ess of this opposition the United States needed a way to try to curtailthe expansion of communism in Eastern Europe. This way to curtail communism and secure freegovernments was NATO. The United States and the other free countries couldnt do anything inthe UN because of the constant stalemate by the Soviet Union. Still, some didnt think that thiswas any of the United States business. To Americans the Treaty was presented less as analliance than as a cultural and economic association, fulfilling all requirements of the UnitedNations.5 This explains the reason why some were quick to look down upon NATO. Peoplesaw it as another UN and that would just be a waste of United States time and money. For those,in the beginning, who were for the Treaty it was easy to justify why. They(State Dept.) were todeter aggression by facing a potential aggressor with a firm US commitment to Western Europe,which - had it existed in 1917 or 1939 - might have prevented two world wars.6 These were thewords that made those who were for the Treaty so confident and so hopeful that this Treatywould be passed. Some of those against the Treaty were such prominent persons as SenatorRobert A. Taft and Henry A. Wallace. Taft was quoted as making such comments as, Let usbegin to make our own foreign policy, instead of letting Moscow make it for us.7 and it is withgreat regret that I have come to my conclusion, but I have come to it because I think the pactcarries with it an obligation to assist in arming, at our expense, the nations of Western Europe,because with that obligation I believe it will promote war in the world rather than peace, andbecause I think that with the arms plan it is wholly contrary to the spirit of the obligations weassumed in the United Nations Charter.8 From the statement of the Honorable Mr. Taft we seethat he was a die-hard isolationist fan as were many of those opposed to the Treaty. Mr. Wallaceoffers us another view of the oppos...
