history-to be prepared, to be able to say stop, and have the power to implement the word. Were there any alternative we would choose

it.

The peace lover respects disarmament, but importantly the aggressor respects only the man strong enough to defy him-to stand up to him.

In closing, I beg leave to read you the names of some mothers who have lost sons in this war. To each I wrote a personal letter and asked if they were for or against military training. Each said they are for it and wished to endorse it publicly.

Their names are

Mrs. Peter Thomas Barber, New London, Wis., three sons killed in action.

Mrs. Jack Ellis Rogers, Sr., Ormond, Fla., three sons killed in action.

Mrs. Daisy Morris Roberts, Carlsbad, N. Mex., one son killed in action, another son a Japanese prisoner.

Mrs. Walter D. Bromley, Tacoma, Wash., two sons killed in action. Mr. Alben Borgstrom, Trementon, Utah, four sons killed in action. Mrs. R. H. Grantham, Hapeville, Ga., two sons killed.

Mrs. William F. Tompkins, Washington, D. C., wife of General Tompkins, two sons killed.

Mrs. Harry W. Parker, Westboro, Mass., two sons killed.

Mrs. Pasquina Perugini Schrott, Galveston, Tex., two sons killed. Mrs. William W. Balley, Asheville, N. C., two sons killed in action. The women of the citizens' committee believe that this military training will be the best guaranty that other generations of American sons will never have to go to war. The training is to condition our young men for life and not for death.

Now Mr. Chairman, I ask you to introduce to this hearing a statement in support of military training on behalf of two of our committee members who are too far away to be with us today, and the first is the statement of Kathleen Norris, writer, of Palo Alto, Calif.; and the second is the statement by Margaret Culkin Banning, novelist, of Duluth, Minn.

Chairman WOODRUM. The committee has copies of those statements and they will be placed in the record.

(The statements referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT BY KATHLEEN NORRIS, WRITER, OF PALO ALTO,

CALIF.

Inasmuch as America finds herself today in the position of having to defend not only her own liberties and ideals but also the rights and freedoms of lesser nations; and inasmuch as she, in conjunction with other liberty-loving and boundary-respecting peoples, has committed herself to a policy of constant vigilance, policing, and cooperation with all nations, friend and enemy alike; therefore, it is only just to our own people, and to the men who may at any time be called upon to serve in our Army, Navy, and Air Forces, that we shall establish and maintain a system of universal military training.

It will be consoling to the mothers of America, who, like myself, have been reluctant to accept this point of view, that this training will

not only have beneficial effects in peace, but will be the surest guaranty that that peace shall endure.

Our sons, rich and poor, will become better acquainted in training camps, and certain social difficulties will be ironed out. Opportunities for vocational guidance will be one inevitable benefit.

Improved personal habits in manners and hygiene will be inculcated, and respect for law, promptness, orderliness, will be taught our boys at the impressional ages when they most need these lessons.

No agreements among peace delegates, no treaties or conventions nor charters can ever be as helpful to the maintenance of world peace as the realization, among our young men and women, of what is the true nature and unique advantage of being Americans, and the knowledge among the nations of the world that America is ready to defend her own way of life.

These things a universal military training will give our sons, and for these reasons I am in favor of it.

STATEMENT BY MARGARET CULKIN BANNING, NOVELIST, OF

DULUTH, MINN.

There is no merit in holding fixed or unchanging opinions in the midst of events which prove those opinions unreasonable. Until the Second World War became inevitable, I did not believe in the universal military training of young men in this country. But that opinion seems no longer tenable nor realistic.

In the United States a few years ago a majority of thoughtful citizens believed that disarmament was a good example and the the way of life of a quiet, unguarded Nation would be followed admiringly, or at least desired by all the peoples of the world.

Blinded by such theories, we did not arouse ourselves when the Japanese fortified key islands in the Pacific and when the Nazis horribly destroyed human rights. We delayed doing what was necessary, and one chief reason was that we were incompetent to do it until we had set a vast scheme of preparation for war in motion. It is inexcusable to repeat such mistakes.

There is now more chance of avoiding future world wars than there has been for years. We are trying to establish the long view of peace, and to organize for world security. That is the right and permanent way to keep peace.

But no one who has followed the conferences at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco can fail to recognize that democracies must now show that they are made of strong stuff if the world is to accept their counsels and emulate their procedures.

If this Nation does not stand back of world security with a citizenry which accepts personal responsibility for enforcing justice, our plans are as weak as the paper on which they are written.

We can only show that we believe in justice and peace by maintaining sufficient military force to guard them. That military force must be either a large standing army or a large trained reserve of citizens supplementary to a small standing army. You cannot beg the ques

tion.

Historically, large standing armies always breed wars. That is almost inevitable. They create a professional class which believes in

war, does not protest it, and is often bored in time of peace. But a trained reserve of citizens will never go to war unless it must.

Establishing a constantly changing, growing reserve of men who are competent to fight if necessary, is the modern way by which democracy can at once protect itself and continue its proper pursuits. In other words, it can get on with peace.

It is true enough that such training would make millions of young men more fit and more literate and more skilled. But that is the least of it. What is more important to this country is that most of our citizens would share the responsibility for its destiny.

The girls will share it with the boys, the parents with their sons who go into training for a year. And in a country where wars have

become total, that is as it should be.

I have the greatest respect for the educators who have opposed the plan of universal military training. But surely this present war has disrupted the teaching in colleges and universities more than a balanced scheme of a year's military training could possibly have done. This war has riddled another generation of young men, set back the training of scientists. If military training can avert a war or even shorten one, education will surely win, not lose.

We have now won the respect of all good nations. The only way we can lose it is by making our life in peacetime a contradiction of our realism and energy in war. It is significant that the man who have been responsible for our great successes in battle and campaigns, and whose words and actions have proved that they greatly value the lives of their men, believe in universal military training.

And to me it is also very significant that in talking to me who have seen service about the plan of universal military training, I always get the same answer, "It's the only thing to do." "Can't risk anything else." "It makes sense to me."

I do not believe in perpetual military training, but military training interwoven with peace will exist only until the habit of peace finally overgrows war. It will never dominate civilization and it should be able to guard it.

Chairman WOODRUM. Are there any questions?

Mr. ALLEN. When was your committee organized, Mrs. Barlow? Mrs. BARLOW. Last September, I think it was.

Mr. ALLEN. And how many members belong to your society?

Mrs. BARLOW. We have never counted them. We have State chairmen, women. chairmen, in the 33 different States, and we have made no tabulation of the full membership.

Mr. ALLEN. Where is the headquarters in Illinois; what is the address in Illinois?

Mrs. BARLOW. Not in Illinois-did you say Illinois?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mrs. BARLOW. It is in New York City, 660 Madison Avenue.

Mr. ALLEN. What about your chairmen; don't you have a chairman in each State?

Mrs. BARLOW. Yes; we have a chairman for 33 of the States.

Mr. ALLEN. How about the chairmen-who is the State chairman for Illinois, Ohio, or Indiana?

Mrs. BARLOW. I have the list, if you would care for me to give it to you after the hearing.

Mr. ALLEN. Would you do so?

Mrs. BARLOW. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, we would like to have it, and their addresses.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Mrs. Barlow.

Next is Mrs. Barbara Skau, of 83-17 Thirty-fourth Avenue, Jackson Heights, Queens.

The committee will be very glad to hear from you, Mrs. Skau.

STATEMENT OF MRS. BARBARA SKAU, OF JACKSON HEIGHTS, QUEENS, N. Y.

Mrs. SKAU. I am Mrs. Barbara Skau, of 83-17 Thirty-fourth Avenue, Jackson Heights, Queens, N. Y.-housewife and domestic nurse. I have six sons and two sons-in-law in the armed forces of the United States.

My sons are serving in the following capacities:

Lt. George Skau is a paratrooper in the Philippines; Lt. William A. Skau is in San Antonio after 51 missions in Europe; Edward T. Skau, aviation machinists mate is now in Washington after 2 years in the Pacific on a carrier; Gunnery Sgt. Robert James Skau, a veteran of Iwo Jima, is still in the Pacific; Fred Skau is a master sergeant stationed in England; and Pfc Henry Anthony Skau is in Belgium.

I said good-by to all of them at my kitchen door so as to make it easy for them. Four of my boys were in the Seventy-first Regiment of the National Guard in New York. They were better prepared for service by their prewar training. That is why I am in favor of military training because it makes better citizens.

If the young men of America ever have to fight again they will make better soldiers if they are trained in advance.

There is no use in training after the damage is done. I certainly feel that military training is very, very necessary and essential.

If I did not believe that every young man should serve his country when it needs him, I should not have encouraged my boys to go into the fight. I do not deserve the credit for having six sons and two sons-in-law in service. Any honor there is belongs to them for they are out there plugging. They went into the service voluntarily and were proud to go.

I can consider that they have benefited in every way from military service. We are devout Catholics and proud of it. My sons have become closer to the church while they have been on the battlefields. Two of my boys attend mass every morning and take communion wherever they are.

I am here on behalf of the Citizens Committee for Military Training of Young Men, Inc., to urge the Congress to pass a military peacetime training act immediately.

If trouble comes to America again I want my grandsons to be prepared and ready to serve.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Mrs Skau.

Mr. Philip A. Carroll is the next witness.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP A. CARROLL, DIRECTOR, THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR MILITARY TRAINING OF YOUNG MEN, INC.

Mr. CARROLL. My name is Philip A. Carroll, of Howard County, Md.

Chairman WOODRUM. Are you a member of the Citizens Committee for Military Training of Young Men, Inc.?

sir.

Mr. CARROLL. I am.

Chairman WOODRUM. The committee will be very glad to hear you,

Mr. CARROLL. I think I should say, in the beginning, that this citizens' committee of which I am a member, may be regarded, in a sense, as a continuation of an old citizens' committee which organized the Plattsburg camps in the last war.

Many of the members of the present committee were members of this old committee, including myself.

We saw an emergency then, and we took action. We see an emergency now, and that is the reason for this committee.

I am entirely in favor of the military training of young men for 1 year. My reason for this is that I regard it as an essential step in the security of the United States. I also regard it as a very great help in preventing the fighting of other wars.

As you have heard this morning from the distinguished Secretary who testified here, one of the great factors which brought the present war on was the state of mind of the aggressor nations, and especially the state of mind of their dictators, military staffs, and leaders.

The principal factor in that state of mind, which is of principal importance, was that they felt that the United States was weak, and that they could accomplish their nefarious purposes before the great potential of the United States could be put into action.

It is characteristic of the gangster government not to go into a fight unless it thinks it can win. This is the main reason why I feel that this step should be taken and should be taken now.

If there is one thing which is apparent in the present situation, and which I think is going to become more apparent as we see the terrible condition of these defeated nations, it is that nowadays no matter how much you object to war and no matter how much you object to the inconvenience of preparation for war-nowadays you certainly cannot afford to lose a war, and I go back again and say that the universal military training is an absolutely necessary step in assuring the fact that if we have to fight another war, we will win it, and I do not believe that anybody is willing to take the responsibility of running the risk of defeat in order to keep up some ancient customs and traditions which have proved too dangerous to use in these last two

wars.

Twice the German General Staff has seriously considered and decided that they could get through their war before America got ready. Twice we have been given the opportunity to get ready. No staff in the future of aggressor nations is going to make that mistake again.