used by these groups throughout the country to implement what is called the Christian women's action program for peace. Through this program the women of our churches are intent on expressing their convictions with regard to the whole program for peace and disarmament. Over a period of many years the conviction of the women of our churches in opposition to peacetime conscription or universal military training has been expressed in no uncertain terms. This attitude in local units throughout the Nation has been reflected in official actions taken by the national assembly of the United Church Women. The Department of United Church Women is the successor, within the National Council of Churches, to the organization formerly known as the United Council of Church Women. The general assembly meets biennially and at every session since 1944 there has been an official action in opposition to peacetime conscription or universal military training. I am submitting in connection with this statement a record of those actions, which I have given the clerk. Chairman RUSSELL. It may be made a part of your statement. (The record referred to is as follows:) RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLIES OF THE UNITED COUNCIL OF CHURCH WOMEN (November 14 to 17, 1944, Columbus, Ohio) Believing peacetime conscription to be opposed to principles both of the democratic way of life and the Christian belief in the worth and dignity of the individual, and believing that all young people should have an adequate opportunity to complete their education, we urge that Congress take no action looking toward the peacetime conscription of youth. Voted: That the United Council of Church Women authorize its officers to join with those of other agencies in urging the appointment by the President of the United States of a Commission composed of Representatives of the Senate, the House, industry, education, and the church to investigate the problems of national security in the light of the proposal for permanent peacetime universal military training, and to report its findings to the Nation in order that whatever final action is taken may represent the mature thought of the American people. (November 11 to 15, 1946, Grand Rapids, Mich.) Be it resolved, That the assembly reaffirm its opposition to peacetime compulsory military training, especially our opposition to the proposal by Mr. Patterson, Secretary of War, asking for a full year of compulsory military training which includes a 6 months' period in camp and a second 6 months' period with a choice between compulsory ROTC in college or training in National Guard units or in the Enlisted Reserves. Voted: Opposition to peacetime military training. (November 14 to 19, 1948, Milwaukee, Wis.) Voted: The United Council of Church Women calls attention to the action of the assembly in Columbus, Ohio, in 1944 and Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1946, opposing compulsory universal military training in peacetime, and reaffirms its opposition to this program. (November 11 to 16, 1950, Cincinnati, Ohio) Whereas we view with alarm the growing militarism in our country and its implications for our democratic way of life: Therefore, be it Resolved, That we reaffirm our previous actions opposing any permanent military conscription. 95064-52- -37 REASONS UNDERLYING THESE RESOLUTIONS Mrs. WEDEL. There are many reasons which underlie this attitude on the part of the churchwomen of the country. I will mention only three of the major points. 1. It is educationally unsound. The home, the school, and the church are institutions on which we have always depended for the education of youth. Under the proposed plan a considerable portion of education at a critical age for our youth would be carried on by the military forces of the Nation with programs of indoctrination, regimentation and a sense of compulsion which is contrary to our best American ideas of true education. 2. It is undemocratic and un-American. Churchwomen are patriotic. They rejoice in the freedom and the democracy of this country. They want a strong Nation, but we do not believe that universal military training is the way to make it strong. Real strength lies in free, democratic institutions. The military system has never been, and cannot be, democratic. Military regimentation may be necessary on a temporary basis in genuine emergencies, but as a permanent measure it would deprive our Nation of some of the strength which comes from voluntary service, individual initiative, and a sense of responsibility for the free assumption of the responsibilities of good citizenship. 3. It would have an unfortunate effect upon the work of the United Nations and the proposals for universal disarmament. Church women are greatly concerned for the success of the United Nations. They worked for it in the beginning. They have been studying, discussing, and praying for it. The United Nations can succeed only as its member nations put forth every effort to make it succeed. The United States played a leading part in the organization of the United Nations. We are concerned lest universal military training should undercut our honest efforts to achieve a program of universal disarmament. We are not yet inclined to give up hope that a program of universal disarmament may be achieved. We covet for our Nation a place of moral and spiritual leadership in the building of a world in which dwelleth peace and righteousness. The official statement adopted by the general board of the National Council of Churches sets forth in very brief and emphatic form the convictions of the vast majority of the church women of the Nation. While that statement was placed in the record by Dr. Van Kirk, he did not read it before the committee. I would like therefore to close my presentation by reading the official statement adopted on January 30, 1952, by the general board of the National Council of Churches. It reads as follows: With the view to meeting the military requirements of our Nation during the current period of international tension, the Congress has extended to 1955 the drafting of men for the Armed Forces. The period of military service has been lengthened from 21 to 24 months and the ceiling on numbers raised from 3% to 5 million men. If events that cannot now be foreseen should make necessary the further strengthening of the Nation's Armed Forces this end can be accomplished by congressional action in the light of conditions then prevailing. The National Council of Churches, however much it may deplore the circumstances that have required this stepping up of our Military Establishment, acknowledges the need of and supports adequate defense measures. With its position on the issue of national security thus stated, the National Council of Churches affirms its opposition to permanent universal military training. This action is in line with the views of many of our constituent communions which over a period of years have consistently opposed universal military training. There is appended a list of denominations that have done that, as follows: These communions include the following: American Baptist Convention, Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church, Church of the Brethren, Congregational-Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical and Reformed Church, Evangelical United Brethren Church, Friends Five Years Meeting, Friends of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Methodist Church, and Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. In addition, the Board of Social Missions of the United Lutheran Church has taken similar action. Then our statement continues as follows: It seems clear that the effort to establish a system of permanent universal military training will meet with widespread opposition within our churches for religious and moral reasons and to the end that our traditional democratic institutions may be preserved. We believe it is one thing to acknowledge the necessity of drafting men for a limited period to meet a specific international emergency. It is another, and quite different thing for the churches to support the conscription of each succeding generation of the Nation's youth for a program of universal military training. It is not in accord with our heritage as a free nation under God permanently to recruit our youth under the banners of the military. To do this would be to take a long step in the direction of a garrison state. We are mindful of the grave responsibilities with which our Congress is confronted during these difficult days. The decision which it is required to make respecting universal military training will have far-reaching consequences for the people of other lands as well as our own. It is our earnest prayer that to each Member of the House and Senate there may be vouchsafed such measure of divine wisdom as will enable the Congress to reach a decision in accord with God's will for our beloved country. Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall? Senator SALTONSTALL. I just want to comment about that last sentence that this witness has read. Certainly that has been in my mind and I know in the minds of a great many people. Mrs. WEDEL. We know; we are very conscious of what a problem you people are facing and we hope that this point of view will be taken into consideration. Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Stennis, have you any questions? Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you very much. The next witness represents the Labor Youth League. Mr. Williamson. STATEMENT OF MELVIN WILLIAMSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL, LABOR YOUTH LEAGUE Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am Melvin Williamson, national administrative secretary of the Labor Youth League. I appear here on behalf of the National Council of the Labor Youth League. My concern in testifying before you today is that of a veteran of the last war who saw service in the central Pacific theater. I speak as a leader of young people, veteran and nonveteran, Negro and white, whose deepest aspirations are of peace, freedom, and security for themselves and for our country. I, personally, and the Labor Youth League for which I speak, vigorously oppose any type of UMT legislation. Such legislation would alter the life of every young American, and the life of America itself. It would mean, in the words of the New York Times, that- Every man going into military service after June 1952 will face a minimum of 8 years' active and inactive duty, whether he enlists, is drafted, takes UMT, or is appointed an officer. Put another way, it would mean the widest spread of the militarist spirit among this generation and the attempt to rear a generation of "killers" as urged by General Hershey. We cannot agree with placing America's youth under such military control as would happen if UMT were to become law. In the face of over 100,000 United States casualties thus far in Korea, our Government should meet the people's demand for peace by speedily concluding the truce talks and ending the war in Korea. Instead, Congress is being asked to replenish and further expand our military units. UMT is needed only by those who want to prolong the war in Korea and spread it to all parts of the world. UMT WILL DESTROY HIGHER EDUCATION We are opposed to this legislation because the institution of a system of UMT at this time can only lead to the destruction of our system of higher education. There are over 2,500,000 youth attending college. UMT would mean closing the doors of the overwhelming majority of these schools and with the result that the youth could plan for no profession or trade toward becoming useful American citizens. Our opposition is based further on the grounds that the militarization of millions of young people would pose a serious threat to the labor movement, just as the plans for war have already resulted in attacks on the civil and democratic rights of ever larger sections of the American people. Also, our opposition is based on the belief that such a program would be accompanied by the extension of Jim Crow practices against the Negro youth, who already, inside the armed services and out, daily face inhuman indignities, the terror of a resurgent Ku Klux Klan, and increasing violence at the hand of those sworn to enforce the law. We oppose this legislation not only for these reasons, but also because of the false ground upon which the whole program of draft and armaments is based-that there is a threat to the security of our Nation from without. We young people are told that we can look forward only to a future of military life-a future of "tensions." We are to make no plans for a normal, healthy life of peace and friendship. We are told that this is so because the Soviet Union threatens our way of life. THERE IS NO DANGER OF ATTACK FROM THE SOVIET UNION Are we in danger of attack from the Soviet Union? The facts say the opposite. Mr. Ernest T. Weir, chairman of the National Steel Corp., said on February 8, 1951, after a tour of Europe: I did not find a single person who believed that Russia would precipitate a war now or for some years to come-if ever. Harrison Salisbury writes in the New York Times that— the atmosphere of Moscow and of the part of Russia that I crossed in traveling from here to Poland, is not one of war nor of preparations for war. Premier Stalin has repeatedly stated that war is not inevitable and that there certainly is the possibility of peaceful coexistence between the U. S. A. and the U. S. S. R. No United States Government spokesman has yet stated that there is a direct danger of attack against the United States. It is a fact that the Soviet Union has no troops stationed anywhere outside its borders, other than those placed by mutual agreement. Since 1917 every major move of war and aggression has been made under the guise of meeting the mythical threat from the Soviet Union. We have seen the near-destruction of the European continent and the slaughter of millions of men, women, and children as a result of the old Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis cry of "Bolshevik menace!" Americans cannot forget that Hitler's lie was big and terrible, nor can Americans forget that we fought side by side with the Soviet Union to defeat the Fascists of World War II. There is no danger to America from the Soviet Union. Wars to this Socialist country, which had 13,000,000 casualties in the fight against Hitlerism, have meant only suffering and bloodshed for all its people. The Soviet Union thrives on peace, which can only mean greater progress and well-being for all its people. No one in the Soviet Union gets far on war contracts. American youth want a positive program for peace. Congress should begin to concern itself with what has emerged as the biggest social problem in our country-today's young generation. As yet, no answer, other than UMT and militarization, is given to the youth for the solution to their pressing problems toward a future of a decent and happy life. This great country of ours, with its tremendous resources, can certainly give a better answer than this to its youth. Over 1 million Negro youth want a better answer than militarization to their special problems of discrimination and Klan violence. Negro youth, as all young people, want full democracy right here in America. To us, and to the whole world, talk about United States leadership to the "free world" is the cruelest hypocrisy, what with the American Government's refusal to grant the demand of the Negro people for first-class citizenship. We are dealing here with the future of our country in terms of today's young generation. How this legislation is dealt with will, to a great extent, determine the course of our country; whether it will be war or peace. The Labor Youth League takes its position with the many, many organizations, of varying degrees of outlook and policy, that have gone on record in opposition to UMT-among them, national spokesmen for the Methodist Commission for World Peace, the Methodist Youth, the United Christian Youth Movement, the National Farmer's Union, the CIO, and others. We say, "Pass legislation for peace. Reject UMT and militarization." We should declare an immediate cease fire in Korea. We should sit down and negotiate all differences with the big powers. American youth would loudly applaud such acts which would be in our country's deepest interest for peace and freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you. CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS ON THE HEARING That concludes the statement of the last witness to appear before these hearings. Before he closes these hearings the Chair would like to make a brief statement. The committee has held 12 sessions and heard more than |