Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. The general assembly, in May 1951, took the following action : "We stand in the danger of so overestimating the effectiveness of military power as the means of combating communism that we will exhaust the resources available to provide creative cures, fasten upon America the blight of a military state, encourage the dangers of armament competition, and place on our economy the difficult task of maintaining millions of men in boring and wasteful periods of suspended activity. “While acknowledging the necessity in this day for adequate military preparation consistent with our responsibilities under the United Nations, we would remind the church of our repeated opposition to permanent conscription, and commend a constant scrutiny of our military development program by competent civilians. "The church must continually put forward those curative and creative plans, which are inherent in the Christian faith, and which are the only final answer to the proposals of communism." Protestant Episcopal Church No official action on UMT. Reformed Church in America No official action on UMT. Rumanian Orthodox Episcopate in America No information available. Russian Orthodox Church in America No information available. Seventh Day Baptists, General Conference Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Church No information available. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America United Lutheran Church in America The board of social missions, on December 7, 1951, adopted a statement opposing UMT. The full text of this statement follows: "In the present critical international situation, the United States has deemed it necessary to rearm in order that it might be able to negotiate with the Communist powers from a position of comparable strength. Also in the event of further aggression the United States having rearmed would be able to fulfill its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. To this end the selective-service law was extended and is known as Public Law 51. The Eightysecond Congress named this the Universal Military Training and Service Act. "In continuing the draft the Congress of the United States provided for a new program of universal military training. Congressional approval of the broad outline for a UMT program drawn up by the National Security Training Commission is necessary before it can be put ito effect. The Congress must act within 45 legislative days after it reconvenes in January. "The board of social missions, on November 13, 1947, recorded its opposition to the then pending congressional bill H. R. 4278 on UMT for the following reasons: (a) that it will not contribute to the real defense of our country, (b) that the exorbitant cost could better be used for other means of national defense, and (c) that it is contrary to the best interests of democracy. "It is important now to examine the new proposals submitted to the Eightysecond Congress and make recommendaions on them to the people of our church. To this end we present the following judgments for the guidance of the church. "1. We believe that at the governmental level the best hope for peace lies in strengthening the United Nations as an instrument of collective security and of creative development in world health, agricultural and industrial life, and moral and political strength. "2. We recognize that in the present world situation the United States has decided to rearm in order that measures of collective security may be undertaken by the United Nations. Some form of draft appears to be necessary to achieve that end. "3. We are convinced that universal military training is not the best way to advance the above policies. "(a) The decision to raise and maintain standing military forces of from 31⁄2 to 4 million men will make it impossible to undertake UMT on anything more than a token basis. All available young men will be required for the regular services. Each of the armed services is planning its UMT program on the basis of one instructor to every two trainees. Again an existing manpower shortage will be complicated by the initiation of this program. In a time of shortages of building materials and military material, UMT will create a further drain for its new facilities. “(b) The training program outlined by the National Security Training Commission continually emphasizes that the 6 months of UMT can only serve as an orientation period for military life, inculcate the sense of responsible citizenship, and lay the "elementary" basis for further detailed training in the Reserves. In itself it will be ineffective as a strictly military measure and depends upon its completion in the Reserves for its justification. However, no effective Reserve program is in existence, and Congress is still struggling with legislation in that regard. It is unwise to depend for long-range military power upon a program still to be formulated and enacted. "(c) The history of permanent universal military training in other countries (i. e., Germany in World Wars I and II, Japan and France in World War II) indicates that this system is no guarantee of military victory. The military asks for it because it will provide them with a sustained source of manpower without the necessity for justifying its need as in the case of the selective service feature of the present law which must be renewed by Congress. Admittedly, the fluctuations in public sentiment that forced the rapid demobilization of our Armed Forces after World War II made the formulation and execution of national policy very difficult. Nevertheless, we believe a more vital and dynamic national policy will be maintained if it has to be regularly referred to Congress for action. We prefer the calculated risk of a failure of public and congressional responsibility to the dangers of military bureaucracy. 66 "(d) Another doubt persists in our minds. Will the training given in UMT and the Reserves provide us with militarily efficient forces? Some skills will be learned but will these skills be outmoded by technical developments? We note that some military experts disapprove of UMT because it will not produce a military "force-in-being." "4. Above all, as Christians, we are opposed to a permanent system of universal military training because it tends to fasten upon the Nation a militaristic spirit that would, in our judgment, undermine our democratic and moral standards. “(a) The Commission views the adoption of UMT as important in that it emphasizes to all young men that 'armed conflict * * * has ever been endemic in the world.' In the judgment of the Commission, 'Too often their early education has failed to impart to them a clear awareness of their implicit obligation to bear arms, to pledge their lives to duty and country. Its sudden revelation as a hard fact in time of crisis has caused painful psychological shocks which have often distorted the true relationship of the citizen to the community. This denial to our sons of the facts of their world, and the proper interpretation of those facts, has been short-sighted and unjust in the extreme, for it has too often left them unprepared, in military skills and mental outlook, to face the most basic of human challenges.' The implication seems clear that UMT is to accustom our youth to the view that war is 'endemic' or inevitable and enduring. We must recognize the inevitability of international disagreements and that our generation faces a long period of international tension. However, that does not mean that war is ‘endemic.' The experience of other nations has been that universal military training results in the establishment of a military clique in Government and social life that has often proved subversive of democratic values. "(b) The Commission stresses that the moral welfare of the trainees could be protected and enhanced by proper leadership and by (1) opportunities for religious worship, (2) a character guidance program, and (3) an information and educational program. We are not impressed with the present programs of this type in the Armed Forces though they have been improved over the years. We do not believe that, in a coerced military situation, it is possible to inculcate character or religious values as effectively as in a voluntary situation. "(c) The subjection of the vast majority of the young men of the Nation to a 6 months' period of military training and 71⁄2 years of involvement in the Reserve program would seriously disrupt their family ties at an important period. It would tend to foster in them an acceptance of authority rather than dependence on individual initiative and democratic cooperation. Their schooling in war would tend to destroy their sense of religious and ethical values. "(d) The establishment of UMT would tend to distract our Nation from more creative efforts for disarmament and peace to military preparations with the dangerous consequence of stimulating a war spirit. "Therefore, we urge the Congress of the United States to consider this report in making their decision on the program of universal military training recommended by the National Security Training Commission and to repeal the section of Public Law 51, Eighty-second Congress, entitled 'Universal Military Training and Service Act,' which establishes UMT. "We further urge our people in the United States, as Christian citizens, to study this report and to communicate their views to their Senators and Representatives in the Federal Congress, to the President and to the chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the armed services, Senator Richard B. Russell, and Hon. Carl Vinson, respectively. Because Congress may act at any time after it convenes on January 8, this must be done immediately." Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Hunt? REASONS FOR HEARINGS Senator HUNT. I haven't any questions, Mr. Chairman, but it does seem to me that the witnesses are misunderstanding the reason for these hearings. Public Law 51 is a fact. It was enacted last year. What we are discussing in these hearings, it was my understanding, was the pros and cons of methods of implementing universal military training and not a pro and con discussion of universal military training itself. I think the chairman so stated at the opening of our hearings. Chairman RUSSELL. Well, I did make that statement but you know, of course, Senator, that we allow complete freedom of speech to those who appear here as witnesses before the committee. Senator HUNT. I realize that, Mr. Chairman, and I wouldn't suggest at all that any witness not be allowed to make any statement that he cared to make, but I thought possibly succeeding witnesses would like to address themselves perhaps to the matter under consideration. Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Stennis? Senator STENNIS. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. We are very glad to have had you here. Dr. Van Kirk. Mr. VAN KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. The next witness is Dr. Ralph W. Schlosser, of the Church of the Brethren. STATEMENT OF RALPH W. SCHLOSSER, ON BEHALF OF THE BRETHREN SERVICE COMMISSION Mr. SCHLOSSER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ralph W. Schlosser, of Elizabethtown, Pa. As a member of the faculty of Elizabethtown College, owned and operated by the eastern and southern districts of Pennsylvania, and as the denominational moderator of the Church of the Brethren comprising about 186,000 members, I desire to present in behalf of the Brethren Service Commission the following statement in opposition to the bill submitted by the National Security Training Commission. As a church we have repeatedly stated in our decisions that we believe all war to be sinful. Therefore we oppose the proposed bill because (1) it is unnecessary for the welfare of our country, (2) it is an impractical measure, (3) it is unsound in principle. I. THE PROPOSAL IS UNNECESSARY In the first place, therefore, this proposal is unnecessary because the present method of Selective Service meets all the requirements for the present emergency. Is it not true that in the recent past wars the victorious nations, like the United States and Great Britain, did not have conscription before the war and that the defeated nations did have it? Besides being unnecessary, this proposal is untimely. In 1950 General Bradley indicated that such a law could not easily be put into effect now. And we may not need such a law at all. Why should we not therefore wait until the emergency is over and then do some calm and mature thinking on this problem? To stampede a people into such a permanent policy in a time of an emergency is nothing short of political machination. General MacArthur, in a statement to a Senate committee in May 1951, said: I should advise most seriously, if I were considering universal military training, that I would wait and get through the emergency that faces us now, and then on what has resulted, and what exists then, I would sum up the facts and make my decision. This sounds like good common sense. II. THE PROPOSAL IS IMPRACTICAL In the second place, this bill is impractical because it will not provide a trained and ready reserve as claimed. Even National Guard units require 7 months to 12 years to fit them for active Army service. For only occupational duty in Germany a year was necessary to get the Twenty-eighth Division ready. Then, too, modern warfare is fought by combat teams that must be integrated. In 6 months such training is impossible and such technical skills as are attained are soon outmoded. Consequently this short period of training, as proposed, cannot provide a workable balance of power to a nation like Russia as claimed in this bill. Nor does this training give the trainee a better chance of survival in modern warfare, as claimed. III. THE PROPOSAL IS UNSOUND IN PRINCIPLE Finally, the provisions of this proposed legislation are unsound in principle. First of all this plan imposes too great a tax burden upon the American people. The estimated cost of the first year would be over $4 billion and $2 billion each year thereafter. Thus in 8 years a tax burden of over $20 billion would be loaded on the taxpayers. And with all of this, not a single soldier would be battleworthy. This bill requires the spending in the first year of as much money as is spent annually in the entire United States for all primary and secondary education. In the second year it would call for spending as much money as for all education in our colleges and universities in a single year; it would entail the spending in the first year a sum equal 95064-52-21 to one-half the total endowment of all our colleges and universities. It would mean the spending in 2 years of more money than the total worth of all the church property in the United States. For the good of the national welfare it would be better to spend this money on child health centers. Again this proposal is in direct opposition to the democratic way of life. It is a flat contradiction of our democratic heritage. This bill is an overt attempt at the military indoctrination of our youth. It aims to inculcate the habit of obedience to command. We believe that youth should have the privilege of choosing their own teachers, to make criticisms freely, and to make changes as their consciences may direct. This proposal is in opposition to these inalienable rights of every American citizen. Such a policy of permanent peacetime military conscription is therefore a threat to our democratic structure. It creates a militaristic mentality and jeopardizes the dignity, worth, and freedom of the individual. True democracy is not fostered in the world by aiming at superiority on a military basis. God is not necessarily on the side with the largest battalions. Such resources are not the bastions of security but may eventually be the causes of world conflicts. Our Constitution is based on the principles of freedom from the evils of militarism. On such a foundation let us build. This proposal is unsound in principle in the third place, gentlemen, because it is not conducive to the moral nurture of our youth. It gives only verbal support to good resolutions to do everything needful for the morals of the trainees. After all, the burden rests on the 200,000 trainers. But it is evident that our boys will not meet the Marshalls. the Eisenhowers, and the MacArthurs in the training camps. Towns around the training bases are to be asked to form voluntary committees to guard the morals of our boys. Of course, this bill states that no brothel shall operate at a reasonable distance. Nor is beer to be sold at a reasonable distance. But who determines what a reasonable distance is? Besides, this proposed legislation is entirely quiescent on gambling which was shown to be one of the greatest evils at Biloxi. By this proposal 18-year-old boys-not men as yet-would be taken away from the influences of their homes to cope with an alien environment. It has been said that few boys brought up in a good home can profit by a military environment. According to statements on pages 79, 80, and 98 in Plain Words About Venereal Disease, by Dr. Thomas Parran, Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service and Dr. R. A. Vonderlehr, also of the United States Public Health Service, a book dedicated to Gen. John J. Pershing, venereal disease in military camps is seen to be 37 times as high as in colleges. And finally this proposal is unsound in principle because it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, which teachings we hold to be the highest code of ethics for man. The position of the Church of the Brethren in the matter of man's relation to the militaristic system is stated in the following words taken from a decision of our conference held at Colorado Springs in 1948: We recommend that, as a matter of Christian conviction and practice, its membership support the historic position of the church, namely, nonparticipation in military training and service, and in the war system in general. |