England – Enemy of Liberty / Remarks by William Langer of North Dakota, Senator

Page 1

(Not printed at Government expense) AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC 501 MORRIS BUILDING, PHILA. 2, PA. United States of America Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 79th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION England—Enemy of Liberty EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, December 4, 1945 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask the Appendix of the Record an address entitled "England—Enemy of Liberty" delivered by me at the Academy of Music in Brooklyn, N. Y., on Thursday, November 29, 1945. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: When I voted against the new United Nations league, some people said I committed political suicide. I ought to explain something of what voted against the United Nations league—Senator HENRIK SHIPETZAD, of Minnesota, and I wasn't any good. There were many other Members of the Congress who felt as we did ought to vote for the league. Some of these men simply felt that it would fall apart anyway—so what was the difference. However, as far as I was concerned, I couldn't vote for something I didn't believe in or that I thought was bad for the American people. I voted against Dumberlook Oaks and the San Francisco Chamber at a time when it seemed politically dangerous to do so. It was because I didn't want a world organization—I do want a world organization if we can achieve one which is safe for America. But, I don't want a world organization which is simply a paper creation and a British scheme to keep half the world in subjection. I don't want an organization which is a result of British or any other outside influence over the boys of our Department, instead of being a result of our own considered best interests. We are now at this game, but the British have been experienced at it for hundreds of years. I knew that we were being taken in by it and that the new league would not and could not work except as a matter of backing up British interests throughout the world. Now we find that this is true. Almost any sensible man admits it. A few days ago Pat Hurley came back from China. He had the courage to say what all our high officials have thought who actually have been in sucked far East, and that is the side of colonial imperialism against Communist imperialism. Now, what do you think Pat Hurley meant? I think I can tell you. He meant that the British who Bussians have succeeded in getting us to back their policy throughout the world, were being drawn onto. He would war in defence of allen interests, a new war which would have nothing whatsoever to do with our own security. Our having committed myself against the league, I am about to commit myself now to another proposition—I want no more war. I think we have had enough war. War means that we are going to have to put our young men in uniform again and have them shot up all over the world. It means many wore widows in my native State of…