LETTER TO MR. EDWARD T. DICKINSON FROM ALLEN W. DULLES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 12, 2005
• Sequence Number: 57
• Publication Date: July 21, 1952
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For P
,,Uglease 2006/03/17 :CIA-RDP80B01676$A01000160057-4
21 July 1952
Thank you for send . Ag along the r by r. Sno*k#
It is encouraging that our Rmoutive a g :iss have in
brighter young man who are willing to dart
1 lies In their think ,
Sinaearely,
Allan '4* Dulles
Dwutq Siren
a;ml
Eft w/basic & encl.
1 - Chrono
NSC review(s) completed.
Approved For Release 2006/03/17: CIA-RDP80B016761000160057-4
 Approved For F ease 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676RD01000160057-4
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES BOARD
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
July 14, 1952
Mr. Allen W. Dulles
Deputy Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington 25, D. C.
Herewith is an interesting paper developed by one of our
brighter young men who used to serve on the staff of
Senator H. Alexander Smith of New Jersey. I am sending
it to you, informally and without endorsement, because I
thought you would find it stimulating.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Dickinson
Vice Chairman
C 1, Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
l ~
 Approved Fc Oelease 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B016W001000169RJJ -~,' 1952
The Defense Alliance System
Is the border-defense alliance system upon which NATO is based sti_1 the
deterrent to aggression that it has been throughout Western Civilization? Doer
it still provide the protection which led to its development? Is there another
concept upon which the West can base its present alliance policies?
I. Introduction
Western Civilization since its development has relied on a system of
border-defense alliances to deter aggression. This system has been used to
great advantage against aggressors both outside of and within the Weste:-:n
community of nations. The defense alliance was developed to supply two very
important needs: First, the alliance permitted small nations to band together
militarily and fight off strong aggressors; and second, the border defense
set up by the alliance protected the heartland of each nation from beins
devastated by the aggressor.
This system has worked as well as any could, since it allowed the Joint
forces to meet the aggression at the threatened point, and it required the
aggressor to have sufficient forces to overwhelm the defensive alliance,
Throughout most of the history of Western Civilization, this system was
implemented or assisted by the military fact that the aggressor needed
superior forces to defeat inferior defensive forces. The defense alliance
system has failed when military innovations gave the aggressor an offeri,ive
advantage. There are many examples of this situation and history point-3
out that the side that recognized the new innovation first won the war.
These new innovations were "shortly" adopted for the defense and once a ain
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
 Approved For ft ease 2006/03/17,..: CIA-RDP80BOl67eft01000160057-4
the defense alliance deterred aggression and protected the heartland of the
allied nations.
;je should now examine the d.,,fen. alliance system of today to determine
whether it supplies the protection and deterrent to war for which it was
developed. 'Jo tend to take the system for granted since we in our civiliza-
tion know nothing else. To us it is about as basic as the law of gravity,
but is it as sound?.
In looking at the defense alliance system today, note that it did not
protect Paris and London in the last war or Korea today. Second, notice
that it does not deter aggression as it once did. An example of this is
the fact that Germany did not in the First World War learn the "classical"
lesson that aggression was costly,, but learned instead that the invaded
France was hurt more than they the aggressor. There have been two World
Wars in a generation and a third one threatens.
There are many critics of the pre: sent system who threaten to wreck
Western policy and programs. Each of these critical groups recognizes the
frustration set up by the weakness of the border defense alliance system
as it affects his interests.
This can be seen in the Trencit _ -u6itude of "that's the use -- we cannot
protect Prance and why should we wor:: for the United States?" This antagonizes
the American Congress who threaten to cut FFrench aid unless they do their
share. Another group is the 11Toover-raft followers that advocate pulling
U. S. forces oat of Europe and relying on air power to protect the U. S. and
and deter the Russians. This, of course, antagonizes the European allies.
Further there is the European feeling; that they cannot support large armies
while Germany can. They logically worry that if Russia is dealt with then
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
 Approved Forapelease 2006/03/137_ CIA-RDP80B016 68001000160057-4
Germany will conquer them by default. The reaction of European neutra^ity
to American isolationism and vice versa could get out of control and destroy
NATO or the very cost of the NATO Defense Program could destroy J. S. :ind
European economy.
There Another System?
The border defense alliance system is the only defense against agt7ression
that we know in Western Civilization. However, it is possible that another
system could be developed by using marts of programs developed b%= two
famous Asiatic leaders. The first is the military organization of GenYhis
Khan, and the second is the passive resistance of Mohatma. Gandhi. Gen.~his
Khan's conquests were carried out by his "flying Squadron"" which was a force
of 109000 well-trained and disciplined horsemen. After the conquest of an
area, rather than establish border defenses, the Mongols kept their squadrons
in strategic camps or even back in the heartland of the Gobi Desert. -=-ien
an area under the jurisdiction of the i?ioni,ols was attacked, the squadrons
would retailiate against the homeland of the "aggressor" nation rather than
meet the larger invading forces; thong as the invaders retreated to protect
their on nation. the Mongols would fight them at a plat; and. time of their
choosing.
This system was also used in the administration of conquered lands.
There were no permanently stationed Mongol occupation troops but ambassadors,
tax collectors and messengers went throughout Asia unescorted. If anything
happened to these officials, the squadrons or parts thereof would move out
of their bases and devastate the area in which the Khan's officials were
interfered with. The result of this policy was that the conquered Eoales
acted as protectors of the atents of the Khan since they knew the results
of any ""insult" to the khan.
. Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
 Approved For Release 2006/03/17: CIA-RDP80B01676RO!01000160057-4
This Mongol System was beaten by the development of defensive weapons
which meant that cities could protect themselves, and the Khan could no longer
rule large areas with his strategic "flying squadrons." This is noted in
Kirchner's "An Outline History of Russia" where he states that after nearly
250 years of Mongol rule in Russia "the introduction of latest artillery,
ever since considered a weapon of prime importance to the Russian Army, did
much to move the balance (against the Mongols) in Moscow!s favor." The
question is: Could the Khan today outflank or fly over Russian artillery?
The second Asiatic policy was that of Gandhi in India who, like the
Khan, did not resist the initial invasion but rather than retaliating as
the Khan did, Gandhi used passive resistance to make the occupation more
difficult than it was worth. Perhaps the West could develop a policy from
the principles taught by these two men.
III. A Passive Defense Retaliation Alliance
This system would be developed around three types of forces:
1. National Security Forces.
2. Alliance Strategic Area Defense Forces.
3. Alliance Retaliation -:3'orces.
This concept is based on the premise that the present day defense of
vulnerable areas results in the d3sruction of those areas, as well as their
defending forces which are the "cream" of the alliance armies. This new
concept would allow the alliance to throw all of its might against the
territory of the aggressor rather than dissipating it in defense within the
territory of the defending nation. These vulnerable areas would be declared
"open areas", and there would be no need for an aggressor to launch an atomic
attack on large industrial facilities and cities within that area. The
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
 Approved Faelease 2006/03/'7: CIA-RDP80B016~iGR 001000160057-4
resulting retaliation against the aggressor would act as a deterrent to
aggression., and the heartland of the alliance would be flprotectedtt from un-
necessary destruction. As Genghis Khan foresaw, the troops that invaded his
territory would have to retreat after the destruction of their home ba:;es
or would fall easy prey to a subsequent attack.
The following is a description of possible NATO, etc. forces:
A. National Security Forces.
Each nation in the alliance would maintain national security forces
to protect the internal security of the nation and to defend the nation against
any attack short of organized aggression by another nation. The security
forces would be much smaller than the present-day national standing armies
and would not be equipped with heavy weapons. Such forces would be hihly
trained to act as national police in time of peace and saboteurs in event ol
war. When an allied nation was invaded, these forces would not resist the
attack but in accordance with highly developed plans., would cripple the
economy of their nation. Rather than destroy whole cities,, factories and
houses, they would remove or destroy key coriunication links, machines and
facilities the moment their borders were crossed. They could then either
leave these areas ar!d join other alliance forces (below) or go underground
according to plan in. order t,) maintain the neutralization of the economy of
their nation as long as the aggressor remained in occupation.
In todayes situation, it would take the Russians at least a year or
two to restore the complicated key machines and facilities in Europe.
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
 Approved For Release 2006/03/176: CIA-RDP80B01676R 1000160057-4
B. Alliance Strategic Area Defense Forces.
The alliance would determine what areas were strategic using
the test of what areas were the production heart of the alliance (U. S.,
Japan, etc.), and what areas were strategic retaliation bases (North Africa,
etc,). A further test of a "strategic area" would be the defensibility of
that area.
The alliance would maintain land, sea and air forces very much
like the present NATO forces to defend the strategic area. These NATO
forces then would not be lost or nearly destroyed in a Dunkirk type action
if Europe fell, but would be where they were least vulnerable and could
best protect the production and retaliation bases necessary to take the
fight to the aggressor's homeland.
C. Alliance Retaliation Forces.
The alliance would maintain in strategic areas throughout the
world land, sea and air forces for an attack on the aggressor -- forces
which could hit the aggressor at places ch-,3en by the alliance rather than
at placE--s ithr re the aggressor chooses to strike. These forces would be of
various kinds. Some would act immediately. others in the early stages of
the war after the first raiders had destro ad the enemy's communication,
and still others when joined by elements of thu national security forces
and strategic area defense forces could be used for the knock-out blow
against the aggressor.
IV. Results
if this system could be developed it would mean that if Russia invaded
,Europe and were defeated, the economy o :urope, although hurt by Russian
occupat.on, would not be destroyed as it was in the last war. Many people
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4
 Approved For Rase 2006/03/17 : %1A-RDP80B01676RQ 1000160057-4
would be harmed and killed by the occupation but not as many as wo"v11 die
from an atomic assault by the Russians on 'Europe. On the other hand, thkw
Russian nation would be hurt to a much greater extent.
If Russia was faced by such an alliance, she would find that her first
attack would be not across the level German plain, but through Suez o
North Africa and across the Far East in an attempt to reach our fords in
strategic strongholds; or she might have to be sure she could quickl,, take 1?}e
German redoubt area as well as well-defended areas somewhere in the 'acif'ifs,
She would be faced with attacking such areas in exchange for retaliation
blows against Moscow and the heart of Russian-industry. Even Hitler would
not have traded the destruction of Bengasi for the destruction of the Ruhr
and Berlin.
In addition, this system would make it even more clear that the y/est
is not proposing the rearming of Germany and Japan per se, but rather the
integration of their forces into an alliance to discourage future aggression,
Finally, if desirable, it would be relatively easy to switch over
from this alliance system to a U. N. Police Force which would include all
nations.
Paul T. Smock
Approved For Release 2006/03/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R001000160057-4