Part 3 of NSC-68, truncated due to length.
B. THE SECOND COURSE--ISOLATION
Continuation of present trend
s, it has been shown above, will lead progressively to the withdrawal of the United States
from most of its present commitments in Europe and Asia and to our isolation in the Western Hemisphere and its approaches. This would result not from a conscious decision but from a failure to take the action
s necessary to bring our capabilities into line with our commitments and thus to a withdrawal under pressure. This pressure might come from our present Allies, who will tend to seek other "solutions" unless they have confidence in our determination to accelerate our efforts to build a successfully functioning political
system in the free world.
There are some who advocate a deliberate decision to isolate ourselves. Superficially, this has some attractiveness as a course of action
, for it appears to bring our commitments and capabilities into harmony by reducing the former and by concentrating our present, or perhaps even reduced, military
expenditures on the defense
of the United States
This argument overlooks the relativity of capabilities. With the United States
in an isolated position, we would have to face the probability that the Soviet Union
would quickly dominate
most of Eurasia, probably without meeting armed resistance. It would thus acquire a potential far superior to our own, and would promptly proceed to develop this potential with the purpose of eliminating our power, which would, even in isolation, remain as a challenge to it and as an obstacle to the imposition of its kind of order in the world. There is no way to make ourselves inoffensive to the Kremlin except by complete submission to its will. Therefore isolation would in the end condemn us to capitulate or to fight alone and on the defensive, with drastically limited offensive and retaliatory capabilities in comparison with the Soviet Union
. (These are the only possibilities, unless we are prepared to risk the future on the hazard that the Soviet Empire, because of over-extension or other reasons, will spontaneously destroy itself from within.)
The argument also overlooks the imponderable, but nevertheless drastic, effects on our belief in ourselves and in our way of life of a deliberate decision to isolate ourselves. As the Soviet Union
came to dominate
free countries, it is clear that many Americans would feel a deep sense of responsibility and guilt for having abandoned their former friends and allies. As the Soviet Union
mobilized the resources of Eurasia, increased its relative military
capabilities, and heightened its threat to our security, some would be tempted to accept "peace" on its terms, while many would seek to defend the United States
by creating a regimented system which would permit the assignment of a tremendous part of our resources to defense
. Under such a state of affairs our national morale would be corrupted and the integrity and vitality of our system subverted.
Under this course of action
, there would be no negotiation, unless on the Kremlin's terms, for we would have given up everything of importance.
It is possible that at some point in the course of isolation, many Americans would come to favor a surprise attack on the Soviet Union
and the area under its control, in a desperate attempt to alter decisively the balance of power by an overwhelming blow with modem weapons of mass destruction. It appears unlikely that the Soviet Union
would wait for such an attack before launching one of its own. But even if it did and even if our attack were successful, it is clear that the United States
would face appalling tasks in establishing a tolerable state of order among nations after such a war
and after Soviet occupation of all or most of Eurasia for some years. These tasks appear so enormous and success so unlikely that reason dictates an attempt to achieve our objectives by other means.
C. THE THIRD COURSE--WAR
Some Americans favor a deliberate decision to go to war
against the Soviet Union
in the near future. It goes without saying that the idea of "preventive" war
--in the sense of a military
attack not provoked by a military
attack upon us or our allies--is generally unacceptable to Americans. Its supporters argue that since the Soviet Union
is in fact at war
with the free world now and that since the failure of the Soviet Union
to use all-out military
force is explainable on grounds of expediency, we are at war
and should conduct ourselves accordingly. Some further argue that the free world is probably unable, except under the crisis of war
, to mobilize and direct its resources to the checking and rolling back of the Kremlin's drive for world dominion. This is a powerful argument in the light of history, but the considerations against war
are so compelling that the free world must demonstrate that this argument is wrong. The case for war
is premised on the assumption that the United States
could launch and sustain an attack of sufficient impact to gain a decisive advantage for the free world in a long war
and perhaps to win an early decision.
The ability of the United States
to launch effective offensive operations is now limited to attack with atomic weapons. A powerful blow could be delivered upon the Soviet Union
, but it is estimated that these operations alone would not force or induce the Kremlin to capitulate and that the Kremlin would still be able to use the forces under its control to dominate
most or all of Eurasia. This would probably mean a long and difficult struggle during which the free institutions of Western Europe
and many freedom-loving people would be destroyed and the regenerative capacity of Western Europe
dealt a crippling blow.
Apart from this, however, a surprise attack upon the Soviet Union
, despite the provocativeness of recent Soviet behavior, would be repugnant to many Americans. Although the American people would probably rally in support of the war
effort, the shock of responsibility for a surprise attack would be morally corrosive. Many would doubt that it was a "just war
" and that all reasonable possibilities for a peaceful settlement had been explored in good faith. Many more, proportionately, would hold such views in other countries, particularly in Western Europe
and particularly after Soviet occupation, if only because the Soviet Union
would liquidate articulate opponents. It would, therefore, be difficult after such a war
to create a satisfactory international order among nations. Victory in such a war
would have brought us little if at all closer to victory in the fundamental ideological conflict.
These considerations are no less weighty because they are imponderable, and they rule out an attack unless it is demonstrably in the nature of a counter-attack to a blow which is on its way or about to be delivered. (The military
advantages of landing the first blow become increasingly important with modem weapons, and this is a fact which requires us to be on the alert in order to strike with our full weight as soon as we are attacked, and, if possible, before the Soviet blow is actually delivered.) If the argument of Chapter IV is accepted, it follows that there is no "easy" solution and that the only sure victory lies in the frustration of the Kremlin design by the steady development of the moral and material strength of the free world and its projection into the Soviet world in such a way as to bring about an internal change in the Soviet system.
D. THE REMAINING COURSE OF ACTION--A RAPID BUILD-UP OF POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND MILITARY STRENGTH IN THE FREE WORLD
A more rapid build-up of political
, and military
strength and thereby of confidence in the free world than is now contemplated is the only course which is consistent with progress towar
d achieving our fundamental purpose. The frustration of the Kremlin design requires the free world to develop a successfully functioning political
system and a vigorous political
offensive against the Soviet Union
. These, in turn, require an adequate military
shield under which they can develop. It is necessary to have the military
power to deter, if possible, Soviet expansion, and to defeat, if necessary, aggressive Soviet or Soviet-directed action
s of a limited or total character. The potential strength of the free world is great; its ability to develop these military
capabilities and its will to resist Soviet expansion will be determined by the wisdom and will with which it undertakes to meet its political
1. Military aspects. It has been indicated in Chapter VI that U.S. military
capabilities are strategically more defensive in nature than offensive and are more potential than actual. It is evident, from an analysis of the past and of the trend
of weapon development, that there is now and will be in the future no absolute defense
. The history of war
also indicates that a favorable decision can only be achieved through offensive action
. Even a defensive strategy, if it is to be successful, calls not only for defensive forces to hold vital positions while mobilizing and preparing for the offensive, but also for offensive forces to attack the enemy and keep him off balance.
The two fundamental requirements which must be met by forces in being or readily available are support of foreign policy and protection against disaster. To meet the second requirement, the forces in being or readily available must be able, at a minimum, to perform certain basic tasks:
a. To defend the Western Hemisphere and essential allied areas in order that their war
-making capabilities can be developed;
b. To provide and protect a mobilization base while the offensive forces required for victory are being built up;
c. To conduct offensive operations to destroy vital elements of the Soviet war
-making capacity, and to keep the enemy off balance until the full offensive strength of the United States
and its allies can be brought to bear;
d. To defend and maintain the lines of communication and base areas necessary to the execution of the above tasks; and
e. To provide such aid to allies as is essential to the execution of their role in the above tasks.
In the broadest terms, the ability to perform these tasks requires a build-up of military
strength by the United States
and its allies to a point at which the combined strength will be superior for at least these tasks, both initially and throughout a war
, to the forces that can be brought to bear by the Soviet Union
and its satellites. In specific terms, it is not essential to match item for item with the Soviet Union
, but to provide an adequate defense
against air attack on the United States
and Canada and an adequate defense
against air and surface attack on the United Kingdom
and Western Europe
, Alaska, the Western Pacific, Africa
, and the Near and Middle East
, and on the long lines of communication to these areas. Furthermore, it is mandatory that in building up our strength, we enlarge upon our technical superiority by an accelerated exploitation of the scientific
potential of the United States
and our allies.
Forces of this size and character
are necessary not only for protection against disaster but also to support our foreign policy. In fact, it can be argued that larger forces in being and readily available are necessary to inhibit a would-be aggressor than to provide the nucleus of strength and the mobilization base on which the tremendous forces required for victory
can be built. For example, in both World Wars I and 11 the ultimate
victors had the strength, in the end, to win though they had not had the strength in being or readily available to prevent the outbreak of war
. In part, at least, this was because they had not had the military
strength on which to base a strong foreign policy. At any rate, it is clear that a substantial and rapid building up of strength in the free world is necessary to support a firm policy intended to check and to roll back the Kremlin's drive for world domination.
Moreover, the United States
and the other free countries do not now have the forces in being and readily available to defeat local Soviet moves with local action
, but must accept reverses or make these local moves the occasion for war
--for which we are not prepared. This situation makes for great uneasiness among our allies, particularly in Western Europe
, for whom total war
means, initially, Soviet occupation. Thus, unless our combined strength is rapidly increased, our allies will tend to become increasingly reluctant to support a firm foreign policy on our part and increasingly anxious to seek other solutions, even though they are awar
e that appeasement means defeat. An important advantage in adopting the fourth course of action
lies in its psychological impact--the revival of confidence and hope in the future. It is recognized, of course, that any announcement of the recommended course of action
could be exploited by the Soviet Union
in its peace campaign and would have adverse psychological effects in certain parts of the free world until the necessary increase in strength has been achieved. Therefore, in any announcement of policy and in the character of the measures adopted, emphasis should be given to the essentially defensive character
and care should be taken to minimize, so far as possible, unfavorable domestic and foreign reaction
2. Political and economic
aspects. The immediate objective
s--to the achievement of which such a build-up of strength is a necessary though not a sufficient condition--are a renewed initiative in the cold war
and a situation to which the Kremlin would find it expedient to accommodate itself, first by relaxing tensions and pressures and then by gradual withdrawal. The United States
cannot alone provide the resources required for such a build-up of strength. The other free countries must carry their part of the burden, but their ability and determination to do it will depend on the action
the United States
takes to develop its own strength and on the adequacy of its foreign political
policies. Improvement in political
conditions in the free world, as has been emphasized above, is necessary as a basis for building up the will and the means to resist and for dynamically affirming the integrity and vitality of our free and democratic way of life on which our ultimate victory depends.
At the same time, we should take dynamic steps to reduce the power and influence of the Kremlin inside the Soviet Union
and other areas under its control. The objective would be the establishment of friendly regimes not under Kremlin domination. Such action
is essential to engage the Kremlin's attention, keep it off balance, and force an increased expenditure of Soviet resources in counteraction
. In other words, it would be the current Soviet cold war
technique used against the Soviet Union
for rapidly building up strength and improving political
conditions will place heavy demands on our courage and intelligence; it will be costly; it will be dangerous. But half-measures will be more costly and more dangerous, for they will be inadequate to prevent and may actually invite war
. Budgetary considerations will need to be subordinated to the stark fact that our very independence as a nation may be at stake.
A comprehensive and decisive program to win the peace
and frustrate the Kremlin design should be so designed that it can be sustained for as long as necessary to achieve our national objectives. It would probably involve:
The development of an adequate political
framework for the achievement of our long-range objectives.
A substantial increase in expenditures for military
purposes adequate to meet the requirements for the tasks listed in Section D-1.
- A substantial increase in military assistance programs, designed to foster cooperative efforts, which will adequately and efficiently meet the requirements of our allies for the tasks referred to in Section D-l-e.
- Some increase in economic assistance programs and recognition of the need to continue these programs until their purposes have been accomplished.
- A concerted attack on the problem of the United States balance of payments, along the lines already approved by the President.
- Development of programs designed to build and maintain confidence among other peoples in our strength and resolution, and to wage overt psychological warfare calculated to encourage mass defections from Soviet allegiance and to frustrate the Kremlin design in other ways.
- Intensification of affirmative and timely measures and operations by covert means in the fields of economic warfare and political and psychological warfare with a view to fomenting and supporting unrest and revolt in selected strategic satellite countries.
- Development of internal security and civilian defense programs.
- Improvement and intensification of intelligence activities.
- Reduction of Federal expenditures for purposes other than defense and foreign assistance, if necessary by the deferment of certain desirable programs.
- Increased taxes.
Essential as prerequisites to the success of this program would be (a) consultations with Congressional leaders designed to make the program the object of non-partisan legislative support, and (b) a presentation to the public of a full explanation of the facts and implications of present international trend
The program will be costly, but it is relevant to recall the disproportion between the potential capabilities of the Soviet and non-Soviet worlds (cf. Chapters V and VI). The Soviet Union
is currently devoting about 40 percent of available resources (gross national product plus reparations, equal in 1949 to about $65 billion) to military
expenditures (14 percent) and to investment (26 percent), much of which is in war
-supporting industries. In an emergency the Soviet Union
could increase the allocation of resources to these purposes to about 50 percent, or by one-fourth.
The United States
is currently devoting about 22 percent of its gross national product ($255 billion in 1949) to military
expenditures (6 percent), foreign assistance (2 percent), and investment (14 percent), little of which is in war
-supporting industries. (As was pointed out in Chapter V, the "fighting value" obtained per dollar of expenditure by the Soviet Union
considerably exceeds that obtained by the United States
, primarily because of the extremely low military
and civilian living standards in the Soviet Union
.) In an emergency the United States
could devote upwar
d of 50 percent of its gross national product to these purposes (as it did during the last war
), an increase of several times present expenditures for direct and indirect military
purposes and foreign assistance.
From the point of view of the economy as a whole, the program might not result in a real decrease in the standard of living, for the economic
effects of the program might be to increase the gross national product by more than the amount being absorbed for additional military
and foreign assistance purposes. One of the most significant lessons of our World War 11 experience was that the American economy, when it operates at a level approaching full efficiency, can provide enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption while simultaneously providing a high standard of living. After allowing for price changes, personal consumption expenditures rose by about one-fifth between 1939 and 1944, even though the economy had in the meantime increased the amount of resources going into Government use by $60 $65 billion (in 1939 prices).
This comparison between the potentials of the Soviet Union
and the United States
also holds true for the Soviet world and the free world and is of fundamental importance in considering the courses of action
open to the United States
The comparison gives renewed emphasis to the fact that the problems faced by the free countries in their efforts to build a successfully functioning system lie not so much in the field of economic
s as in the field of politics. The building of such a system may require more rapid progress towar
d the closer association of the free countries in harmony with the concept of the United Nations. It is clear that our long-range objectives require a strengthened United Nations, or a successor organization
, to which the world can look for the maintenance of peace and order in a system based on freedom and justice
. It also seems clear that a unifying ideal of this kind might awaken and arouse the latent spiritual energies of free men everywhere and obtain their enthusiastic support for a positive program for peace going far beyond the frustration of the Kremlin design and opening vistas to the future that would outweigh short-run sacrifices.
The threat to the free world involved in the development of the Soviet Union
's atomic and other capabilities will rise steadily and rather rapidly. For the time being, the United States
possesses a marked atom
ic superiority over the Soviet Union
which, together with the potential capabilities of the United States
and other free countries in other forces and weapon
s, inhibits aggressive Soviet action
. This provides an opportunity for the United States
, in cooperation with other free countries, to launch a build-up of strength
which will support a firm policy directed to the frustration of the Kremlin design. The immediate goal of our efforts to build a successfully functioning political
system in the free world backed by adequate military
strength is to postpone and avert the disastrous situation which, in light of the Soviet Union
's probable fission bomb capability and possible thermonuclear bomb capability, might arise in 1954 on a continuation of our present programs. By acting promptly and vigorously in such a way that this date is, so to speak, pushed into the future, we would permit time for the process of accommodation, withdrawal and frustration to produce the necessary changes in the Soviet system. Time is short, however, and the risks of war
attendant upon a decision to build up strength will steadily increase the longer we defer it.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing analysis indicates that the probable fission bomb capability and possible thermonuclear bomb capability of the Soviet Union
have greatly intensified the Soviet threat to the security of the United States
. This threat is of the same character as that described in NSC 20/4 (approved by the President on November 24, 1948) but is more immediate than had previously been estimated. In particular, the United States
now faces the contingency that within the next four or five years the Soviet Union
will possess the military
capability of delivering a surprise atomic attack of such weight that the United States
must have substantially increased general air, ground, and sea strength, atomic capabilities, and air and civilian defense
s to deter war
and to provide reasonable assurance, in the event of war
, that it could survive the initial blow and go on to the eventual attainment of its objectives. In return, this contingency requires the intensification of our efforts in the fields of intelligence and research and development.
Allowing for the immediacy of the danger, the following statement of Soviet threats, contained in NSC 20/4, remains valid:
14. The gravest threat to the security of the United States
within the foreseeable future stems from the hostile designs and formidable power of the USSR, and from the nature of the Soviet system.
15. The political
, and psychological war
fare which the USSR is now waging has dangerous potentialities for weakening the relative world position of the United States
and disrupting its traditional institutions by means short of war
, unless sufficient resistance is encountered in the policies of this and other non-communist countries.
16. The risk of war
with the USSR is sufficient to war
rant, in common prudence, timely and adequate preparation by the United States
a. Even though present estimates indicate that the Soviet leaders probably do not intend deliberate armed action
involving the United States
at this time, the possibility of such deliberate resort to war
cannot be ruled out.
b. Now and for the foreseeable future there is a continuing danger that war
will arise either through Soviet miscalculation of the determination of the United States
to use all the means at its command to safeguard its security, through Soviet misinterpretation of our intentions, or through U.S. miscalculation of Soviet reaction
s to measures which we might take.
17. Soviet domination
of the potential power of Eurasia, whether achieved by armed aggression or by political
and subversive means, would be strategically and political
ly unacceptable to the United States
18. The capability of the United States
either in peace or in the event of war
to cope with threats to its security or to gain its objectives would be severely weakened by internal development, important among which are:
a. Serious espionage, subversion and sabotage, particularly by concerted and well-directed communist activity.
b. Prolonged or exaggerated economic
c. Internal political
and social disunity.
or excessive armament or foreign aid expenditures.
e. An excessive or wasteful usage of our resources in time of peace.
f. Lessening of U.S. prestige and influence through vacillation of appeasement or lack of skill and imagination in the conduct of its foreign policy or by shirking world responsibilities.
g. Development of a false sense of security through a deceptive change in Soviet tactics.
Although such developments as those indicated in paragraph 18 above would severely weaken the capability of the United States
and its allies to cope with the Soviet threat to their security, considerable progress has been made since 1948 in laying the foundation upon which adequate strength can now be rapidly built.
The analysis also confirms that our objectives with respect to the Soviet Union
, in time of peace as well as in time of war
, as stated in NSC 20/4 (para. 19), are still valid, as are the aims and measures stated therein (paras. 20 and 21). Our current security programs and strategic plans are based upon these objectives, aims, and measures:
a. To reduce the power and influence of the USSR to limits which no longer constitute a threat to the peace, national independence, and stability of the world family of nations.
b. To bring about a basic change in the conduct of international relations by the government in power in Russia, to conform with the purposes and principles set forth in the UN Charter.
In pursuing these objectives, due care must be taken to avoid permanently impairing our economy and the fundamental values and institutions inherent in our way of life.
20. We should endeavor to achieve our general objectives by methods short of war
through the pursuit of the following aims:
a. To encourage and promote the gradual retraction
of undue Russian power and influence from the present perimeter areas around traditional Russian boundaries and the emergence of the satellite countries as entities independent of the USSR.
b. To encourage the development among the Russian peoples of attitudes which may help to modify current Soviet behavior and permit a revival of the national life of groups evidencing the ability and determination to achieve and maintain national independence.
c. To eradicate the myth
by which people remote from Soviet military
influence are held in a position of subservience to Moscow
and to cause the world at large to see and understand the true nature of the USSR and the Soviet-directed world
communist party, and to adopt a logical and realistic attitude towar
d. To create situations which will compel the Soviet Government to recognize the practical undesirability of acting on the basis of its present concepts and the necessity of behaving in accordance with precepts of international conduct, as set forth in the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
21. Attainment of these aims requires that the United States
a. Develop a level of military
readiness which can be maintained as long as necessary as a deterrent to Soviet aggression, as indispensable support to our political
d the USSR, as a source of encouragement to nations resisting Soviet political
aggression, and as an adequate basis for immediate military
commitments and for rapid mobilization should war
b. Assure the internal security of the United States
against dangers of sabotage
, and espionage
c. Maximize our economic
potential, including the strengthening of our peacetime economy and the establishment of essential reserves readily available in the event of war
d. Strengthen the orientation
toward the United States
of the non-Soviet
nations; and help such of those nations as are able and willing to make an important contribution to U.S. security, to increase their economic
stability and their military
e. Place the maximum strain on the Soviet structure of power and particularly on the relationships between Moscow and the satellite
f. Keep the U.S. public fully informed and cognizant of the threats to our national security so that it will be prepared to support the measures which we must accordingly adopt.
In the light of present and prospective Soviet atomic capabilities, the action
which can be taken under present programs and plans, however, becomes dangerously inadequate, in both timing and scope, to accomplish the rapid progress towar
d the attainment of the United States political
, and military
objectives which is now imperative.
A continuation of present trend
s would result in a serious decline in the strength of the free world relative to the Soviet Union
and its satellites. This unfavorable trend
arises from the inadequacy of current programs and plans rather than from any error in our objectives and aims. These trend
s lead in the direction of isolation, not by deliberate decision but by lack of the necessary basis for a vigorous initiative in the conflict with the Soviet Union
Our position as the center of power in the free world places a heavy responsibility upon the United States
for leadership. We must organize and enlist the energies and resources of the free world in a positive program for peace which will frustrate the Kremlin design for world domination by creating a situation in the free world to which the Kremlin will be compelled to adjust. Without such a cooperative effort, led by the United States
, we will have to make gradual withdrawals under pressure until we discover one day that we have sacrificed positions of vital interest.
It is imperative that this trend
be reversed by a much more rapid and concerted build-up of the actual strength of both the United States
and the other nations of the free world. The analysis shows that this will be costly and will involve significant domestic financial and economic
The execution of such a build-up, however, requires that the United States
have an affirmative program beyond the solely defensive one of countering the threat posed by the Soviet Union
. This program must light the path to peace and order among nations in a system based on freedom and justice, as contemplate
d in the Charter of the United Nations. Further
, it must envisage the political
measures with which
and the military
shield behind which the free world can work to frustrate the Kremlin design by the strategy
of the cold war
; for every consideration of devotion
to our fundamental values and to our national security demands that we achieve our objectives by the strategy of the cold war
, building up our military
strength in order that it may not have to be used. The only sure victory lies in the frustration of the Kremlin design by the steady development of the moral and material strength of the free world and its projection into the Soviet world in such a way as to bring about an internal change in the Soviet system. Such a positive program--harmonious with our fundamental national purpose and our objectives--is necessary if we are to regain and retain the initiative and to win and hold the necessary popular support and cooperation in the United States
and the rest of the free world.
This program should include a plan
with the Soviet Union
, developed and agreed with our allies
and which is consonant with our objectives. The United States
and its allies, particularly the United Kingdom
and France, should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union
on terms consistent with our objective
s. The present world situation, however, is one which militates against successful negotiations with the Kremlin--for the terms of agreements on important pending issues would reflect present realities and would therefore be unacceptable, if not disastrous, to the United States
and the rest of the free world. After a decision and a start on building up the strength of the free world has been made, it might then be desirable for the United States
to take an initiative in seeking negotiations in the hope that it might facilitate the process of accommodation by the Kremlin
to the new situation. Failing that, the unwillingness of the Kremlin to accept equitable terms or its bad faith in observing them would assist in consolidating popular opinion in the free world in support of the measures necessary to sustain the build-up.
In summary, we must, by means of a rapid and sustained build-up of the political
, and military
strength of the free world, and by means of an affirmative
program intended to wrest the initiative from the Soviet Union
, confront it with convincing evidence of the determination and ability of the free world to frustrate the Kremlin design of a world dominate
d by its will. Such evidence is the only means short of war
which eventually may force the Kremlin to abandon its present course of action
and to negotiate acceptable agreements on issues of major importance.
The whole success of the proposed program hangs ultimately on recognition by this Government, the American people, and all free peoples, that the cold war
is in fact a real war
in which the survival of the free world is at stake. Essential prerequisites to success are consultations with Congressional leaders designed to make the program the object of non-partisan legislative support, and a presentation to the public of a full explanation of the facts and implications of the present international situation. The prosecution of the program will require of us all the ingenuity, sacrifice, and unity demanded by the vital importance of the issue and the tenacity to persevere until our national objectives have been attained.
That the President:
a. Approve the foregoing Conclusions.
b. Direct the National Security Council, under the continuing direction of the President, and with the participation of other Departments and Agencies as appropriate, to coordinate and insure the implementation of the Conclusions herein on an urgent and continuing basis for as long as necessary to achieve our objectives. For this purpose, representatives of the member Departments and Agencies, the Joint Chiefs of Staff or their deputies, and other Departments and Agencies as required should be constituted as a revised and strengthened staff organization under the National Security Council to develop coordinated programs for consideration by the National Security Council.
1. Marshal Tito, the Communist leader of Yugoslavia, broke away from the Soviet bloc in 1948.
2. The Secretary of State listed seven areas in which the Soviet Union
could modify its behavior in such a way as to permit co-existence in reasonable security. These were:
- Treaties of peace with Austria, Germany, Japan and relaxation of pressures in the Far East;
- Withdrawal of Soviet forces and influence from satellite area;
- Cooperation in the United Nations;
- Control of atomic energy and of conventional armaments;
- Abandonment of indirect aggression;
- Proper treatment of official representatives of the U.S.;
- Increased access to the Soviet Union
of persons and ideas from other countries.
NSC-68 | NSC-68 Part 2