ship and collaboration between the United States and the Soviet Union as the cornerstone for peace. If this Senate committee and the Congress is to act in the interests of the people and peace, then you must reject this arms aid bill because it is destructive of the security and welfare of the American people and contributes only to bankruptcy and ruinous war. The advocates of this legislation and an anti-Communist axis are not so original. Such a program has been historically repudiated and defeated by the democratic peoples of the world. This program which is conceived and engineered in the pattern of Hitler will result in an inglorious end. We are confident that the American people in unison with ever-advancing peace forces of all lands are determined to struggle for peace. The will of the great majority of peace-loving humanity for peace will prevail. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REVISED MILITARY AID BILL (H. R. 5895) (Statement of Frederick J. Libby, executive secretary of the National Council for Prevention of War, Washington, D. C., submitted for inclusion in the hearings of the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services, August 19, 1949) Mr. Chairman and members of the two Senate committees, I appreciate Senator Connally's invitation to offer a statement for inclusion in the record of these hearings, in lieu of testifying as I did before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on August 5. I wish only to raise a few questions. I. WHAT IS THIS AID FOR? This fundamental question, after all the discussion, has had no convincing answer. Chairman Kee says, as Secretary Acheson said in substance, that its purpose is to prevent Russian aggression in western Europe. But, as Brig. Gen. Bonner Fellers, retired, reminded the House committee, even if we equip 60 western European divisions at a cost of $24,000,000,000, they cannot be expected to withstand the assault of 500 divisions, which Russia and her satellites can readily mobilize. One administration witness said that its purpose is psychological. We must relieve French investors of the fear of Russian aggression, which is preventing them from cooperating with us in expanding European industry under the Marshall plan. But against the undeniable fact that Russia can overrun western Europe clear to the Pyrenees in 60 days, whether we supply this military aid or not, shall we not be merely creating another false sense of security such as the French felt behind their Maginot line? Another explanation that has been offered us is that this military aid bill is tangible evidence, a token, of our ultimate purpose to cooperate fully in the rearmament of western Europe against Russia. But again we must ask, how could the United States make the rearmament of western Europe's land armies adequate and effective against the Russian army? Since $24,000,000,000 will equip only 60 divisions, of how vast a sum is the billion dollars of this bill intended to be a token? A prominent Senator has declared that our choice is between "our guns and our sons." This is nothing but a rewording of the slogan "aid short of war," which eased us into full participation in World War II. "Our guns and our sons" is undoubtedly implicit in the bill if it is carried through to its logical end. So absurd does our Government's explanation of the purpose of this bill seem to Walter Lippmann that on August 4 he came forward with a brand new answer to our question. He declared categorically that the public is being misled in thinking that its purpose is to guard western Europe against Russia; that it is aimed to "contain" a rearmed Germany. The passage reads in part: * * "The true case for European rearmament is one that has not yet been stated publicly. It is that considerably larger forces are needed in France in order to prepare for a German settlement. When the occupying armies withdraw (from Germany) *, it is essential to the peace of Europe that there should exist a French Army sufficiently large to enforce the German treaty and to contain the German military revival. The program makes no sense if it is supposed to create ground armies in a race with the Red army." * * * Mr. Chairman, in the light of these conflicting interpretations of the far-reaching policy represented in this bill, would it not be a good idea for your committee to postpone action on it until you have explained to the American people what it is for, after first agreeing on an answer among yourselves? 2. WHAT WILL THE REARMAMENT OF WESTERN EUROPE CONTRIBUTE TO PEACE? This bill is being offered to the American people as a peace measure, as were the North Atlantic Pact and the Truman doctrine. The theory underlying this whole policy is that peace flows from a preponderance of military power. Let us examine this strange theory of peace. It is strange, and yet not new. Hitler had it, and Napoleon before him, and many others before Napoleon. We and our allies are to be so strong that no nation or combination of nations will dare attack us. As a writer in the Wall Street Journal of July 27 put it : "We are to preserve the peace by turning the world into an armed camp. We preserve it by announcing to our enemy that we hate him, despise him and fear him, and that we intend to build up sufficient force to crush him if need be. That 'if need be' is supposed to allay him; we are peaceloving, and neither we nor any of our allies whom we arm would hurt anybody." History, of course, shows that this pleasant theory has never worked. It didn't bring peace to Hitler's Europe. It exiled Napoleon to St. Helena. For it always has led to an arms race. Nations resent their subordinate and actually helpless position. Enemies and friends alike chafe under the domination of a great power. If the truth were known, we are acquiring no friends by our recently consummated military alliance under the North Atlantic Pact, while we strengthen our enemies. Mr. Chairman, the rearmament of western Europe will contribute nothing to peace. On the contrary, it will bring the world closer to war. Not until you and the Executive create an atmosphere of confidence and understanding between Russia and ourselves, and we are leading nations toward general disarmament instead of rearmament, shall we be able to believe that we are on the road to peace. 3. WHAT FUTURE DOES THE MILITARY AID PROGRAM OFFER GERMANY? "Security for western Europe" has been spoken of constantly as the aim of this bill. Analyze the question more closely, however, country by country, from Norway in the north to Italy in the south, and you will realize that the word "security" is dangerously inapplicable. There is no security in this rearmament program, but increased insecurity for each European nation. We might select any of our European allies as an example, but I believe Germany, which is not yet our ally but is our ward, has the bleakest outlook. If Russia should conclude that we are threatening her safety with advance air bases and ever-tightening encirclement, and should decide to march, don't our military planners intend to make Germany the battleground? Will it not be in Germany that we shall bomb Russia's concentrations of troops and supplies? Will it not be in Germany that we shall bomb the Russian lines of communication in the hope of halting her advance? To destroy one's allies is horrible, but military necessity led General Eisenhower to obliterate parts of Normandy, and military necessity, so far as one can see, will make Germany the no man's land if this bill precipitates a third world war. So the third unanswered question is, What does this military aid program offer to individual countries in Europe, and specifically to Germany? 4. SHOULD NOT AN HONEST-TO-GOODNESS PEACE PROGRAM BE DEVELOPED? The action of the House yesterday in cutting in half this MAP and insisting on a fresh look next year is an encouraging sign. It reflects the prevailing uneasiness and downright dissatisfaction with a foreign policy that offers us not peace but only heightened tension and an ever more costly arms race with Russia. Dr. Archibald MacLeish describes in the August issues of the Atlantic Monthly, under the title "The Conquest of America," how our rivalry with Russia has dominated our foreign policy for the past 4 years. "No proposal could be enacted," he says, "unless it could be demonstrated that the Russians wouldn't like it. Never in the history of the world was one people as completely dominated, intellectually and morally, by another as the people of the United States by the people of Rusisa in the 4 years from 1946 through 1949." * ** Is it necessary, Mr. Chairman, for our great country to be "led by the nose" any longer by the Soviet Union? India's Prime Minister, Pandit Nehru, told a press conference on August 5 that India's refusal to abandon its independence of action by joining one of the power blocs is the result of its "positive" policy of working for world peace, abolition of racial discrimination and of economic exploitation. Are these not America's ideals? Why are we wasting our young strength in picking up the pieces of the British Empire and exhausting our resources in a negative program of trying to block Russia, when the world looks to us for positive peace leadership? In my testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I called attention briefly to the peace program recently published by the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers). The Quakers study the ways of peace just as the Pentagon studies the ways of war. Both are apt to flounder when they venture into the other's field. The Quaker report is entitled "American-Russian Relations, Some Constructive Considerations." Excerpts from it were given front-page space on July 18 in most newspapers. The editorial comments that followed treated the report on the whole favorably, criticizing only two items of the recommended program. At the risk of stretching unduly your kindness, I urge you earnestly to include with my statement a copy of the Quaker report. Many Members of the Senate and House have gone along with our anti-Soviet foreign policy simply because they saw no alternative. This report offers a positive, intelligent, and practical alternative. As such, it merits your study. It does not answer all the questions, but no more does this military aid program. The world wants peace and the fruits of peace. You must help in developing an honest-to-goodness peace program. CONFERENCE ON PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVES TO THE ATLANTIC PACT, New York, N. Y., August 20, 1949. DEAR SENATOR CONNALLY: Close to 900 Americans of standing throughout our country have joined in signing the enclosed statement expressing opposition to President Truman's arms program and urging that you vote against its passage. Enclosed you will find a copy of the statement together with the list of those whose names have been received by us to date. It may be of interest to you that the statement was initiated jointly by nine leaders in American life, acting through the continuations committee of the Conference on Peaceful Alternatives to the Atlantic Pact. These were Miss Emily Greene Balch, honorable chairman of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Dr. Abraham Cronbach, of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio; Rev. Dr. Mark Dawber, Home Missions Council of North America, New York; Prof. Kermit Eby, University of Chicago; Rev. R. Farley Fisher, general secretary, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Washington, D. C.; the Reverend Prof. Halford E. Luccock, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn.; Dr. Albert W. Palmer, former moderator, Congregational Christian Churches, California; Rev. Franklin Sheeder, board of education and publications, Evangelical and Reformed Church, Philadelphia, Pa., and Rev. John B. Thompson, dean of Rockefeller Memorial Chapel, University of Chicago. On behalf of the continuations committee of the Conference on Peaceful Alternatives to the Atlantic Pact, I am transmitting the letter and the list of signers, hoping that you will be responsive to this petition for peace. Sincerely yours, MISS JULE T. BOUCHARD, For the Committee. OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE ARMS APPROPRIATION As citizens who are deeply concerned with the welfare and freedom of America and the peace of the world, we urge you to reject the proposal to send arms to Europe. Nothing could be more tragic for world peace at this time than sending these arms. Nothing will more surely divide the world into two warring camps. We believe that peace is possible: That war between the United States and the Soviet Union is not inevitable; that through conferences and discussions, as at the recent four power Paris conference, differences between our country and the Soviet Union can find a just and honorable solution. In rejecting the idea that war is inevitable and in reiterating our firm conviction that the United States and the Soviet Union can settle their differences through peaceful means, we are confident that we echo the hopes of the vast majority of the American people. It is precisely because we believe in the possibility of peace that we are alarmed at the proposal to send arms to Europe. In the few days that have elapsed since President Truman sent his request to Congress for an arms program for Europe, a dangerous atmosphere of panic and hysteria seems to have been deliberately created. The theory is being spread that the arms appropriation must be passed so that we may muster adequate military forces against the Soviet Union. An arms program such as this will lead to an armaments race which soon will take us into war. Peace has never been preserved by arms-only destroyed. A huge and costly program for the arming of western Europe, underwritten by American money and arms, will add an intolerable burden to the economy of our country and the nations of Europe just at the time when we can least afford it. The American people cannot afford more arms when their own incomes are declining and money is being denied needed social services and welfares; when the taxes that pay for the cold war are already biting deeply into the average American's income. It is unthinkable that when the needs of the world are for economic survival, for food, clothing, shelter, that this money should be spent on arms. To force upon the nations of western Europe the staggering burden of an armaments race threatens them with an impossible burden at the very time when they are concerned with the prevention of economic catastrophe. There is a road to peace that is not paved with arms. From every side there is convincing evidence that continued negotiation to settle outstanding differences between east and west, will prove more and more fruitful. The recent special report of the American Friends Service Committee has pointed the way, as has every major religious pronouncement these last few months. It lies through reliance on the UN for mediation and conciliation, through working for peace rather than preparing for war, through increasing trade with Russia and Eastern Europe. The United States must take that road to peace. But the arms program and the alarmist war atmosphere now being developed to justify this program will nullify any efforts to break down the barriers between east and west through continued peaceful negotiations. We urge upon you that you cast your vote against the arms program and thus translate into action the peaceful desires of the American people instead of following the lead of those who would further divide the world through an armaments race. [List of names omitted.] WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, Senator TOM CONNALLY, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, DEAR SENATOR CONNALLY: I wish to make known to you the opposition of our organization to the forming of military alliances by the United States, and the corollary-our opposition to implementation of such an alliance as the North Atlantic Treaty through the proposed arms assistance. We regard such a program as detrimental to our ultimate aim, and yours, of securing the peace. We see only inconsistency in giving lip service to the principle of disarmament, while we lead an arms race by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for rearmament. The Women's International League believes that the United States should take the lead in urging all nations to entrust the United Nations with a disarmament program. This is the basic alternative to fear of war, which tends to lead to war itself. We urge your joint committee, as it begins executive sessions, to give the most careful consideration to whether, and in what degree, the North Atlantic Treaty ought to be implemented by arms aid. We believe that both Houses of Congress should defer floor action on the administration's request for nearly 11⁄2 billion dollars for military assistance until next session. We believe the following considerations should weigh heavily with you: 1. As the pressure for adjournment mounts, so will the difficulty increase of giving adequate time to hearings on authorization and appropriation and to floor debate. 2. Decisions of this far-reaching importance should not be made while alterations to the House and Senate Chambers prevent the public from hearing any of the debate. 3. There has been almost no public debate on this issue, because very little specific information has been released to the public. 4. The effect of this program on our own economic and political life should receive full consideration. 5. Above all, implementation of this program would hamper disarmament discussions, which should be proposed to the next session of the UN General Assembly. Cordially yours, Mrs. ALEXANDER STEWART, President, United States Section. STATEMENT OF MISS MABEL VERNON, DIRECTOR PEOPLES MANDATE COMMITTEE THE MILITARY-ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Peoples Mandate Committee is opposed to the measure now before the Foreign Relations Committee authorizing the President to furnish military assistance to the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and to several other countries. We understand the proposed legislation is based on the belief that armaments will produce a sense of security in the nations receiving them and that they will advance the economic recovery which is essential to international peace. The events of history show that armaments do not create a sense of security, but produce fear in everybody. Fear inevitably causes suspicion and hatred between peoples, thus increasing the danger of war. The makers of the foreign policies of our country are undoubtedly seeking deterrents to war, but we believe they are misguided when they put their trust in armaments. According to all the proofs of history arms are not deterrents but incentives to conflict. Contained in the proposed legislation is the statement "Congress recognizes that economic recovery is essential to international peace." In dealing with the economic recovery of western Europe attention must be paid to the statement of respected economists that under present conditions in western European nations it is impossible to increase both civilian and military production. A program of military production, they say, would paralyze a civilian production that is already far from sufficient and set back the economic recovery which is absolutely essential to peace. It is conceded such a set-back would be a first-rate aid to the advance of communism. If the military-assistance program is part of the effort to contain communism, it is poorly devised. The funds of the United States Government are not unlimited. It would therefore seem intelligent in the present situation to devote all the funds now proposed for the rearmament of western Europe to the economic reconstruction of those nations. The Peoples Mandate Committee is opposed to the proposed military-assistance program because it belongs to the old system of trying to keep the peace through alliances and armaments. This old system is thoroughly discredited. It has not worked in the past and it will not work now. Peace is not to be won in that way. The road to international peace and security is pointed out in Senate Resolution 239, Eightieth Congress, which calls for maximum American efforts to obtain agreements among United Nations members upon universal regulation and reduction of armaments under adequate and dependable guaranty against violation. The Foreign Relations Committee can make a great contribution to world peace by taking action now toward the immediate carrying of this recommendation made by the Senate over a year ago. We respectfully urge the Foreign Relations Committee to request the administration to initiate and work for this program in the session of the United Nations General Assembly convening at Lake Success on September 20. MABEL VERNON, Director, Peoples Mandate Committee. X |