( 125 ) 



many believe that the United States will be called on to feed 

 large numbers of distressed peoples after the war. 



That food is a weapon of war is beyond doubt. It has been 

 so treated by warring nations since time immemorial. Our 

 Lend-Lease policy is a departure from the time-honored 

 method of transferring food by payment at the time of pur- 

 chase. 



The use of food as a weapon of war and as a tool for main- 

 taining peace on the Lend-Lease basis raises questions with 

 broad implications in the minds of some persons. They can- 

 not understand why billions of dollars' worth of food should 

 be transferred from one country to another without mone- 

 tary remuneration or a promise to pay. Consequently Lend- 

 Lease has been challenged as a "Lady Bountiful," "Santa 

 Glaus/' "Solomon" type of international philanthropy. In 

 one respect this is true ; we are giving away food and are not 

 being reimbursed. During World War I we did not deliber- 

 ately give food away; we loaned money to the Allies and 

 they purchased foods of their own choosing and paid on the 

 dotted line with the borrowed money. Therefore, at the time 

 of purchase we were reimbursed. But they did not pay back 

 the money they borrowed from someone else. 



Some folks think that after this war the food given away 

 under Lend-Lease will be paid for. Whether it be World 

 War I or II food, the probability of reimbursement is small. 



In time of peace it is difficult to invest in a productive en- 

 terprise and then later to collect on the interest and princi- 

 pal. It is practically impossible to invest in destruction and 

 expect to collect the interest and principal. What you collect 

 is what you can get; it never has been much, and is likely 

 to be less before it is more. Consequently the question of 

 final payment should not be the criterion on which the doubt- 

 ing Thomases challenge the Lend-Lease program. 



Food is one of our effective weapons of war, just as im- 



