{{{#!wiki style="margin:0 -10px -5px; min-height:calc(1.5em + 5px)" {{{#!folding [ 펼치기 · 접기 ] {{{#!wiki style="margin:-5px -1px -11px" | <rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 초대 | 제2대 | 제3대 | 제4대 |
토머스 제퍼슨 | 에드먼드 제닝스 랜돌프 | 티모시 피커링 | 존 마셜 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제5대 | 제6대 | 제7대 | 제8대 | |
제임스 매디슨 | 로버트 스미스 | 제임스 먼로 | 존 퀸시 애덤스 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제9대 | 제10대 | 제11대 | 제12대 | |
헨리 클레이 | 마틴 밴 뷰런 | 에드워드 리빙스턴 | 루이스 맥래인 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제13대 | 제14대 | 제15대 | 제16대 | |
존 포시스 | 대니얼 웹스터 | 에이벌 P. 업셔 | 존 C. 칼훈 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제17대 | 제18대 | 제19대 | 제20대 | |
제임스 뷰캐넌 | 존 M. 클레이턴 | 대니얼 웹스터 | 에드워드 에버렛 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제21대 | 제22대 | 제23대 | 제24대 | |
윌리엄 L. 마시 | 루이스 카스 | 제레미아 S. 블랙 | 윌리엄 H. 수어드 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제25대 | 제26대 | 제27대 | 제28대 | |
엘리후 B. 워시번 | 해밀턴 피시 | 윌리엄 M. 에버트 | 제임스 G. 블레인 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제29대 | 제30대 | 제31대 | 제32대 | |
프레드릭 T. 프레링후이슨 | 토머스 F. 바야드 | 제임스 G. 블레인 | 존 W. 포스터 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제33대 | 제34대 | 제35대 | 제36대 | |
월터 Q. 그레셤 | 리차드 올니 | 존 셔먼 | 윌리엄 R. 데이 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제37대 | 제38대 | 제39대 | 제40대 | |
존 헤이 | 엘리후 루트 | 로버트 베이컨 | 필랜더 C. 녹스 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제41대 | 제42대 | 제43대 | 제44대 | |
윌리엄 J. 브라이언 | 로버트 랜싱 | 베인브리지 콜비 | 찰스 에번스 휴스 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제45대 | 제46대 | 제47대 | 제48대 | |
프랭크 B. 켈로그 | 헨리 L. 스팀슨 | 코델 헐 | 에드워드 스테티니우스 주니어 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제49대 | 제50대 | 제51대 | 제52대 | |
제임스 F. 번즈 | 조지 C. 마셜 | 딘 애치슨 | 존 포스터 덜레스 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제53대 | 제54대 | 제55대 | 제56대 | |
크리스찬 허터 | 딘 러스크 | 윌리엄 P. 로저스 | 헨리 키신저 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제57대 | 제58대 | 제59대 | 제60대 | |
사이러스 밴스 | 에드먼드 머스키 | 알렉산더 헤이그 | 조지 P. 슐츠 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제61대 | 제62대 | 제63대 | 제64대 | |
제임스 베이커 | 로렌스 이글버거 | 워런 크리스토퍼 | 매들린 올브라이트 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제65대 | 제66대 | 제67대 | 제68대 | |
콜린 파월 | 콘돌리자 라이스 | 힐러리 클린턴 | 존 케리 | |
<rowcolor=#ffc224,#db9e00> 제69대 | 제70대 | 제71대 | ||
렉스 틸러슨 | 마이크 폼페이오 | 토니 블링컨 | }}}}}}}}} |
<colcolor=#000000> | |
<colbgcolor=#172172> 출생 | 1893년 4월 11일 |
미국 코네티컷주 미들타운 | |
사망 | 1971년 10월 12일 (향년 78세) |
미국 메릴랜드주 샌디스프링 | |
국적 | [[미국| ]][[틀:국기| ]][[틀:국기| ]] |
재임기간 | 제51대 국무장관 |
1949년 1월 21일 ~ 1953년 1월 20일 | |
정당 |
[clearfix]
1. 개요
"코리아가 나타나 우리를 구했다."[1]
딘 애치슨은 미국의 51대 국무장관으로, 해리 트루먼 시기에 재임했다. 냉전 시기 미국 외교정책의 서문을 연 인물이다.6.25 전쟁 직전 애치슨 라인을 선언한 장본인으로 알려진 인물이며, 때문에 한국에서는 매우 부정적으로 평가받는다.
2. 생애
2.1. 초기 경력
1893년 코네티컷 주에서 태어났다. 1915년에 예일 대학교를 졸업하였고, 1918년 하버드 대학교 로스쿨을 졸업하였다.그 후 애치슨은 민주당에 가입하고, 1933년 프랭클린 D. 루스벨트에 의해 재무부 부장관에 임명된다.
2.2. 냉전 시대의 첫 국무장관
프랭클린 D. 루스벨트가 타계하자, 후임 대통령에 취임한 해리 S. 트루먼에 의해 국무부 부장관으로 임명하였다. 이를 통해 본격적으로 외교관 생활을 시작했다. 당시까지만 해도 애치슨은 소련에 회유적이었다.하지만 제2차 세계 대전이 끝나고 소련과의 갈등이 노골화되면서, 그 역시 서유럽에서 대소 강경 노선으로 점차 기울어졌다. 1949년 트루먼이 재선되면서, 애치슨은 트루먼의 2기 내각에서 국무장관으로 임명되었다. 같은 해에 미국이 주도하는 NATO 결성이 이루어졌다.
1949년 일명 <중국백서>(China White Paper) 정식명칭 <United States Relations with China with Special Reference to the Period 1944~1949>를 발간했다. 국공내전에서 장제스의 국민당의 끔찍한 부패를 비난하면서 그를 버리는 대신 중국 공산당의 마오쩌둥에 접근하려고 시도하였다. 애치슨은 마오쩌둥이 티토처럼 독자적인 노선을 추구할 가능성을 주목했다. 그것을 위해 나온 것이 바로 애치슨 라인이다.
기존에는 애치슨 라인을 발표하여 한국전쟁에서 북한의 남침 계기를 제공하였다는 식으로 알려졌는데, 냉전 이후 연구성과에 따르면 애치슨 선언은 남침을 유도한게 아니다. 국내에서 남침유도설의 대명사로 인식되는 브루스 커밍스 교수조차도 <한국전쟁의 기원>에서 애치슨 라인은 남침을 유도한 게 아니라고 주장했다. 리처드 쏜턴 같은 남침유도설을 주장하는 학자도 NSC-68을 주목하지, 애치슨 라인은 아니라고 분석한다. 현대에는 애치슨 라인은 티토-스탈린 결렬처럼 중소결렬을 시도했다고 본다. <헨리 키신저의 중국 이야기>에서 애치슨 라인은 중소 결렬 시도라고 한다. 한마디로 애치슨 라인은 중국에게 보내는 유화책이었다. 헨리 키신저가 한 핑퐁외교의 선배격 되는 정책이라고 볼 수도 있다. 중소 결렬이 이뤄진다면 대만과 한반도를 중국의 세력권으로 넘겨줄 수 있었지만, 중소 동맹이 이뤄졌기에 미국은 한반도를 포기하지 않고 한국전쟁에 참전했다.
스탈린은 마오쩌둥과 1차 회담 후, 마오를 모스크바 외곽의 어느 한적한 지역에 머물게 하고 오랫동안 관찰하였다. 마오도 "나는 여기서 아무것도 안하고 먹고 싸고 자기만 한다"라고 원색적으로 불만을 토로하였다. 마오는 담판을 짓기 위해 비장의 카드를 빼들었다. 그는 스탈린을 향해 "영국이 우리에게 관심을 보인다. 우리도 영국과의 관계를 진전시킬 필요가 있는지 검토하려 한다"
그리고 미국도 이에 호응한다. 미국은 마오쩌둥이 소련에 한 달 이상 머무르는 특이한 현상에서 중·소 불화 가능성을 파악한 것이다. 미 국무장관 애치슨이 한반도와 대만을 극동 방위선에서 제외시키는 애치슨 라인을 발표한다. 미국은 중국을 위협할 의도가 없다는 호의적인 신호를 보낸 것이다. 스탈린은 고민이 깊어진다. 마오가 소련을 떠나 영국과 미국을 비롯한 서방과 손잡으면 어떻게 하나, 마오쩌둥이 공산권 위계질서를 거부하고 유고의 티토처럼 독자노선을 걸으면 어떻게 하나⋯ 등등. 모두가 소련의 국익에 도움이 되지 않는 상황들이다.
임방순, 어느 육군 장교의 중국 체험 보고서, 50~51p
그리고 미국도 이에 호응한다. 미국은 마오쩌둥이 소련에 한 달 이상 머무르는 특이한 현상에서 중·소 불화 가능성을 파악한 것이다. 미 국무장관 애치슨이 한반도와 대만을 극동 방위선에서 제외시키는 애치슨 라인을 발표한다. 미국은 중국을 위협할 의도가 없다는 호의적인 신호를 보낸 것이다. 스탈린은 고민이 깊어진다. 마오가 소련을 떠나 영국과 미국을 비롯한 서방과 손잡으면 어떻게 하나, 마오쩌둥이 공산권 위계질서를 거부하고 유고의 티토처럼 독자노선을 걸으면 어떻게 하나⋯ 등등. 모두가 소련의 국익에 도움이 되지 않는 상황들이다.
임방순, 어느 육군 장교의 중국 체험 보고서, 50~51p
1953년 공화당의 드와이트 D. 아이젠하워가 대통령에 취임하면서 공직 생활을 마감했다.
2.3. 말년
공직을 떠난 후에도, 그는 외교계 원로로서 후임 정부들에 자문을 제공하였다. 1962년 쿠바 미사일 위기가 발생하자 케네디 행정부의 요청을 받고 정책 조언을 하기도 했는데, 소련과의 일전 불사를 포함한 강경책을 주장했다. 하지만 케네디 행정부는 그보다는 온건한 쿠바 봉쇄를 선택했다. 그럼에도 애치슨은 위기 당시 유럽 특사로 파견되어 드골 프랑스 대통령, 아데나워 서독 수상 등으로부터 쿠바 봉쇄에 관한 지지를 얻어내는 역할을 수행했다.애치슨은 케네디의 피살 후 들어선 린든 존슨 행정부에서도 일정 수준의 자문을 했다. 당초 그는 존슨 행정부의 베트남전 개입을 지지했지만, 이후 철회하였다. 후임 닉슨 행정부의 백악관 국가안보보좌관이 된 헨리 키신저도 애치슨의 자문을 받았다.
이후 1971년, 메릴랜드에 있는 자신의 농장에서 뇌졸중으로 눈을 감는다. 향년 78세. 유해는 워싱턴 조지타운에 안장되었다.
3. 평가
조지프 매카시 상원의원은 1950년 2월 "내부의 적(Enemies from Within)" 연설을 하였다. 애치슨이 앨저 히스를 옹호했다고 한다.Ladies and Gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the 141st birthday of one of the great men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man, who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time, of war being outlawed, and of worldwide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Five years after a world war has been won, men's hearts should anticipate a long peace, and men's minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period - for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of the Cold War. This is a time when all the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps - a time of a great armaments race. Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the hills of Indochina, from the shores of Formosa right over into the very heart of Europe itself. ...
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down - they are truly down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today - Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said - not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war - but two years after the last war was ended: "To think that the communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one's mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the communist revolution."
And this is what was said by Lenin in 1919, which was also quoted with approval by Stalin in 1947: "We are living," said Lenin, "not merely in a state but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with Christian states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable."
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone here tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the communist world has said, "The time is now" - that this is the time for the showdown between the democratic Christian world and the communist atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.
Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out peace - Dumbarton Oaks - there was within the Soviet orbit 180 million people. Lined up on the anti-totalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1.625 billion people. Today, only six years later, there are 800 million people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia - an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500 million. In other words, in less than six years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of communist victories and American defeats in the Cold War. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without but rather because of enemies from within." The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.
At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on Earth and, at least potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining, living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful, potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.
Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case - the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign policy.
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to work for the communization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later, this man - John Service - was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the communists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the undersecretary of state, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign. Two days after, Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over as undersecretary of state, this man - John Service - who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted; and finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions. Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta - by far and away the most important listening post in the Far East.
Now, let's see what happens when individuals with communist connections are forced out of the State Department. Gustave Duran, who was labeled as, I quote, "a notorious international communist," was made assistant secretary of state in charge of Latin American affairs. He was taken into the State Department from his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Communist International Brigade. Finally, after intense congressional pressure and criticism, he resigned in 1946 from the State Department - and, ladies and gentlemen, where do you think he is now? He took over a high-salaried job as chief of Cultural Activities Section in the office of the assistant secretary-general of the United Nations. ...
This, ladies and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of individuals who have been helping to shape our foreign policy. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with communists.
I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.
One thing to remember in discussing the communists in our government is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of new weapons. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.
This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss, who is important not as an individual anymore but rather because he is so representative of a group in the State Department. It is unnecessary to go over the sordid events showing how he sold out the nation which had given him so much. Those are rather fresh in all of our minds. However, it should be remembered that the facts in regard to his connection with this international communist spy ring were made known to the then-Undersecretary of State Berle three days after Hitler and Stalin signed the Russo-German Alliance Pact. At that time one Whittaker Chambers - who was also part of the spy ring - apparently decided that with Russia on Hitler's side, he could no longer betray our nation to Russia. He gave Undersecretary of State Berle - and this is all a matter of record - practically all, if not more, of the facts upon which Hiss' conviction was based.
Undersecretary Berle promptly contacted Dean Acheson and received word in return that Acheson, and I quote, "could vouch for Hiss absolutely" - at which time the matter was dropped. And this, you understand, was at a time when Russia was an ally of Germany. This condition existed while Russia and Germany were invading and dismembering Poland, and while the communist groups here were screaming "warmonger" at the United States for their support of the Allied nations.
Again in 1943, the FBI had occasion to investigate the facts surrounding Hiss' contacts with the Russian spy ring. But even after that FBI report was submitted, nothing was done.
Then, late in 1948 - on August 5 - when the Un-American Activities Committee called Alger Hiss to give an accounting, President Truman at once issued a presidential directive ordering all government agencies to refuse to turn over any information whatsoever in regard to the communist activities of any government employee to a congressional committee.
Incidentally, even after Hiss was convicted, it is interesting to note that the president still labeled the expose of Hiss as a "red herring."
If time permitted, it might be well to go into detail about the fact that Hiss was Roosevelt's chief adviser at Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in ill health and tired physically and mentally ... and when, according to the secretary of state, Hiss and Gromyko drafted the report on the conference.
According to the then-Secretary of State Stettinius, here are some of the things that Hiss helped to decide at Yalta: (1) the establishment of a European High Commission; (2) the treatment of Germany - this you will recall was the conference at which it was decided that we would occupy Berlin with Russia occupying an area completely encircling the city, which as you know, resulted in the Berlin airlift which cost 31 American lives; (3) the Polish question; (4) the relationship between UNRRA and the Soviet; (5) the rights of Americans on control commissions of Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary; (6) Iran; (7) China - here's where we gave away Manchuria; (8) Turkish Straits question; (9) international trusteeships; (10) Korea.
Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department had this to say: "As I glanced over the document, I could not believe my eyes. To me, almost every line spoke of a surrender to Stalin."
As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to yourself, "Well, why doesn't the Congress do something about it?" Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high government positions - one of the most important reasons why this continues - is a lack of moral uprising on the part of the 140 million American people. In the light of history, however, this is not hard to explain.
It is the result of an emotional hangover and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war. It is the apathy to evil which people who have been subjected to the tremendous evils of war feel. As the people of the world see mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent people, and all of the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and apathetic. It has always been thus after war. However, the morals of our people have not been destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and apathy has only needed a spark to rekindle them. Happily, this spark has finally been supplied.
As you know, very recently the secretary of state proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes - of being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust. The secretary of state, in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefore, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy. When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of national honesty and decency in government.
조지프 매카시 상원의원, 1950년 2월
Five years after a world war has been won, men's hearts should anticipate a long peace, and men's minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period - for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of the Cold War. This is a time when all the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps - a time of a great armaments race. Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the hills of Indochina, from the shores of Formosa right over into the very heart of Europe itself. ...
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down - they are truly down.
Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today - Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said - not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war - but two years after the last war was ended: "To think that the communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one's mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the communist revolution."
And this is what was said by Lenin in 1919, which was also quoted with approval by Stalin in 1947: "We are living," said Lenin, "not merely in a state but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with Christian states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states will be inevitable."
Ladies and gentlemen, can there be anyone here tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the communist world has said, "The time is now" - that this is the time for the showdown between the democratic Christian world and the communist atheistic world? Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.
Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out peace - Dumbarton Oaks - there was within the Soviet orbit 180 million people. Lined up on the anti-totalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1.625 billion people. Today, only six years later, there are 800 million people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia - an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500 million. In other words, in less than six years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of communist victories and American defeats in the Cold War. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without but rather because of enemies from within." The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.
At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on Earth and, at least potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining, living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful, potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.
Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case - the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign policy.
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to work for the communization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later, this man - John Service - was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the communists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the undersecretary of state, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign. Two days after, Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over as undersecretary of state, this man - John Service - who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted; and finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions. Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta - by far and away the most important listening post in the Far East.
Now, let's see what happens when individuals with communist connections are forced out of the State Department. Gustave Duran, who was labeled as, I quote, "a notorious international communist," was made assistant secretary of state in charge of Latin American affairs. He was taken into the State Department from his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Communist International Brigade. Finally, after intense congressional pressure and criticism, he resigned in 1946 from the State Department - and, ladies and gentlemen, where do you think he is now? He took over a high-salaried job as chief of Cultural Activities Section in the office of the assistant secretary-general of the United Nations. ...
This, ladies and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of individuals who have been helping to shape our foreign policy. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with communists.
I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.
One thing to remember in discussing the communists in our government is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of new weapons. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.
This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss, who is important not as an individual anymore but rather because he is so representative of a group in the State Department. It is unnecessary to go over the sordid events showing how he sold out the nation which had given him so much. Those are rather fresh in all of our minds. However, it should be remembered that the facts in regard to his connection with this international communist spy ring were made known to the then-Undersecretary of State Berle three days after Hitler and Stalin signed the Russo-German Alliance Pact. At that time one Whittaker Chambers - who was also part of the spy ring - apparently decided that with Russia on Hitler's side, he could no longer betray our nation to Russia. He gave Undersecretary of State Berle - and this is all a matter of record - practically all, if not more, of the facts upon which Hiss' conviction was based.
Undersecretary Berle promptly contacted Dean Acheson and received word in return that Acheson, and I quote, "could vouch for Hiss absolutely" - at which time the matter was dropped. And this, you understand, was at a time when Russia was an ally of Germany. This condition existed while Russia and Germany were invading and dismembering Poland, and while the communist groups here were screaming "warmonger" at the United States for their support of the Allied nations.
Again in 1943, the FBI had occasion to investigate the facts surrounding Hiss' contacts with the Russian spy ring. But even after that FBI report was submitted, nothing was done.
Then, late in 1948 - on August 5 - when the Un-American Activities Committee called Alger Hiss to give an accounting, President Truman at once issued a presidential directive ordering all government agencies to refuse to turn over any information whatsoever in regard to the communist activities of any government employee to a congressional committee.
Incidentally, even after Hiss was convicted, it is interesting to note that the president still labeled the expose of Hiss as a "red herring."
If time permitted, it might be well to go into detail about the fact that Hiss was Roosevelt's chief adviser at Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in ill health and tired physically and mentally ... and when, according to the secretary of state, Hiss and Gromyko drafted the report on the conference.
According to the then-Secretary of State Stettinius, here are some of the things that Hiss helped to decide at Yalta: (1) the establishment of a European High Commission; (2) the treatment of Germany - this you will recall was the conference at which it was decided that we would occupy Berlin with Russia occupying an area completely encircling the city, which as you know, resulted in the Berlin airlift which cost 31 American lives; (3) the Polish question; (4) the relationship between UNRRA and the Soviet; (5) the rights of Americans on control commissions of Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary; (6) Iran; (7) China - here's where we gave away Manchuria; (8) Turkish Straits question; (9) international trusteeships; (10) Korea.
Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department had this to say: "As I glanced over the document, I could not believe my eyes. To me, almost every line spoke of a surrender to Stalin."
As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to yourself, "Well, why doesn't the Congress do something about it?" Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high government positions - one of the most important reasons why this continues - is a lack of moral uprising on the part of the 140 million American people. In the light of history, however, this is not hard to explain.
It is the result of an emotional hangover and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war. It is the apathy to evil which people who have been subjected to the tremendous evils of war feel. As the people of the world see mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent people, and all of the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and apathetic. It has always been thus after war. However, the morals of our people have not been destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and apathy has only needed a spark to rekindle them. Happily, this spark has finally been supplied.
As you know, very recently the secretary of state proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes - of being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust. The secretary of state, in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefore, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy. When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.
He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of national honesty and decency in government.
조지프 매카시 상원의원, 1950년 2월
4. 기타 자료
트루먼 도서관acheson paper에 애치슨이 남긴 자료들이 있다.5. 둘러보기
{{{#!wiki style="border-top: 0px none; border-left: 10px solid #0044C9; border-right: 10px solid #0044C9; text-align: center; margin: -6px -11px; padding: 7px; min-height: 34px" {{{#!wiki style="margin: 0 -16px -6px" {{{#!folding [ 펼치기 · 접기 ] {{{#!wiki style="margin: -6px -1px -31px; word-break: keep-all" | 직위 | 명단 |
부통령 | <colbgcolor=#fff,#1f2024> 앨번 W. 바클리 | |
국무장관 | 에드워드 스테티니우스 주니어→ 제임스 F. 번스 → 조지 C. 마셜 → 딘 애치슨 | |
재무장관 | 헨리 모겐소 주니어 → 프레드 M. 빈슨 → 존 웨슬리 스나이더 | |
국방장관 | 제임스 포레스탈 → 루이스 A. 존슨 → 조지 C. 마셜 → 로버트 A. 로벳 | |
법무장관 | 프랜시스 비들 → 톰 C. 클라크 → J. 하워드 맥그래스 → 제임스 P. 맥그레너리 | |
체신장관 | 프랭크 C. 워커 → 로버트 E. 해네건 → 제시 M. 도널드슨 | |
내무장관 | 해럴드 L. 아이크스 → 줄리어스 알버트 크루그 → 오스카 L. 채프먼 | |
농무장관 | 클로드 R. 위커드 → 클린턴 앤더슨 → 찰스 F. 브래넌 | |
상무장관 | 헨리 A. 월리스 → W. 에이버럴 해리먼 → 찰스 W. 소여 | |
노동장관 | 프랜시스 퍼킨스 → 루이스 B. 슈웰렌바흐 → 모리스 J. 토빈 | }}} }}}}}}}}} |