Voices of Europe; Dr. Mogens Fog and Gerald Bailey

Voices of Europe today in Copenhagen Milton Mayer interviews a communist professor with an important qualification besides being a communist professor. He is a Scandinavian and maybe that makes a difference. And besides being a Scandinavian he is a Dane. Dr. Moon's full professor of neurology in the University of Copenhagen was the leader the leader not a leader of the Danish resistance during the Nazi occupation of Denmark as president of the Council of freedom the Danish resistance movement. He was a member of the first post-war cabinet of his country. And then although he had not been a member of the Communist Party since its dissolution during the occupation he was elected to the Danish parliament in 1905 as a representative of the communists in 1050 he declined to be a candidate again but he still attend the fires himself as a nonparty communist. Here is Milton Mayer to interview Dr Mones fole Dr. Falwell I'd like to ask you a good American question. Why if you're in your right mind. Are you a communist.

Whereas of course I consider myself or others sane and those are new realities. I feel qualified to estimate that at least. I know that millions and millions of men and women all over the world are of the same opinion as I am. But you put me the question why I am a communist. It would take more hours to tell that in detail but I can say that I am a communist because I feel convinced that capitalists can't solve the problems of mankind can't secure in the long run. An appropriate and just level of living for all men. And I say all men in the world. Why Dr. forward did you decide to give up your seat in the Danish

parliament. It was after the Korean war had started and I gave it up because I felt that the danger of and you were all is so big that fighting for peace is more important for the time being than fighting in a parliament for an actual political. Line. Am I to understand then that you felt you could not fight freely for peace with communist ties. What I really want to know Dr. following is are the communists of Denmark and of Scandinavia independent of Russian policy or aren't they where. I followed Carly's policies in our Parliamentary Group By the way I can tell you that

the first election after the war there were 18 communist in our parliament a one hundred fifty. Two years later after the next election it dwindled until 9 and after I left only seven communists are representing the party in the parliament. To what Dr. Ford do you ascribe the decline in communist strength and then Mark in. Well several reasons must be taken into account. But I think that they were supported the communist party was supported by many former members of the resistance movement who hoped for quite new politics through the communist and they felt deceived because they saw that a quite new politics was not instituted. By the communist was it worsened by the other party.

So they were distracted and at first they didn't vote at all afterwards late drifted into the other party in the second place I think that anti-communist propaganda also in the western world had its influence and certainly maybe the coming Mr Denmark might have done better in practical politics than they did. But it was about the group I was speaking about the dependence. What you suggested the dependence of a Communist Party of Russia and Russian power and I can say that I followed with criticism. What happened in our group. Every decision that I can testified. Was made after a free discussion. I never had the experience that we in the group discussed the matter and came to a conclusion and then the leader said.

But we have to do it otherwise because we get our orders. I don't think that the Communist Party leaders get their orders for their local politics. But I know. For the Communist Party leaders in our countries Western countries. The fight of the Russian party the big achievements socialist which is carriage through in the south of that union they are an inspiration in what they are doing. What are those achievements Dr. for in the South Viet union in your view as a Scandinavian Scandinavia certainly seems to be a different world from Eastern Europe it's a little hard to understand the development in the attitude of communists in the midst of this community truly

happy prosperous bourgeois world of Scandinavia. Where I understand that and I can see if I still say it briefly and the time is limited so I shall have to. I say that the Social Security which is assured to everybody the ordinary man in the Soviet Union and also the answer she has been building a new world with a steady rise of prosperity not to a part of the Soviet community but to all its members. That is what has impressed us in the first place. It may be difficult for Americans to understand that and most Danes don't see Islander standing because our community is relatively well established in social respects. But I think that

the work of all who is unemployed or live in fear for unemployment that he understands not to speak of the people of undeveloped countries. So lower level they understand to what it means that community sick creates security for members. I went to Russia in the spring of 1950 before I went. I asked the Danish communist worker Don't you think that if a Danish communist workers went to Russia they would feel that it was a strange country and that they preferred to live in their own country. He said Well. I have been there and I tell you that this feeling of community of the security of

being in a in a country where the one are the ones who create productive who create are. Sure to have they are fair share of what is created that is it does that I felt at home. Now I admit when I came there I met the same feeling of security which I was told in advance. But also I admit that I felt a little. It was a strange way of talking to a scientists doctors and so on because. The attitude to many problems were quite different from mine. Educated as I am in in the western world and I can canat that sewing in social intercourse than

in discussing a scientific matter metals I feel more at home with an American scientist or colleague than I did with a Russian doctor for one are you first a communist or a day where you can put the question that way. Or at least I can answer that by a single word. For me there is no conflict between being a communist and being a Dane. I think that it's a development towards socialism would be the best way to follow for my people. And we had during the occupation the German occupation. We had the experience. That when our country is in a critical situation. Coalition can be established between people. Why do different political points of view. If only they agree upon

the actual issue. But opinions were are very different. During the after the last is the Germans has occupied our country. Some few Danes were on asss they didn't mean they didn't mean very much but the majority of the politicians burned at first. At least the population saw that we had to spare our people from sufferings and therefore had to establish some sort of collaboration and none opposition in our relationship with occupation power. But another part under an ever growing part of Danes felt that it was our responsibility to fight the Germans to fight Nazism first did the rest of the democratic world and therefore we had a post

to create a resistance movement. And this review was the base of the organized resistance movement which comprised people out of all political circles from conservatives to communists. It's important to note that this movement was unified through a collaboration of the Conservative leader and the communist leader of our country. They had both been forced to go underground. These two men met in my home and I listen to their discussion. They agreed that they had to fight together and defer their country versus on other questions until the nurses had been was speedin

subsequently the Conservative leader had her escape to London when the communist leader was arrested by the Germans and that was how I came into the picture representing her and uniting with our movement our group both conservatives and communists. It was by the way in this capacity the capacity as a representative of this united group that I entered the first post-war cabinet. This may of course saying sound insane to many Americans but nevertheless it is history. I have to ask you Dr. Falwell if you are a communist first or a day and now I want to ask you if you are a communist first or a scientist where a high Hunter stand what you can that what you mean.

After all are the prevailing opinion in America a scientist can't be a communist because science is cruel. To communists just the opposite. But of course I don't share this view. I think and so many are not uncommon in this country means America countrymen of mine. Agree with me that in the United States the political propaganda has enforced forced picture of the Soviet Union under communism upon most Americans. But what. I think is more important is that the witch hunt which is going on in your country now. That it will describe some of the most important and I can say most

attractive feature of American tradition and read it may convert this people into a nation of scared yes say yes not very different from the picture they have painted of Russia today for academic spirit. It is essential that opinions can be freely expressed and freely discussed in order to make progress that holds true for political questions too. The Americans can never fight by weapons companies in the world. And companies can never conquer the capitalist worked by arms. The two parts of the works are nearly equal sprains and I suppose they will remain so in spite of all re armaments on both sides. The only possible possibility for many

times for. The US civilisation in the future is a settlement with secure peaceful coexistence of the two systems and peaceful competition between them. And that is why. Now I concentrate upon the peace movement reconciliation as opposed to armaments. RICE Thank you Dr for. When the peaceful English countryside of county Surrey Milton Mayer next interviews an Englishman who isn't home very often these days he is Gerald Baylee secretary of the east west relations committee of the Religious Society of Friends more popularly known as the Quakers. Gerald Bailey was born in Manchester England the son of a bank manager and he characterizes himself as a politician. Having run for parliament on two occasions. But his politics are of somewhat a broader character than most for 9000 years up until a few years ago he was director of the National Peace Council of Great Britain

which did the coordinating work with the organisations within the country concerned with international affairs. During the last few years Gerald Bailey has been concentrating on the east west problem. He organized and led the British Quaker mission to Moscow in the summer of 951 and is a member of the international Quaker team which has attended the recent general assemblies of the United Nations as observers. Here is Milton Mayer to interview Gerald Bailey. Mr. Bailey. In or less east west activity these missions to mask out and the like. Just what are you Quakers trying to do. Well the fundamental basis of cause of all our work in this field is our religious testimony for peace. Which is for us an intra group part of our Christian faith and witness. We've held that peace testimony. I think we can say with fair

consistency for 300 years that is to say for the whole life of our society because the Society of Friends is 300 years old this year. But we have a tradition too which is nearly as old as the society of going with a reconciling purpose to what might be called the focal points of tension in the world. When we went to the Soviet Union just a year ago we were constantly reminding ourselves of the visit of three British Quakers to the Tsar Nicholas the first in St. Petersburg Ninety eight years before an attempt which unfortunately it was unsuccessful an attempt by a personal appeal to the leaders of the time to stop the Crimean War.

And some may remember too the much more recent mission of three American Quakers to burn in 1938 to try and secure some alleviation of the fate of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Our purpose in all this is quite simply the promotion of peace and understanding and right dealing between peoples and nations. These efforts that you have mentioned Mr. Baily were failures. What makes you Quakers think that efforts which are not backed up by power are worth anything in a world which is built upon power. I'm thinking here of Macchiavelli his dictum that an armed prophets always fail. Well of course these efforts may fail in the short run. Jesus I

suppose with an armed prophet who failed in the short run but not in the long run. But let me say we don't exaggerate what we can achieve. We certainly did not fall to that temptation a year ago when we went to Russia. Our conviction is simply that no effort of this current undertaken with singleness of heart and mind can be wholly without avail. Anyhow our view would be that it's the current responsibility of all men of good will to do their utmost however little that may be to prevent what someone has called the Cosmic arson of the third world war and that for us is a sufficient justification of what we try to do. Mr. Bailey has your direct contact with the Russians convinced you that they really want peace.

Well first of all let's realize that this is precisely the question which the Russians kept asking us about the Americans and even about the British when we were in Moscow last year. The answer of course is not an easy one. And I must try and separate it between the people and the regime. There's no question that the Russian people want peace. Like most other if not all other ordinary people throughout the world. I think it's possible that the Russian people want peace more articulately there than some others. If only because for a long time now they have been subject to an intensive internal propaganda campaign on the virtues of peace peace on Servia terms of course but also because looking around them they know that their country still faces immense tasks of Reconstruction

and Development. And they know perfectly world that there's no hope of completing the if the out and out war. But much more relevant as I say is what the men in the Kremlin want because they will decide the issue where the Soviet Union is concerned. Now our judgement on this point is obviously much more difficult. But I'm convinced that they also want to avoid general war though that does not mean let me add that they're yet to read it to relax the international tensions or to abandon policies and practices which if persisted on may make an ultimate conflict with the West probable if not inevitable. They certainly fear our atomic war on their city.

Starlin who is an aging man recalls the fate of muscle Leni and Hitler and has no days are that it should be his thing. They fear to or I believe the destruction of their peaceful projects as they call them of hydro electrification irrigation and the like on which the developing economic future of the Soviet Union did depend. And they fear too I think that if there is no relaxation of the tension and new limitations set to Western rearmament they will be drawn into the arms race to an extent that they are not in it yet and they fear Of course that in those circumstances they will be forced to direct even more substantial resources from peaceful construction to war preparation and to ask in consequence of the Savior people economic

sacrifices which in view of existing living standards in the Soviet Union it may well be inexpedient to Demar. So it is safe to say I think that there are strong pressures which inclined the Russian leaders to desire and to seek some easing of the term. But as I say one has to add that not yet in the east in my judgment have they shown in a sufficiently decisive way that they're willing to pay the prize fight. Because I am afraid it's not the much publicized peace campaign so that count in this situation. Probably their major purpose is to confuse Western minds and to weaken the Western will to rearm. Nor is it of course declarations of peaceful intention because both sides are in fact eloquent there. What

really matters and want to learn can materially improve the prospects of peace are the concrete acts and the concrete concessions which would help to resolve the crisis of confidence between east and west and provide the tangible basis of a settlement. And are these acts and concessions Mr. Baily in your view applicable to the west as well as to the east or just to the east. Most certainly in my view the making of peace is a two way enterprise and that means that though we may go that Russian responsibility for the deterioration of East-West relations since the war is greater than the responsibility of the West the peaceful settlement we all want requires contributions from both sides.

For my part I'm convinced that the worst too has some critical decisions and momentous choices to face. They too have to decide whether they really want a truce in the cold war and a relaxation of the tension. Because if there is an ambivalence that is to say a facing both ways in Soviet policy then there is a comparable ambivalence in western policies too. They too. That is the West declaring for peace and preparing for war. Now I would doubt whether these two purposes could be reconciled indefinitely at any time. But in the situation we are now facing it certainly is impossible to reconcile them unless the emphasis in Western policy is thrown much more decisively on the willingness to negotiate and to make this the concession which successful negotiation will

demand then it has been here too. I would turn that a four part settlement on German IR would do more than anything else to relax tension and provide the basis of an understanding. But quite clearly if we hope that the Russians will make a practical concession that would make possible a for power settlement in relation to German air. We must be prepared to offer them a quid pro quo. The more general point I would make is this that there is little hope of a political peaceful settlement between east and west without some kind of mutual intervention agreement. I don't believe you can have a truce in the cold war and at the same time an active policy of intervention in the

internal affairs of either side. Now that means for the Communists that they have got to put some voluntary restraint on communist expansionism because that is the fear which is in the mind of the West. But the West on the other hand has quite definitely deduced a vow a counter-revolutionary purpose where the Communist controlled countries of the East are concerned. That kind of understanding is necessary I'm sure to a political settlement between east and west. Let's realize of course that it raises certain very difficult moral questions for us in the West. It may mean temporarily they acquiesce in what we call the safety to millions of people in East India. But if we believe that a peaceful settlement is necessary to avoid the third

world war we may have to subscribe to a nonintervention agreement of that character. Thank you very much Mr. Paley. The program you have just heard is made possible under a grant from the fund for adult education an independent organization established by the Ford Foundation. These programs are prepared and distributed by the National Association of educational broadcasters. This program was introduced by Norman McKee and this is the end a taped network.