thumbnail of Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 101; New Possibilities for Coexistence
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt one of the great respected figures of our time speaks of new possibilities for coexistence. This the first in a series of programs on the prospects of mankind. Guests became a question of M.. Indian defense minister and head of the Indian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly. Ever since old story you have it's a prize winning New York Times correspondent who has spent many years in Russia and Robert Booy director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard and former assistant secretary of state for Policy Planning and. Coexistence a word first heard on the stage of world history by the revolutionary leader of a young weak country. A term used to denote the necessity of getting along with hostile nations and circling the USSR in one thousand twenty.
And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin address the fifth body congress coexisted 30 years and a world war later Stalin brought out the world as a founding stone of the template. For breeding. For a war exhausted people. The breeding time has brought the trans formation of a vast sprawling nation into the world's second industrial power. Our military strength has been crowned by success in nuclear and rocket technology. Russia is strong and growing stronger together with its allies. It encompasses one third of the globe. This is what we must exist with. A formidable expanse of the earth. In America has said. Look. What those coexistence mean from the American viewpoint. What does it mean to be
independent. I am girl happy to welcome this audience today and I'm glad that we are going to discuss some things which I think a great many of us have talked about without very much understanding
coexistence which because of Mr Cruise ships visit has become familiar to every one of us in this country but the meaning of coexistence is very different. And in the dictionary it to exist at the same time past present future. We have this at the same time. But differences in how we think. We should exist are very great. And so we've gathered together today to discuss some of these differences and I'm going to introduce to you a gentleman who will discuss the question of what this word means to Americans. Mr. Bush when you began your very start things off anyway I think as you say Mrs. Roosevelt the term is a very confusing one because it seems to
mean different things at different levels. I'm afraid some people feel that it simply means to live and let live which would be quite natural and normal as we would do things. And this would lead them to feel that it really was and an acceptance of the status quo and perhaps an end of the rivalry between ourselves and the Soviet Union. But I think if we examine the statements of Mr. Khrushchev in the official documents of the Communist Party we will see that they do not view it in this light. Perhaps the most interesting exposition of the communist view was given by Mr. Khrushchev's interviews with Mr. Lippman Mr. Harriman Mr. Stevenson and really with yourself I suppose they view the status quo as something which is evolving in their favor. And when they say they want coexistence they mean to allow this process to go on unimpeded so that it really amounts to an acceptance by us of the ultimate triumph of communism. And I think that they would like to see this occur by peaceful means. But
certainly their own statements indicate that they don't rule out the use of force under certain circumstances. That seems to me that this is the inherent difficulty of understanding that because so many people think of it in the dictionary sense. Well. I. I think that is true when Americans don't all understand how they take this. But now I'd like to ask someone who has wept the Soviets for a very long trial and who knows the intimate way to continue giving us some idea of how the Soviets really Raghad coexist because we Americans haven't thought this through very carefully and I think that we can lend a little more about the Soviet point a few. Mr. Greene will you tell us your thoughts on this subject that perhaps the most interesting thing about the coexistence concept is that it has
changed so far as the Soviets are concerned depending on the given international situation in their own relative power situation at one time or another I think that when Lenin first talked about coexistence he talked about it because the Soviet Union was extraordinarily weak and threatened by a very strong and powerful alliance of capitalist powers who he thought might at any moment descend on this communist regime and wipe it out. He wanted coexistence in order to be able to live in the world. I think that perhaps the style and sort of coexistence in a different sense he thought of it as a breathing space. He used the word only intermittently and only when he thought that it might possibly cool down tensions in the very seriously over tense world that followed World War Two. I think Mr Couper on the other hand uses it in perhaps a third mean the same word but different meaning attached to it. I think he thinks of it as
mister said as a sort of maintenance of the status quo and he goes a little further than that I think that he would do it. He would recognize our side in the status quo if we recognize him. And then as he himself has often said let's go ahead and compete and let the best side when we think we're going to win. That's Mr. Khrushchev speaking. I don't believe that he really can see the world too much in terms of domination by communism at the present time. I think he is perhaps and to some extent a little bit of an isolationist period thinking a great deal about the future of his own country and its development. Yes. So an outcome of course he does. But I don't believe that he expects to see those occur in his lifetime or perhaps a successor. Well I think that's true. Well now we have a guest today who
can give us I think an entirely different point of view because his country has kept their own independence. And in spite of that however as a major power they have become very much involved. So we're very anxious to get the views of Mr. Krishna men. This was very glad to be with you here. And before what I told an audience of university students that do to me and was is the word quid systems is not we discussed from the DIMA logic a lot of the controversy. We cannot be a stud to do either for for gaining dominance for one nation. What we thought of and how any one nation ours or anybody else's will gain mastery of the world. However we do exist. Craigslist is the only real survivor the alternate to equate distance is conflict. But we cannot create a world and then say we should believe the quickest
way existence may change the character of the world. They mimic it its quality. So we take the world as it is. It it means liberal in this kind of the way it is really the extension of the democratic way of our national life the international sphere. We accept the differences that expect other people not to interfere with us and we don't interfere with them. It is it is it is. If persisted in is an achievement. Their way of looking at this planet of ours. Will we have to be together. Look ignition effect. I just got this tattooed loser violations. That is a interesting point of view and now that each of you will have made an initial statement I think we should happen to a general discussion which one you would like to begin and talk about any ticket that point of view. How for instance I asked you about our cold war party. Man I asked Mr softly do elucidate just a little more how he sees the Soviet point of view.
I'm thinking of the statement which was issued at the time of the 40th anniversary of the Soviet Union's coming hour in which the communist parties gave an extra elaborate statement of their conception of the world in the way in which they approached it and they spoke of the Leninist meaning of koan coexistence and perfectly clearly it seems to me in that statement indicated that they expected to continue by the usual means of subversion and other means to try to make the historic process work in the direction of communist domination. Do you feel that in the last in the period since that time which is just about two years that they have modified this view. Perhaps I approach this from a slightly different angle Mr boy. I have in my own thinking in efforts to analyze the Soviet Union. Generally I lay on one side the
ideological documents of the nature. This particular one that you're talking about and the practical policies now there are certain times in certain areas in which these two things overlay each other at other times. There are documents which are issued I would say almost from an historical standpoint rather than from any actual application to contemporary problems. My own feeling has always been the domestic and foreign policy is primarily activated by considerations of reality of the actual situation in the Soviet Union at a given moment. With regard necessarily ideology or a stated program that is to say I would expect him to say that his grandchildren are our grandchildren will live under communism but I wouldn't expect Mr Khrushchev to make day to day or even year to year policy decisions based on that I think that the the relative forces in the world have a great deal
more to do with this question. These doctrinaire considerations and I think this is particularly true of a man like Mr. Khrushchev who while he proclaims himself to be a communist and surely it is still in every single concrete decision he makes a pragmatic doctrinaire approach. This is I think is the difference in my approach. Let me take the practical situation it into consideration very much. Now I'd like to think about this. And I would not think. And then a sponsible statesman and that's what we're going to promise you that kind as a kind of snap to get someone else sufficient common sense to find out when that's true.
No of course I don't think anybody would suggest that Mr. Khrushchev doesn't take account of the realities of the world. One of the reasons obviously that he is so eager now and I think hopefully to prevent all out war is that he is taking account of the realities of the character off air. But of course we have had to be active in order to create part of that reality. And so it seems to me that it isn't. And in creating that reality we have had to make certain judgments as to what the Soviet Union was about. And of course Mr. Khrushchev acts on the basis of practicality but it's practicality for something. While I don't doubt terribly interested in building up his own country it does seem to me that one can explain attitudes towards Germany or toward hungry or toward Yugoslavia for that matter except in terms of something over and above what we would normally think of since I stated it just the Soviet Union. Don't you think that perhaps that can be explained some part in the
fear that the Soviet Union has headed off the invasion and the fact that it is. And as the result of another feed and make may continue and become of the desire for real power to spread out more quickly but at the moment it might just be a desire for security. Well of course I think Soviet policy is a blend of historic attitudes carried over from czarist strategic problems of the Soviet Union and of ideology I think it would be a mistake to assume that it's so simply ideology it couldn't be. But it seems to me equally a mistake to neglect the ideological aspect of this policy aspect of it but I do think that our tendency has been in this country perhaps to overemphasize the ideology and overlook the pragmatic sat just to
segregate out one question here that you mentioned you mention the question of. I don't honestly believe that it was ideology that was the strongest motivating factor in the Soviet intervention in Hungary I think that it was security considerations security blended in a curious way perhaps with ideology since the Soviet Union was actually faced with a hungry revolution against the type of regime which these countries have been subject to for a long period of time. Now they didn't intervene forcibly in Poland only by a very narrow margin they did Hungary. I've always felt that the reason that they did was not because they wanted to maintain a strong stamp of an ideology but because they were frightened to death that if Hungary broke out of the security structure that they'd built up in Eastern Europe which I would begin to
crumble. I think this would have happened and I think that whether any of you have any list here has in any way his general point of view. Well I've been I want to have and I have some in there only impressions because. You don't get an opportunity to question got back and forth but if you watch the changes in the points you can gather some impressions I think that impress certain things which I had expected you would be impressed. He was impressed with the vitality of our economy the diversity of our country. I think the depth and the things we have sort of accepted every day but to him
are extraordinarily where there are miracles. Our highway system and our modern organization because he compares his own I think inevitably made an enormous impression he had other impressions too. Sure but this I think was very important for him to take back to his country because I expect to see policy in various ways from the pragmatic standpoint the other thing which I think it was our president. As a result of the conversations the two men had and they spent a great deal of time just the two of them with an interpreter. I would estimate nine hours a day. Conversation together and he went back to Moscow with a very firm conviction that Mr. Eisenhower was as dedicated to the cause of peace as he is himself. I believe myself that with a cruise ship is dedicated because of Peace in perhaps an unusual way but it's true I can't have. It's the cause of peace. He would like to see it I'm sure
he would like to see people with that same thing subconscious. Developed. There one can recognize that not any likely hood of human infallibility. And still feel that there is something to choose between one view and another and I would be inclined to feel that right Mr Khrushchev came here and may well have been impressed with the things which a sovereign mentions it in the essentials of the way he sees the world. He didn't go back very different than he came. If you examine the conversations that Mr. Harriman is home with the business leaders and conversations with labor leaders and things he said in the Economic Club it's pretty clear that he still considers that the United States is under the joint direct control of a small group of capitalists the parliamentary institutions are really just a facade. And that
basically. The labor leaders are just lackeys of the capitalists and it seems to me that the relevance of this is the point that Mr Salsbury made about the Eastern European satellites. Fundamentally it doesn't matter whether you say he acted for security reasons or for ideological reasons because the way he sees his strategic problem is that you can't trust anybody that isn't dominated by a Communist Party. Well if you look at the world up way security becomes completely blended with the necessity that you should expand your own domination and so I agree with this it seems to me that fundamentally they have blended into one. Yes but that mistake would suggest we should start out thinking from there. It was not a question merely whether you were more fully delete is what I said was implanted in the thing but effective in its mystical self but this from disability just like your visit must realize that in this world at the present time laden with these terrible instruments of destruction capable of being operated the individual may grow off the heads keep destroying the
whole of civilization as we know it. These things are to put on one side and the quality that can come into that is well examined. Well design them and by that I mean not cutting down the size of guns you can be killed by a nine inch gun of 1000 he's got no particular is just like say I want but I'm done but once was enough for something like that. But the main thing is that Islam and is a step the only way we can live in a world is a world war that I believe and I do not want into that in a discussion about shops visit to America that isn't in the Soviet American problem on which I mean a comment but so far the world is concerned this is the name of another second and that is this in the previous trip out of the previous exchanges. Tippett It thought that if we accept existence then all problems are solved. There will still be problems of Front years the distilled the problems of the Berlin or whatever they are. But those solutions will be approached from another point of view. Our problems or
do we next. Well that that's of when for instance how would you approach it from this new idea. Well there you are perhaps I'm entering into fields I shouldn't after all been in this part of the world in the Buddhist temple in Berlin get everywhere I suppose. If you really believe in coexistence and what is more sort of the alternate Unfortunately the future element comes even into good things. And B if you saw that existence the alternative is to conflict conflict not in the center nor tournament not even since the last world war but in the center something different then we will see whatever happens because of ultimatums we kind of domination but such would not. And I believe that actually the European countries would realize that the dollar plot empowers foreign forces cannot be confined to a particular part of the world. That withdrawal will come into the system of Europe that that was what my prime minister called the Back To many of you when you come out from all these places and then you would see it.
Perhaps after all the German spy have a say in this matter is the country that might live in some form and the place in divisions of Germany may become impractical even from the plane did where the protagonists and I'm thought always in my favor solution but the main thing is that if existence is strong enough then it puts well to meet them. Must disappear. But I think you should erect a car with two men and the other major. Seeming ultimatum in the Berlin case came not from the West but from the Soviets. I did not know. I know you didn't. I'm not arguing that I am carrying your argument one step further in the case of Berlin. The West as a practical matter has been quite prepared for some time in reality to let things stand as they are and that was Khrushchev in November of last year who insisted on trying to change the situation as I see it in his favor in favor of the side. I mean it seems to me that this is hard to fit in with the
notion that really what he wants is merely letting things alone. I'm addressing myself to Mr. more than you I don't think that this was what you were saying. I don't think what I'm saying is what you said I would have done that I wouldn't. I have much of it exactly what goes on in the mind. But I think that there are questions involved here. The first one is. You mentioned that we were quite prepared to let things go on in Berlin. I think that Mr. Crewe and I think this is one of the facts we can be pretty certain that he has felt and does feel that so far as the threat of possible war is concerned in Europe and in the area which he thinks is most sensitive to this sort of thing that Germany holds and that the most likely place for the seeds of a new war to be sown and indeed he sometimes suggests that they already have and so is German. I think that taking his viewpoint on this is a rather common viewpoint held by
many Russians other than Mr. Khrushchev Russian generally speaking feel that Germany is an area of great threat. Looking at the situation as it existed in Germany and looking at the imminent possibility of Germany and Western Germany nuclear weapons and looking at the obviously unstable situation of Berlin I think that Mr Couper deliberately provoked the crisis. He says that he didn't submit an ultimatum on Berlin I think in effect he submitted a quiz to me with the design of forcing a discussion on this and forcing some solution or something actually as much in his favor as possible. He always wants things to be in his favor but not ruling out a decision which might be a compromise. The present position changes could come about with more trade which is one of the things you can get and the lifting of the iron could
which seems to be happening. It seems to me that particularly if we can promote exchanges that this will be one of the more creative things that you can attempt to do in this rather limited area for action. But what do you feel for instance about the exchanges in real development of understanding. I think we have. Well I certainly think we should encourage it as much as we can and I think in particular we should exchange the kinds of exchanges which don't merely deal with technical issues or with purely cultural or the sorts of things like that they're all right. But it seems to me really what we are trying to do is exchange students and teachers and professors and other people who are in the intellectual life of the country in the both ways and in the hope that it would encourage better real understanding of the problem. I couldn't help thinking as we were talking that we did not show a great deal of understanding of the
Russian interest in our friend the cat and the motion picture in this. And I haven't. I think perhaps we should have we should learn a better understanding of the standards of art in in other countries. We don't we don't know and tis important I think now we have only a few minutes left and I think we should review perhaps the things we've talked about. On the whole it seems to me that we we feel that we might have coexistence with the Soviet Union with a number of reservations and changes but the changes that are coming about we think are hopeful. Now we have a little pearls and when we come back we will discuss the more difficult question of whether we can have a coexistence with come
this time. This is Roosevelt yes. Discussion of new possibilities for coexist and identification. This is National Educational Television. Photograph by Harrison are in. Between China and the Soviet Union. They are mechanics sent to meet the scarcity of skilled labor. And to increase Chinese influence in the area. Now we rejoin the record a discussion of possibilities for
coexistence on the prospects of mankind with B.K. Krishna Indian Defense Minister and the Indian delegation to the United Nations. For a. Prize winning New York Times correspondent. ROBERT BOOY former assistant secretary of state for Policy Planning and currently the Center for International Affairs. And our hostess Eleanor Roosevelt. I think we should just review briefly the fact that we have already discussed the possible coexistence between the Soviet Union and the United States and points of possibility of a peaceful understanding create a crazed exchange between the two countries with slight lifting of the Iron Curtain.
Now we can to the question which is I think a very important one. Coexist and will be the communist Chinese because they perhaps. Not quite the same point but the Soviet Union it's at the present time and so I would like to ask you Mr. Bowie how he feels about our ability to coexist and perhaps with the Soviet Union and perhaps greater difficulty with the Chinese. Or does he think it easier but I have already indicated some of the problems as I see them in as as Mr. Manning said at one point obviously we've got to do our very best to co-exist if it means to avoid the outbreak of large scale war which would be a disaster for everybody. But it does seem to
me that as you have said the Chinese are perhaps in a more lenient mood than the Soviet Union used as indicated by what they have done in the border on the border of China which has most recently done in a while back in Tibet some of the other things which they've done in their most recent threats to try to take Formosa by force. I think that the. Perhaps the danger actually resort to physical violence to expand maybe more serious in the case of the Chinese in the case of the Soviet Union and I don't know that there's any easy answers to whether we will be able to deter them from the rash use of force for these purposes and in some ways both Mr Menin are in a better position to comment on this issue from the media point of view than I am. And I think you're on the China is a more difficult problem.
I think the difficulty there may be that one can at least the possibilities for coexistence with the Soviet Union so far as China is concerned particularly as far as Americans are concerned. China much in the dark. The evidence that we have suggests the present time apart from the fact that there were 10 years 40 revolutionaries the Chinese must say that I was going out to Mongolian country a small country that lies between
Russia and China. So much evidence of that. This is something we don't see much evidence of this ordinarily sort of concern about China policies of China. I think that if you were to ask our discussion. Part of that by the very nature of what has happened to China has been isolated from the rest of the country which is isolated from the rest of the world to develop in a different way in the world. So from that standpoint perhaps if we could bring some
help on the other hand the attitudes that I have seen frighten me a little bit. They don't seem to be very anxious to get into the work. That some other nations have had different. Think we have a little out solely to what we sometimes behaviors that we thought nobody knew anything except our away so we were going to show people our way. Never thinking oppressed they could adapt something better than we were at the end. So I sometimes think that one of the confusions though that I find did many people's mind is the putting together of two things that should not be put together namely your weak point. And capitalism with democracy and you're given the
choice of capitalism or communism. And actually this is all we should look at that from the point of view of two economies which can be changed and adapted and used in different ways. It is a deep sense of in some ways it seems to me that most groups one of which groups just purpose isn't coming here to try to give this image the only choice was between Communism which he described rather idealized terms at the end of his visit and on the other hand kept those in which he said he couldn't see was any different than what Marx had described. Seems to me that actually the Indian economy is an example of the very fact that this is an absolute farce dichotomy. Indians are trying to create a man and a mixed economy which is partly socialist party private has a variety of techniques and means and is still attempting to pursue a democratic route. It seems to me that the fundamental choice here isn't between a particular form of
economy. It's between Brother you try to achieve human welfare and human freedom together. Or rather you're prepared to use coercive means such as the Soviets have done quite successfully in order to build up the economy. And it seems to me that therefore the real choice is to make it clear for particular the people from the new countries who want so desperately to improve their conditions. The real choice is between whether this can be done only by coercive means police techniques rather there is a route which enables the combining of human welfare and human freedom human dignity Sanh same time. Seems to me this is really one of the crucial issues the fact that yes. It was not possible to do this because the British are dying. But each country must develop its own economy that suits it. If you're just not reeling him then you must have a
communist complaint coming carnival going on I don't know that I'm saying each country must develop what it was and I don't think capitalism so-called the communism so-called In 1959 is not dissimilar to the 1949 much of the 1939. And it's interesting that it was your audience. I think if I may say so to get other I'm not going to make suggest there's an economy that is not of any conservatism and of course it depends on what you mean by question. Especially in the modern world you must have to move to a certain extent toward economy now so whether we conserve and we did these things I hope. Because our main concern is the standards of life of people. I mean consider how to make the 600000 images of India comparatively prosperous in the sins of being as it has been. Not having the fear of starvation fear of various things in that way
and to nibble them a bit more than people in the sense of material achievement. Therefore we take it pragmatically. But are the be no mistake about it out all the information is sourced because it is not possible to mundane political democracy except in the context of socialist economies with little beacons of utilising. Yes but as an addict as an addict and that is why our national movement has accepted the socialist addictive but socialist This was the objective of a democracy to work together. If you if you employ violence to achieve it it will be like what Russell is supposed to have said that after a very passionate plea for toleration. And he said it was a dream but even toleration out of hand. The true character of the visitor though this is taking the two countries India and the Soviet Union. I would say that in India. You
exemplify the lack of rear of the compound whereas in the Soviet Union and things that aren't good for you as a general something you have to do whether you want to or not. For instance the great great change is made in Health which are certainly good for you and very valuable would not be possible. Well probably under a completely voluntary basis because human beings are as they are they don't always do what good is the fact that in the Soviet Union you must take your child to every man to be examined and the clinic has made an enormous difference. But now that I think that's what you meant by completely compulsory system in many other ways as Mr has some elements of coercion. We drive on the wrong side of the road we're going to jail. The question
though is again one of degree. It seems to me that any realistic appraisal of the Soviet experience would show certainly in the period of its maximum development first 30 or so years on a terrible use of police in effect to force be kept out of savings. I think if you can go India without the atmosphere there is of course in this country or any other country. But just to try to bring about a democratic order which tries to bring about the benefit of the method we have people and economists would say that
the future of direct political economic. By and large it would have to be changes by consent. But an element of compulsion would become a necessity for example I cannot imagine that land reforms can be brought about without it the state public and the lender I know that reforms are about to be good but you should survive and everything else to feed the people. I think the police made a mistake to think that Eastern countries China included people are not limited in to can in mind sometimes and those are the lot of people but we can see what our historical background they were that was a developed country the orientation of our leadership. And the modest This is really a need in the direction of a last guild revolution instigated by consent of.
The other point that I'd like to make that seems to be a little bit here and the systems are all the same. I don't think this is a valid assumption particularly at the present time. I don't think for example the Chinese system is the same as the Russian the Russian is the same as we were going to get a diversity of communist systems just as we have a diversity of democratic systems or a diversity of capitalist or mixed economy and I think that when we're talking about the question of it perhaps it would be more profitable to look at the type of communism which is developed and active in propagating their borders as being one of the competitors in this situation. I think actually you have a balance of power situation in which the Russians effectively use the Chinese type of communism and their particular. Approaches to
problems while the energy of a new movement forward along with their other aggressive policies. I think that there is a competitive between two kinds of communism a competitive uncommitted areas of the developing much more clearly and plainly the next few years. And that's interesting. Do you see what would happen in the world. You just see the wind and the water forces that it means must be effective cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. The truth of the character of the world small country is an effective tool making a
dynamic contribution to follow. We have the United Nations with powers in the world. It must come together to talk to each other the rest of us can obstruct. Therefore what will happen is to certain extent depends on that wish. At the present moment that is Norquist or maybe it comes of communism beating our country you have got a Communist Party. It is by no means in the majority. And what is more. Just got Madonna distant and recent was due to its infiltration of our people one communism. That's their business. If Parliament reposes is the government is governments. There's be sacrificed a voluntary system. We like to accept it but that bit isn't going to come to its revenues to me that really be quite clear. If really you had the option of communism and called by
parliamentary system you wouldn't have communism either as seen by the communists of China or the communists in the Soviet Union or of their own. But I'm trying again to take up what you said to or deal with Mr. So if you kept your parliamentary system you could not have come. It really would have something foul. But it would not become you don't want to call it that we wonder if that's more humane. After all when you get a society of inequality you get a little deeper than the question of the others. So I've been able to speak about question is not in the sequel to another. And what does that mean to have. It as a challenge to our United States policies generally in uncommitted areas of the town that my feeling
is very well very clearly what the basic challenge to us that part of the world. I think some of us are also I was criticizing Mr. Khrushchev for being too. Doctor kinds of societies kinds of economies but I think that too many of us who are equally doctrinaire and seeing things as if everything had to be either our pattern or something else. It's quite clear that the societies are going to evolve on their own terms. It seems to me and Africa. In other words are the new countries are going to have to make new solutions which are based on their traditions their attitudes their particular problem. They're not going to look like the things that we're familiar with that part of it is not really my beat but claim to be one of our main problems either the defense or the court or whatever it Africa I think even if you do you need to make up the stakes. It's far better for
us to make mistakes by and large and whatever cooperation comes must come in the context of existence for the US government not because something is wanted for political purposes. But the general prosperity of the world is of a concert or for world peace as such. I didn't mean difficulty that will be asked in the days or in the days of the imperialism when that was in the Napoleonic wars and there was a battle between the French and the British just for them through the plains of India. Reality trucking about a rubber stamp application or effort to buy American. American American standards. Also I think because of the tensions of the great tendency to separate out the world to
our side a great number of countries in Africa have no desire to be there. I think that this deserves our support. Perhaps just as much in the way we develop our interest on that it seems to be in our interest as we should and the interests of other people. We ought to have trust in their own values to realize that if other countries can follow their own independent way. Societies which won't be like ours but will be quite congenial as I see it within a program in
our city. Various changes that other countries have gone through Princeton's there is much more of nationalism as far as I can see it in Africa today. Then Actually there probably they should exist there. This is part of being a young country. This is one of the first things you feel when you're a young country and how to condition ourselves to expect really mixed that is created by thought. If you do if people without thinking about them quite unconsciously. I believe it's used to speak in the days about dependence. I'm conscious Englishman who is even more insufferable in the crunch as well. No human assessment but the reaction is such you know the kind of place it says. The English Channel the continent is isolated.
I mean happy people friendly people any kind of economic and other development has to be based upon the people. I personally think any in any part of an assistant that goes to any country must see that there is sufficient indigenous support. Otherwise this feeding goes on and the new economic system develops which neither helps the hopes of feeding it to the few minutes I think that perhaps we should go to this because of China which we left off. It said something about young countries in the revolutionaries and so on there is no doubt. That the last two or three years particularly maybe due to internal changes in China maybe due to the fact of despondency though they don't quite realize it. The policy that circled and the language the Chinese use extremely arrogant and a country like ours a country.
So while we can see our policy toward China other parts. That is to say we will not tolerate the tickets we will not be subject into British sometimes to be louder than we should be natural divisions not neutral to the individual not yield an equivalent claims of that kind of just about ability. But at the same time we recognize that you can't have a people of six hundred fifty millions outside the world context with us. Except in friendly terms and that is why we keep on plugging it at both ends and debate instinct for doing one thing or the other. Its one of those things that were policy. I always remember my husband's great affection for China and feeling that there was a great deal in the Chinese people of dignity and to be deeply admired. But I
think perhaps the arrogance which has now come about. Is it because they are trying to do what the Soviets are trying to do catch up catch up with the Soviets catch up. And they are rightly thinking a great many things and I wonder if if your feeling is that pressure has a good deal to do with China the press sort of expanding very rapidly. Still when you consider the country has something like 600. Which is economic complex with us I think it's a big group of
and that's used. What is more the feeling that they would like you to be heard. But not against people. Sorry. Time is going wrong a friend and I think that we must sum up a little. I hope I have something of the point of view. The men are better than we do today and I think in that light. But let to look at our policies. My own feeling is that for a very long time we have it from not having enough information about the world as a kid today. But that is one of our greatest lacks. I suppose it can only come from. The top and I hope it's going to come because we
need to know to have a realisation of the chance of what we do which but for the good. Of all the peoples of the. Day. Mr Menand is the best minister. Mr. boy is director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard and former assistant secretary of state for policy planning.
Up. The prize winning New York correspondent who has spent many years in Russia.
Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt
Episode Number
New Possibilities for Coexistence
Producing Organization
WGBH Educational Foundation
Contributing Organization
Thirteen WNET (New York, New York)
WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-51vdnr5h).
Episode Description
This episode Mrs. Roosevelt's guests are V. K. Krishna Menon: India's Defense Minister and head of the Indian Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly; Robert R. Bowie: Director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University and former Assistant Secretary of State for Policy Planning; Harrison Salisbury: New York Time international expert. The group examines in depth the implications of coexistence between the Communist and the non-Communist worlds. What are the possibilities for lifting the Iron Curtain, increased trade? How irreconcilable are long term Soviet objectives with free world objectives? (Description adapted from documents in the NET Microfiche)
Series Description
"Prospects of Mankind is a talk show hosted by Eleanor Roosevelt featuring roundtable discussion of foreign and domestic affairs with leading political, academic, and journalistic experts. It was filmed on location at Brandeis University."
Series Description
This is a monthly series of nine one-hour television episodes featuring Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. The former first lady serves as the host and moderator. On each episode she will be joined by three guests: 1) A key foreign figure such as a visiting prime minister, a United Nations representative or a man or woman of prominence representing his country unofficially. 2) An important American in public life or a person of equal consequence from the academic world. 3) A distinguished representative from the press or other mass media who will focus the discussion on the relevant issues and controversies at stake. On each episode Mrs. Roosevelt and her guests will discuss a current international problem of major importance in which the United States is involved. The program is made up as two 29-minute episodes with a station break between the two portions. "Prospects of Mankind" is a television series designed to provide a wide public with those facts and opinions important to an understating of the underlying fabric of current international problems. It derives its inspiration from the ideals and endeavors of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. On each episode Mrs. Roosevelt joins three distinguished guests who through their position of authority or expression of opinion have a significant influence on the denervation or interpretation of current issues. Saville Davis and Erwin D. Canham, editors of The Christian Science Monitor, at times assist in moderating the discussions. This program is produced for National Educational Television by WGBH-TV in cooperation with Brandeis University. In addition to the audience of educational stations throughout the country they have been seen in the key areas of New York and Washington, DC, through the facilities of the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation. (Description adapted from documents in the NET Microfiche)
Broadcast Date
Asset type
Talk Show
Social Issues
Global Affairs
Politics and Government
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Guest: Salisbury, Harrison
Guest: Bowie, Robert R.
Guest: Menon, V. K. Krishna
Host: Roosevelt, Eleanor
Producing Organization: WGBH Educational Foundation
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Thirteen - New York Public Media (WNET)
Identifier: wnet_aacip_2641 (WNET Archive)
Format: 16mm film
Duration: 00:30:00?
Thirteen - New York Public Media (WNET)
Identifier: wnet_aacip_2643 (WNET Archive)
Format: 16mm film
Duration: 00:30:00?
Thirteen - New York Public Media (WNET)
Identifier: wnet_aacip_2642 (WNET Archive)
Format: 16mm film
Duration: 00:30:00?
Thirteen - New York Public Media (WNET)
Identifier: wnet_aacip_2644 (WNET Archive)
Format: 16mm film
Duration: 00:30:00?
Identifier: 308276 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: Digital Betacam
Generation: Master
Identifier: 00971A (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 16mm film
Generation: Kinescope
Identifier: 00972A (WGBH Item ID)
Format: 16mm film
Generation: Kinescope
Identifier: 35549 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: VHS
Generation: Copy: Access
Identifier: 35551 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: VHS
Generation: Copy: Access
Identifier: 19228 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: Betacam
Generation: Master
Identifier: 19049 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: D3
Generation: Master
Identifier: 35550 (WGBH Barcode)
Format: VHS
Generation: Copy: Access
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2411878-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 16mm film
Generation: Copy: Access
Color: B&W
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2411919-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 16mm film
Generation: Copy: Access
Color: B&W
Indiana University Libraries Moving Image Archive
Identifier: [request film based on title] (Indiana University)
Format: 16mm film
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 101; New Possibilities for Coexistence,” 1959-10-11, Thirteen WNET, WGBH, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 19, 2024,
MLA: “Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 101; New Possibilities for Coexistence.” 1959-10-11. Thirteen WNET, WGBH, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 19, 2024. <>.
APA: Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 101; New Possibilities for Coexistence. Boston, MA: Thirteen WNET, WGBH, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from