-3-                             
 
                                                            
 
 
difficult. I thought, however, that if a means could be found to insulate   
Russia on the one hand, Germany on the other and give a sense of economic,   
political and military security to the Baltic States, Poland and the Central   
European countries, we might achieve a more durable peace. Economic and   
political councils would be necessary; customs barriers must not be allowed   
to stifle the economy of these countries.I did not, however, mean that there   
should be a United States of Europe but a system whereby Europe could be   
protected from the fear of Russia, Russia from the fear of Germany and the   
 smaller countries from the fear of these two great powers. 
 
                                                            
 
 
I pointed out that the foregoing did not apply to our attitude toward the   
Pacific, that here our feelings were dee}ly aroused and, though, it, might   
seem unchristian to Dr. Salazar, we were determined to crush Japan. Here Dr.   
Salazar interposed to say that this depends upon the means at our disposal.   
I replied that we would deal with Japan in our own geod time and, though I   
was no military expert, I thought we would finish with Europe first. We had   
now five million men under arms and by the end of next year we would have   
                        ten million.                        
 
                                                            
 
 
In this relation I mentioned that the present steel production of the United   
States is now 85,000,000 tons a year as against 71,000,000 tons for the   
whole of the Axis and Axis controlled countries. Dr. Salazar at once asked   
with a smile why it is if our steel production is so enormous, we can not  
spare a little for the Portugal and I replied that we needed a good deal to   
                   shoot at the Japanese.                   
 
                                                            
 
 
I recalled a reference made in our conversation a year ago to the difference   
between Hitlerism and Nazism. I said, as I remembered it, that Dr. Salazar   
had then made a distinction between the two. Dr. Salazar replied that the   
question arose in connection with the Atlantic Charter. This states in the   
preamble that the United Nations will not interfere with the Internal regime   
of countries, while in the body of the Charter it is stated that Nazism must   
be crushed. Was this a contradiction or did he not understand this point?   
Was it, only Hitlerism that we were determined to crush? I replied that we   
certainly did intend to crush Hitlerism and again referred to my inquiry   
    regarding the possible distinction between the two.     
 
                                                            
 
 
Dr. Salazar said that this was very difficult to define. Nazism as a   
political and social philosophy was largely, but not altogether, the   
creation of Hitler. It had borrowed many features of Fascism and contained   
Socialist principles and had some points in common with Communism. Though   
the political philosophy of Portugal was remote from that of the Fascist and   
Nazi States, they had some points in common as they had with other European   
States. Hitler had added to these philosophies that of revenge, conquest,   
and hegemony. Dr. Salazar felt it was these international features of Nazism   
which were the preoccupation of other countries, not Just the basic internal   
policy which, as he had pointed out, were shared to some extent by other   
States. Had Nazism been merely confined to the internal features of Its   
philosophy, the feeling of antipathy for Nazism would not,  
he believed, have arisen. To be sure, there would always have  
een some criticism on materialistic or other grounds. Althou