WAR PROPAGANDA

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 61, 14 March 1939, Page 10

WAR PROPAGANDA

"LUST FOR POWER"

EFFECT OF RE-ARMAMENT

Much of the same propaganda that involved the United* States in the World War is today current In this country, according to Henry H. Heimann, executive manager of the National Association of Credit Men, in the association's monthly review of business, released to its 20,000 wholesaling, banking, and manufacturing member firms, states the "Christian Science Monitor." He defined this propaganda as dealing with "greed and lust for power" and "feverish armament programmes." "Among several developments that need correction, one of the most important is the manner of re-armament," he said. FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. "No nation ever built an army or navy for offensive action, if you were to believe public utterances made by representatives of the various Govern-! ments. History, however, clearly reveals that a nation seldom arms to the limit without finding itself engaged in a subsequent war." ..__ Mr. Heimann's report contains four recommendations for Congressional action. He urges that Congress check Government spending, keeping the armament policy "within reason" and courageously put forward a farm programme that is not camouflaged; that it insist on "more equity and fairness" in labour legislation, make the Federal tax laws "more economic and equitable," rationalise the relief problem, check "bureaucratic" tendencies, and! keep social security "within sane limitations." Discussing the attitude of most business men towards present Government policies, Mr. Heimann holds that had they in 1933 fully sensed the social reform programme that was to take place in the next few years, the attitude of most business men towards these reforms might have been different. "To some extent," he said, "a new order had to be developed because of certain business abuses in the past. These abuses of the 1920's laid a strong foundation for the reform element to build upon. Had business appraised future developments properly, much of the acrimony and many of the caustic public statements exchanged between business end government would not have taken place. "It is not too much to say the programme would have been more in a spirit of co-operation, looking forward to the establishment of needed reforms on a sound basis. Such a conciliatory spirit could well have prevented the so-called radical reform legislation. "It is a fact that most business men now realise arid accept the fact that there is a new order of things in our business-government-social relationships. At the same time these business men know that this new order of things, if it is to be successful, must be built upon time-tested and proved fundamentals, within sound economic laws. CORRECTIONS TOO EXTREME. "It is likewise fair to say, I believe, that while the majority of our people desired correction of certain boom-time abuses, they would have asked a more cautious approach to the legislation for this new order of things if they could have known the extremes to which some parts would go. [ "The programme went far beyond what most people asked. It exceeded the limits which the more moderate element in the reform movement had in mind; and this group, too, had it been blessed with accurate, historical foresight, would undoubtedly have been more temperate in its attitude. It would have moved for a less drastic programme, taking care to make the changes with constitutional requirements, sound economic principles, and logical needs in mind. "Both business men and reformers spoke too vehemently—at times too sarcastically. As they now pause to reflect, they can see the damage their vocal intemperance caused, and I believe it is safe to say that the majority of people in business and the majority of those who sincerely' felt that changes were needed are now anxious to repair the damage."