(AND RELATED AGENCIES) HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 8385 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MUTUAL SECURITY 42551 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1959 The committee met at 10:45 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1223, Senate Office Building, Hon. Carl Hayden, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Chairman Hayden, Senators Ellender, Robertson, Holland, Stennis, Monroney, McGee, Saltonstall, Young, Dworshak, Kuchel, Hruska, and Allott. MUTUAL SECURITY MILITARY ASSISTANCE-NATO STATEMENT OF GEN. LAURIS NORSTAD, SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, EUROPE, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. GEN. THOMAS W. DUNN, U.S.A., SHAPE; COL. LELAND G. CAGWIN, U.S.A., SHAPE; LT. COL. B. E. HUFFMAN, HEADQUARTERS, EUCOM, REPRESENTING DOD; MAJ. GEN. JOHN S. GUTHRIE, DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN REGION, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; AND JOHN M. MULLEN, EUROPEAN REGION, ISA BUDGET ESTIMATE Chairman HAYDEN. The committee will be in order. The committee is pleased to have as its witness this morning Gen. Lauris Norstad, supreme Allied commander, Europe. The budget estimate for mutual security for fiscal year 1960 is in the amount of $3,936 million, of which $1,600 million is for military assistance. The larger share of this $1,600 million is for the European and NATO areas. General NORSTAD. Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure and privilege to appear again before this committee. I think for some reason or another I missed the opportunity last year. The last time I appeared before you was 2 years ago. I am pleased to be here again and to discuss with you some of the broad aspects of the general military situation as they exist today throughout NATO Europe. In past appearances it has been agreeable to the committee that I should speak on a broad basis, giving the background to the military requirements and trying to assist in bringing the committee's knowledge of the actual military situation in NATO up to date. I would propose to follow that line again this morning, if that is agreeable. 501 1 Chairman HAYDEN. That was very satisfactory before. General NORSTAD. I will submit to the committee a very short and general statement which can be used as you see fit. (The statement referred to follows:) Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today; it is always a privilege to meet with you. Ten years ago this spring the original 12 NATO nations signed the Atlantic Treaty, stating their high resolve "to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security." You will recall that this unprecedented peacetime action was the result of a clear and dangerous Soviet threat to the peace and security of the free world. The Soviet armies-never demobilized at the end of World War II-were at the height of their power. By 1949, Czechoslovakia had been seized and Berlin was under bitter blockade. In the aftermath of the war, many of the Western European countries were weak and uncertain. The climate was one of fear, even in some cases of despair. To many, war seemed inevitable, the danger appeared imminent. NATO's 10th anniversary, celebrated with pride and enthusiasm by the 15 nations who now form the alliance, has served to underline some of the changes that NATO has brought about. A very real defensive strength has been created. The Western European nations, regaining both confidence and hope, have been able to pursue their peaceful destinies behind this strength. In 10 years, no foot of NATO soil has fallen to aggression. In the creation of NATO strength the U.S. military assistance program has played a part in which Americans can take justifiable pride. In order to see this MAP contribution in proper prospective, I would like first of all to discuss in broad terms the foundation of our policy, the basis of our military planning. The basic objective is the prevention of war. There are two major elements of the deterrent-the strategic retaliatory forces, which are largely outside my command, and the forces of the Allied Command, Europe, which man the forward outposts of our defense. The responsibility of the strategic retaliatory forces lies in the area of preventing deliberate, all-out war. In contemplating any action which might lead to a major involvement, an aggressor must consider the existence, the great destructive power, of these strategic forces. When considered in these terms, a deliberate decision to provoke an all-out war becomes most improbable. The cost to the aggressor remains too high. The prevention of war is also, and equally, the concern of the NATO shield forces. Guarding as they do the frontlines of freedom in Europe, it is their task to prevent an incident from occurring-whether local probing operation or accidental flareup. If need be, they must be prepared to defend the people and territories of NATO's forward areas. They must be able to force a pause in the continuity of an action that has started. It is in this pause that the aggressor must be forced to make a conscious decision, whether to go to war or not. And, in making that decision, he must be made fully aware of the total cost of his action. He must consider the total price he would have to pay if he were to continue the action and so bring into operation the full weight of all elements of the deterrent. The possibility of war must always be reckoned with. Therefore, it is axiomatic that, should the two elements of the deterrent fail in preventing war, the forces that compose these elements must have an adequate combat capability. Their ability to defend as well as to deter stems in part from their strength, their training, and the weapons they possess. But it also stems from something that has been the spirit of NATO from the start: the clear will and determination of our people to preserve our freedom. The soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Command, Europe-the men who man the shield-must have the weapons and equipment necessary to make them effective. All of our planning is based on the recognition of this factthat to achieve adequate strength with forces on a truly minimal basis, weapons of maximum effectiveness are needed. In our program of modernization, great dependence is placed on MAP for a central reason: the missiles of many types and capabilities that are the core of the program are largely produced in the United States. European production is making a greater and greater contribution to European needs. But for the present, the family of well-known American missiles-Corporal. Honest John, and Nike for example-provide an important part of our strength. By the end of 1959, more than 30 units of these types will have been placed in the combat forces which 10 NATO countries provide to the alliance. This represents only a segment of what MAP does to help keep NATO strong. Advanced aircraft and electronic items, tanks and antisubmarine equipment are some of the material for which the European nations look to us to supplement the manpower and facilities and bases which they provide. While speaking of new weapons, it is well to recall the statement made by the NATO heads of government when they met in Paris in 1957: "Soviet leaders, while preventing a general disarmament agreement, have made it clear that the most modern and destructive weapons, including missiles of all kinds, are being introduced in the Soviet armed forces. In the Soviet view, all European nations except the U.S.S.R. should, without waiting for general disarmament, renounce nuclear weapons and missiles and rely on arms of the preatomic age. "As long as the Soviet Union persists in this attitude, we have no alternative but to remain vigilant and to look to our defense. We are therefore resolved to achieve the most effective pattern of NATO military defensive strength, taking into account the most recent developments in weapons and techniques. "To this end, NATO has decided to establish stocks of nuclear warheads which will be readily available for the defense of the alliance in case of need." I have stressed the fact that NATO military strategy relies on both spirit and strength. NATO policy not so backed would soon become meaningless. Consider for a moment where we would stand if we did not have that strength in being. In recent months the Soviet threat, which some may have thought had been diverted and rechanneled, has again focused on Western Europe. Soviet action in attempting to use again the brave people of Berlin as pawns in a power move has served as a sharp reminder that Western Europe remains a prized objective. You remember the spirited and unanimous response of the North Atlantic Council to that action last December. After examining the Berlin question, the Council declared that "it considers that the denunciation by the Soviet Union of the interallied agreements on Berlin can in no way deprive the other parties of their rights or relieve the Soviet Union of its obligations. Such methods destroy the mutual confidence between nations which is one of the foundations of peace." I am sure you will agree that this response was possible because of the confident knowledge of the Council that its actions were backed by the strength, moral and miiltary, of the 15 nations of the alliance. To the Soviet, probing ever for weakness, strength such as NATO's is the ultimate sin. By diplomatic note and violent propaganda attack they have recently threatened several NATO nations. These threats have served only to strengthen the conviction of these voluntary subscribers to a pact which has for its purpose the preservation of peace in freedom and in honor. A part of the response of the Greek Government is well worth quoting here: "Without ignoring either the size or means of the Soviet Union, without provoking and confirming our good intentions, it is necessary for us to declare that statements such as the recent ones in Tirana and Korytsa which apparently aim at intimidating the Greek people will not disturb our coolmindedness. Under whatever circumstances, as was the case in the past, the lawful and responsible leadership of Greece will in every instance do what the dignity and interest of our small but independent and sovereign country demands." When small countries can stand up to the forces of tyranny and aggression in this manner, and speak with the voice of freedom, it is because of their sure and proud knowledge that they share the total strength of the alliance. This strength, which the United States has done so much to create, will continue to require, from all of NATO, work and dedication and sacrifice. The surest guideline into NATO's second decade is that we can and must keep our strength so long as there is a threat to our freedom. NATO AN ACCEPTED FACT OF LIFE General NORSTAD. I have just come within the last 3 days from a meeting of the Atlantic Congress in London where many Members of the U.S. Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, were present as delegates. The occasion was just one of many, although it was something of a climax, marking the 10th anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. |