Thank you very much for your 2 manuscripts and accompanying letter and give my very best greetings to your wife whom, of course, I remember very well from good old days.

When I received your handwritten manuscript I sent it to the editor of the GERMAN-AMERICAN who, however – returned it. It was indeed difficult to read it and to use it for a magazine with a very limited space. In the meantime I have received your English typewritten translation. My first impression is that the whole speech remains thoroughly abstract and in the realm of moral demands. You do not give a real analysis of the social cause of the present world situation. You always say that something must be done but you never say which forces could do it and in which way. You do not say how mass unemployment can be avoided and how any attempt to do so can be maintained against the reactionary forces in the democratic countries. You speak of primary decency but do not answer the question how the private interests can be induced to use it in their political and economic dealings. You emphasize very much individuality but do not show how individuality can be maintained in that of collectivism without which planning for the masses is not possible. There are many church-statements of social democratic idealists who demand everything which is good in all different systems and who do not show how this synthesis is logically and politically possible. This is my first criticism.

The second criticism refers to the idea of education. Who shall reeducate the German teachers and clergymen? Where are the Americans who could do it? And even if you could find some of them is not the situation of the victor the worst imaginable for educational purposes? All experts in matters of propaganda assure us that propaganda does not work any more in countries which were exposed to its most vigorous type for more than 10 years and – above all – without social security no education has any chance. It will be rejected with utter cynicism.

My third criticism to the description of Germany: I think your descriptions is seen with the eyes with Mrrs. v. Sittard and Foerster. In many ways empirical Germany was more liberal than even pre-war America. For instance, a point you do not see: liberal theology controlled many of the important faculties. If there was imperialism before 1914 it was not the conservatists and Junkers who wanted it. They represented a Prussian provincialism. But it were West German big business and South German democratic politicians.

This is my basic criticism of your paper. I think all our post-war programs must be very concrete, must keep away from old fashioned liberal ideologies and must show a better understanding of the German and the world situation than the war propaganda can do. I am sorry that my reactions is not more positive but I suppose that you prefer a frank statement of my opinion.