists if by our own decision we disable ourselves from the tender of military assistance.
- 3.
- We have, as you know, military missions in a number of other American states. The effectiveness of these missions Will be seriously impaired if those countries look to European sources for arms and ammunition. The types and designs of the weapons would be unfamiliar to our military personnel, and there is every probability that military missions from other countries would follow the introduction of their equipment.
- 4.
- We are already committed, as we see it, to the support of this legislation. The conferences with the military staffs of the other American states, which were held in 1945 under the auspices of the State Department, and the Act of Chapultepec were definite steps along this line. Over and above that, we have the fact that a similar bill was introduced last year, supported by the State, War, and Navy Departments. The President urged its passage, and Secretary Byrnes testified in favor of it. In our contacts with military representatives of other American states we are at a loss to explain why legislation of the same character is no longer being supported.
The arguments on the other side, advanced as reasons for changing our policy have been thoroughly considered.
There is the argument that passage of the bill will build up armaments. The bill provides otherwise, for the recipient nations are to turn in their existing equipment. It is also to be noted that the bill takes into account any international arrangement for reduction of armaments.
The other point in opposition to the measure is the one stressed in your letter of March 19th, that some of the countries cannot afford to buy weapons.
This factor, it seems to us, overlooks the probability that the poorer countries will acquire weapons in any event; if they cannot get the weapons from us, they will get them elsewhere, and to our disadvantage. The argument on the economic side also overlooks the fact that [Page 112] the bill does not require the President to furnish arms to any and all countries. It simply gives him authority to furnish training and equipment, the decision being his as to the extent of the training and equipment to be given in any case.
This point of economic disadvantage, it is to be noted, was as valid a year ago as it is today. It was not considered controlling a year ago, when the former bill, H.R. 6326, was introduced.
Nearly four months of the present session of Congress have already been lost. If further time is lost in coming to a decision, the matter will be moot, so far as prospect of action at the present session is concerned.
The Secretary of the Navy authorizes me to say that he is in general accord with the views in this letter.
Sincerely yours,