paid experts. They will be necessary even if you also impose conscription. But you do not have to aggravate suspicion by our policy. For the United States, with its long record of opposition to conscription in peacetime, to adopt it now, no matter how great our own consciousness of virtue, would invite an almost universal fear of us and confirm the rest of the world in the old military way.

Certain facts are inescapable. Conscription which goes back to the French revolution and the first Napoleon never prevented any war or guaranteed victory to any nation in war. Indeed it made war more likely because it created great vested interests in the rivalries, fears, and hates that lead to war. The First World War, many historians believe, might have been avoided if there had been time for sober second thought. Conscription by its practical and psychological consequences prevented second thought.

The Second World War did not come because only the Germans had conscription but because the more numerous non-Germans in Europe, all of whom had enjoyed the blessings of conscription, most of them longer than their German foes, were divided in political policy and out of the date in their military strategy. So far was conscription from guaranteeing the life of nations or their soldiers that the two nations which best survived the shock of two world wars were the United States and Great Britain, neither of which had had conscription. Japan did not attack us until after we had had very extensive military conscription for more than a year and then she attacked us where we were strong. It was not our lack of peacetime conscription that explains our entry into the war.

Not only had conscription tended to make wars more likely in the world; it has contributed directly to the coming of the totalitarian state. In republican France military conscription was used against labor to break strikes, and thanks to it an army caste at the time of the Dreyfuss case came perilously close to making the whole French Nation anti-Semitic.

Throughout Europe conscription and militarism were forms of boondoggling for unemployment which diverted attention from its cure and made it easier to accept even war itself. It will not be different in America.

I could continue to argue the incidental injuries rather than benefits of conscription for character, education, and health, but you are concerned with military policy; I content myself with filing a statement signed by 74 educators of standing in America opposing peacetime military conscription.

I rest my own case on the arguments I have presented that for Congress to adopt peacetime military conscription now would not only fail to guarantee military security but would actually jeopardize it and enormously increase our difficulties in preventing a third-world

war.

(The statement referred to is on file with the committee.)

Mr. MAY. Any questions?

Mr. WADSWORTH. You referred to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Do you think we made a mistake in 1940 in enacting the selective-service law?

Mr. THOMAS. I do not. That was part of a whole policy. But I think it is water under the bridge. I think MacArthur made a mis

take in following the policy advocated. I don't think the war with the Japanese was necessary. If you would like to debate that, at the proper time I will take your challenge.

I did not agree with the $5 provision.

Mr. WADSWORTH. You and I have debated this before.

Mr. THOMAS. And I will be glad to do it again.

Mr. WADSWORTH. You know perfectly well your reference to the $5 thing is perfectly unjustified.

Mr. THOMAS. Why?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I am accustomed to these interruptions from you. Mr. THOMAS. That is mutual.

Mr. WADSWORTH. It was put in as a token because the committee had not passed anything regarding the question of pay. You have always referred to the $5 conscript. It was never the intention of anybody to keep the pay at such a level.

Mr. THOMAS. It is very unfortunate that a man holding a position such as yours should make a token such as that.

Mr. WADSWORTH. You think we made a mistake in enacting the selective-service law in 1940?

Mr. THOMAS. Not if the war was the reason for the enactment. Mr. WADSWORTH. I asked your opinion.

Mr. THOMAS. I beg your pardon?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I am asking you your opinion.

Mr. THOMAS. I have answered.

Mr. WADSWORTH. You are trying to delve into my intentions. I want to know if you think the Congress made a mistake.

Mr. THOMAS. I think it made a mistake in enacting that law, together with the other things that Congress did. I don't think it was a mistake if it was enacted with the intention of war. I am consistent. I was opposed to a policy at that time, of which this was a part. I am opposed now to a policy, but I am perfectly willing to say that I have been terribly mistaken on that, and it wouldn't prove I am wrong now any more than your $5 a month.

In other words, you ought to meet my arguments with arguments. If we begin to compare the past none of us have been altogether infallible. I think we would be better off if you would answer some of my arguments instead of talking about 1940.

I repeat, I am willing to argue that at the appropriate time and at the appropriate place.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I am not attempting to argue with you. I am trying to get your opinion.

Mr. MAY. Mr. Thomas, I have enjoyed your statement very much. Mr. THOMAS. I hope you have enjoyed it, but too many people enjoy my statements and do nothing about them.

Mr. MAY. The next witness we have listed is Prof. Alonzo F. Myers, Chairman of the National Council Against Peacetime Conscription Now.

I understand Professor Myers is not present, and I have his statement here which will be printed in the record at this point.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY PROF. ALONZO F. MYERS, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST PEACETIME CONSCRIPTION NOW

I am not a pacifist. I served as a captain of infantry in the last war. I favored the passage of the draft law in 1940, and if we should again. be confronted with the imminence of war, I would again favor conscription legislation. I believe in adequate military preparedness for our country. My objections to the passage of universal military training at this time are as follows:

1. This is not the proper time for our country to decide this vitally important question. Action on this matter is not essential to the successful prosecution of the war. Action at this time is not esential for our adequate military defense in the period immediately following the conclusion of this war. Our military strength at the conclusion of this war will be an adequate safeguard against attack.

Those who press for action now do not credit the American people and the Congress of the United States with suflicient courage and judgment to be able to decide this question on its merits in time of peace. We do not doubt the courage and the wisdom of the people and the Congress to face this question squarely whenever the necessity for it should arise.

We insist that this question should not be decided while from ten to twelve million of our men and women are in military service. You will be told by high officials of the War Department that servicemen favor this legislation. We challenge such assertions. If the War Department is convinced that servicemen will favor peacetime conscription, why are they not willing to wait until the men now in service are free to participate in the decision on this question? We are not impressed by the results of polls the War Department professes to have made among servicemen on this question. No poll conducted by an interested party merits serious consideration.

Your committee will be given the impression that servicemen are overwhelmingly in favor of universal military training in peacetime. This is not correct. Servicemen who are opposed to peacetime universal military training are forbidden to speak or write against it. The following are excerpts from only a few of the letters I have received from servicemen on this subject:

You spoke for many of us tonight. The jamming through of compulsory conscription at this time is to say the least-undemocratic and ungodly. If you need names for a petition against it, please accept this as your authority to use my name as well as my younger brother's who is in Belgium and who feels as I do. You who are articulate must speak for those of us less gifted. May God bless you and strengthen you.

Like yourself and the larger percent of our people, we feel that Congress should shelve this question until after war hysteria has passed. The Selective Service Act is adequate to supply manpower for our various branches of services for the present crisis. Why then should we pass such legislation which is little more than one of the final steps in complete regimentation of our people?

Let's debate this question, and defer all action until such time that we the people feel that it is absolutely necessary to have such peacetime measures. Let's do our best to show the world through our actions here in America that war is unnecessary in order to live among our sister nations.

As I am in the Army, I cannot write or lecture on this subject-peacetime conscription. Hence we depend upon courageous men like you to carry on for us until we can get back into civilian life and join you in the fight to keep our freedom. If I saw any good reason for peacetime conscription now I would

73951-45-pt. 1-16

favor it, but for the world of me it seems to knock in the head the ideals of Dumbarton Oaks, etc., and the very foundation of our way of life. The proponents of this military system has given us no specific reason for such action. Can it be that they are attempting to foist fascism upon us while we are helpless? If your committee wishes to learn what servicemen think on this subject, it will be necessary for you to secure an order from the Commander in Chief, President Truman, specifically authorizing service personnel to speak and write freely on this question. Present orders of the War Department and the Navy Department forbid them to do so.

Our country is now engaged in a cooperative effort of the United Nations to establish an international security organization designed to preserve the peace. We do not know how large a military force we will need as our contribution to the proposed international police force. We do not know whether or not we shall need peacetime conscription in order to contribute our share. But we can be quite sure that if this country at this time adopts universal military training as peacetime policy, the rest of the world, with the exception of our defeated enemies, must as a matter of self-defense likewise adopt it. Why should our country take the lead in setting off a new world armaments race? What possible contribution could that make toward world peace?

We insist that our Government at this time should take the initiative in endeavoring to secure agreement on the part of all the nations in outlawing peacetime conscription throughout the world. Until a vigorous and sincere effort has been made to accomplish this objective and has been demonstrated to be impossible of accomplishment, the Congress should refuse to enact the peacetime conscription legislation. When Mr. Joseph C. Grew, speaking for the State Department, stated that he believed strongly that American youth should have military training in time of peace, he stated that his view was based on 40 years of experience in foreign service, including 10 years in Germany before the last war, and 10 years in Japan before this one. Mr. Grew knows as well as any man in America could know that peacetime conscription in Germany and in Japan was an important element in the psychological and military preparation of those countries for world conquest. He looked at that preparation and apparently he liked it so well that now he wants our country to take it over. It would be enlightening to the people of the United States to know how much more of the Nazi and Fascist programs of Germany and Japan the United States should adopt. If Mr. Grew really speaks for our State Department it seems obvious, on the basis of his testimony before your committee, that we can expect no activity on the part of our State Department looking toward the reduction of armaments and the outlawing of militarism, including peacetime conscription. I think Mr. Grew has lived too long with the Fascists to be entrusted with a major share in the direction of our foreign policy. If we want an imperialistic foreign policy, Mr. Grew, on the basis of his statements before your committee, is just the man for the job he holds. I do not believe that is what the American people want.

2. Universal military training in peacetime is not the best way to insure that we shall always have a strong America, prepared to meet successfully all emergencies, whether of war or of peace.

As a nonpacifist, I believe in preparedness, including military preparedness. I am convinced that we should maintain in peacetime a large and powerful Navy. I am convinced that we should continue in peacetime to maintain a powerful air force. The emphasis should be on quality rather than on size. Similarly, we should maintain a ground force that is adequate to the needs and that is of high quality. Manufacturing facilities, supply, and scientific and technological development should be maintained at a high level of quality, and be absolutely up to date. These are the basic components of military preparedness.

The argument that we should adopt peacetime conscription now has little to commend it from the point of view of national defense. It would be different if we were getting ready to start a war in the near future. But we are not. We need not fear that a surprise war will be started against us. No nation can get ready to launch a major war in less than 3 years. That is more time than we need in which to train soldiers for participation in that war.

What we need for a strong America with its manpower and its womanpower ready to make the maximum contribution to their country's welfare, in war or in peace, is not universal military training. What we need is an educational program designed to make available to all our youth that kind and that amount of education of high quality that their potentialities warrant. What we need, further, is a national health program that will guarantee that all of our people shall have adequate medical care, adequate housing, adequate clothing and enough of the right kinds of food.

The proposal for a year of universal military training for our male youth would cost at least $3,000,000,000 a year. That is considerably more than the total annual cost of education in the United States. Take the $3,000,000,000 that universal military training would cost and divide it three ways:

One billion to public education to guarantee equality of educational opportunity to all our youth;

One billion for a national health program;

One billion to promote scientific development and technology.

That would be a far sounder use of $3,000,000,000, even if viewed strictly from the standpoint of national defense, than to spend it on peacetime conscription.

Mr. MAY. The next witness is Mr. Milton Friedman, representing the Workers Defense League.

Come around, Mr. Friedman.

STATEMENT OF MILTON FRIEDMAN, REPRESENTING THE FREE LABOR COMMITTEE OF THE WORKERS DEFENSE LEAGUE

Mr. FRIEDMAN. Honorable Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Milton Friedman. I speak for the Free Labor Committee of the Workers Defense League and for the Workers Defense League, of which it is a subcommittee. The league is a national nonpartisan membership organization with national headquarters at 112 East Nineteenth Street, New York, N. Y. Its chairman is Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin; its national secretary is Morris Milgram; its treasurer is Dr. George S. Counts, of Teachers College,