[matter omitted]

Commentary¹

The battle of Korea is proof enough that the United States is not prepared for a general war. Actually it has revealed a great weakness in the whole defence programme. The aim has been to contain the Korean conflict and to prevent it from developing into war on any larger scale. The same aim will be pursued should Korea be followed or accompanied by calculated explosions elsewhere, so long as that course is regarded as consistent with ultimate security. The name of Mr. George F. Kennan has chiefly been associated with the strategy of 'containment'. Should, however, United States forces become engaged at the instigation of Russia on a number of battlefronts widely separated from each other to such an extent that national security would be endangered, a declaration of war on Russia in that contingency would not fall within the definition of preventive war. That may be the sense in which Secretary Matthews intended his Boston speech to be understood. Many in the Pentagon, moreover, take the view that Russia has been aggressively at war with the West since as early as 1944, and that a war to stop Russia would not be a preventive but rather a defensive war.

The speech will not bring a dramatic deus ex machina solution of Mr. Malik's² difficulties at the Security Council, but the uses to which it will be put are obvious, and its abuse will not be avoided. The gravamen of Mr. Matthews' indiscretion - if indiscretion it was - at this particular time is the use which the Soviet propaganda machine will make of it to portray American thinking in the highest quarters as bent upon war with Russia. And, of course, generally speaking, the Navy Secretary's speech, if taken literally, so clearly contemplated war as an instrument of national policy that it had to be instantly repudiated by the Administration. The speech was timed about as accurately, although not as purposely, to embarrass United States policy makers as was Mr. Henry Wallace's³ speech in Madison Square Garden, in September, 1946, when Secretary of State James F. Byrnes⁴ was in Paris at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers working on the peace treaties. Whether Mr. Matthews, for his preventive war speech, will suffer the fate of Mr. Wallace for his preventive appeasement address, remains to be seen.

The kindly, soft-spoken and dapper Secretary of the United States Navy is not regarded as the strongest Secretary the Navy Department has ever had. He was appointed in May, 1949, following Mr. J.L. Sullivan's⁵ angry resignation as a result of the controversy on the respective values of the B-36 strategic bomber planes - favoured by the Air Force - and a strong naval air arm - favoured by the Navy - as key weapons of military security. John L. Sullivan had favoured the strong naval air arm. The advocates of the B-36 won; and Frank Matthews became Navy Secretary.

At a dinner in 2339 S Street, N.W. some weeks ago at which Mr. and Mrs. Matthews were our guests of honour Mr. Matthews told us that his great ambition is to be United States Ambassador to Ireland. He is one of the outstanding Catholic laymen in North America. He is very friendly indeed to this Embassy. You will have gathered from my report of the 17th June⁶ enclosing Mr. Brennan's account of a conversation with him that the Navy Secretary is very close to President Truman and that he is by no means out of line with the Irish policy of the Department of State.

I was reliably informed by a columnist of the 'Washington Star' two months or so ago that Admiral Leahy had then recently written to President Truman requesting him to appoint Mr. Matthews to a diplomatic post 'in the interests of the United States Navy'.

Should Frank Matthews go to Dublin on Ambassador Garrett's recall you will be impressed by his utter integrity, and by his quiet and courtly manner. He would no doubt in due course confide to the Minister the purpose he had in his speech on the occasion of the formal celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Boston Navy Yard. The Minister will be aware already that in his personal religious life Mr. Matthews has long been the leader of a great spiritual offensive for world peace.

I shall keep the Department informed of any further developments in this matter. I may be able to present a more intimate report on the whole affair soon.

'The New York Times' of today returns to the subject and administers a further sharp rebuke to the Navy Secretary quoting Mr. Philip Jessup's⁷ broadcast of last night stating that dropping atomic bombs on Moscow 'is not the American way of doing things'. The editorial, however, stresses the need for 'a greater initiative and effort in the war of ideas to counteract Soviet lies and tell the world the truth'.