Columbia University. The Free Labor Committee of the League is a subcommittee headed by Sal B. Hoffman, president, Upholsterers International Union, AFL, and Victor Reuther, assistant director, national war policies division, UAW-CIO. The Workers Defense League is concerned with the extension of democracy in our country and with the development of a peaceful world. We are convinced that the attempt to impose peacetime military conscription upon the American people subverts these aims. Postwar conscription at best is the product of a sincere confusion that borders on panic. At worst, it represents the cold reasoning of those who see in conscription the opportunity to establish in the United States a regimentation that will keep "labor in line." The WDL feels that if this attempt is successful we shall have defeated the forces of fascism on the battlefield only to succumb to them in our own thinking. We are especially troubled therefore by those who insist that the decision must be made now, now when final demobilization permits our citizens in uniform to contribute their views, not when the tension of being engaged in history's greatest war is relaxed, but now, quickly, hastily. What's the rush? The only apparent explanation is that the proponents of conscription fear that when a semblance of normality returns to the United States such unwholesome deviations from democratic tradition will not be tolerated. And that is precisely why, above all, such legislation must not be passed now. We want to place the following considerations before you: 1. The adoption of peacetime conscription now is a defeat for world peace. It is a devastating declaration to the United Nations that we have no confidence in their avowed intention of eliminating the settlement of international disputes by war. More concretely it is a gratuitous statement of policy toward England and Russia. We all know that once the smoke of this war has cleared, the only military forces that could possibly threaten the United States are those of Britain and Russia. Are there possible reasons why we should envisage a war between us and either Britain or Russia? If so, what are they? And, if so, let us proceed to eradicate those reasons. With Germany and Japan disarmed, our own thoughts should be of reducing as much as possible the armaments of the United Nations. The American people will not be receptive to the cynical assumption that the elimination of Germany and Japan is merely a prelude, and we shall continue with the same old war game, only with different players. 2. We want full employment but we reject the idea of achieving full employment only through a war economy. That was Hitler's way of solving economic problems, and it is a method which we can never tolerate. We are aware that the economic possibilities of conscription sound attractive to some, from local business groups which are concerned with the windfall of a nearby Army camp, to the disillusioned defenders of the status quo who look to military spending as the least. distasteful way of providing employment through governmental action. 3. The United States has too little, not too much, democracy, and military discipline, and the unthinking obedience to military orders is the worst possible training ground for citizenship in a democratic community which could be imposed upon boys in their teens. Neither the Army nor the Navy has ever been distinguished for its contribution to the philosophy of civil rights. On the contrary, the Army's participation in domestic affairs is best exemplified by its use in labor disputes and its heroic war against the bonus marchers. Moreover, conscription may be used as a direct weapon against the trade-union movement. The continued control over conscripts which the Army may exercise for varying periods of years may well provide antilabor forces with an easy solution to strikes. 4. American armed forces will be counted in millions for years, so that there is no reason for action on peacetime conscription now. This war has not yet ended. When it does, we shall have under arms a force of more than 10,000,000 highly trained men. They will constitute a reserve for quite a few years so there is apparently no danger to military security in refusing to take precipitate action on postwar conscription. Let me say in closing this statement that other witnesses have appeared before this committee who have served in the Army. Some of them who have appeared here were wounded in the service of their country. I would simply like to place before you this observation. I do not believe that any of those gentlemen represent the sentiment of the ten or eleven million men now in the American Army. I served in the Army, also, and was wounded. I do not purport to state that I represent the sentiment of the men in the Army. I think that when the time comes that that sentiment can be sounded out we shall find that, just as it was before the war, those men are still civilians. It has been said-and justly so that in most cases when a citizen puts on the uniform of a soldier of the United States the only thing that he really changes is his clothes. He still may be a Democrat and he still may be a Republican. He may be a very liberal person and he may be a very conservative person, and I think those divisions exist within the Army of the United States and Navy of the United States at this time. I think there is no one who has the right, and no one who should aspire to have the right, to explain what the views of the great body of American soldiers are. I will make this final observation, however, and that is, from what I saw and from my conversations and my knowledge of the men in the Army, there is one thing upon which they are all unanimous, and that is they want to get home as quickly as possible, and I think you all know that; and, secondly, when they say they want to get home they mean the kind of home that America has always represented. They do not want to return to an America which has become a permanent armed camp, and I am afraid if conscription legislation is acted upon favorably that the tendency for the United States in the ensuing years will be in that direction. Thank you. Mr. MAY. Is that your statement? Mr. WADSWORTH. I was interested in one of your observations, sir, to the effect that when the American youngster put on the uniform in the Army and Navy he still remained at heart a civilian. I agree with you. I think his ideals of democracy and hope for the future have not been changed as a result of his service in the war. Mr. FRIEDMAN. I would not say, sir, that it was my opinion that this service necessarily made him a better citizen in a democratic community. I am firmly of the opinion that the period of training for 1, 2, 3, and in some cases 5 years which involves the blind obedience of orders does not train a citizen for responsibilities in a democratic community where that citizen has to formulate his own opinions, where he has to do his own thinking, and where he has to stand on his two feet. Mr. MAY. Anything further? Thank you very much, Mr. Friedman. Mr. NORMAN THOMAS. I know this is out of order, but after I wrote my speech I promised I would ask you a question, and I hope you will forgive me. I promised that I would ask whether it was sound policy for the United States to sign conventions with various Latin-American countries sending military expeditions to train them. Is that the way to get peace? Does that fall within the province of your committee? Mr. MAY. This committee is searching for the truth and has no opinion until it hears all of the evidence, and it would be very happy to consider both sides. In other words, we are going to try to remain impartial until we hear everything that is to be heard and try to hear everybody that is concerned that can contribute something to this subject. Our next witness is Rev. Phillips Packer Elliott, chairman of board of Presbyterian Tribune, Brooklyn, N. Y. Come around, Reverend Elliott. STATEMENT OF REV. PHILLIPS PACKER ELLIOTT, CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF PRESBYTERIAN TRIBUNE, BROOKLYN, N. Y. Reverend ELLIOTT. I am here on behalf of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an organization founded during the last war with at present more than 14,000 members in this country. The members of the fellowship believe that evil can only be overcome by good, and they endeavor to promote the spirit of love as seen preeminently in Christ as the guide for personal conduct and the relationships of society. We are grateful to the committee for giving us time to present our point of view during these hearings. The executive committee and the National Council of the Fellowship have frequently taken action opposing any form of peacetime military conscription. These actions have met with the unanimous endorsement of our entire membership. The reasons for our opposition are many, but chief among them are the following: In the first place, we are concerned with what peacetime conscription will do to the democratic life of America. We have prided ourselves on the free-flowing quality of our society. We are peculiarly free from distinctions of class and kind. More than anywhere else in the world, the right of every man to live his own life in his own way is supported and encouraged in this country. This is in contrast with many lands where the social divisions have been acute, where a military caste has been created, and where compulsory conscription has been a part of the social pattern for many years. In fact, many of our sturdiest citizens came here to escape the very conscription which it is now proposed to establish in our land. The natural form of salutation with us is the handclasp-not the salute. We face one another as man to man. No one is compelled to give unthinking obedience to the commands of his fellows. Á man can take or leave a job as he desires; he can go to and fro as opportunity beckons him; he can compete with others on a basis of equality. To compel every young man to become a part of a military system for a year, placed under orders which allow little or no opportunity for questioning or redress, would be to inject into the life of our land an alien note, which over the years would have serious consequences on our democratic process. For no one-even its most ardent devotees-has ever claimed that the army is democratic. When peacetime conscription is spoken of as a "democratic" means of national defense, the term "democratic" is being seriously misused. The fact that a movement is universal in application may as well mean that it is autocratic as otherwise. The more people who are subjected to involuntary procedures, the less democratic a nation becomes. To compel all young men to take military training for a year wold be to apply an utterly undemocratic process to a vast group in our Nation's life. It resembles the strategy and procedure of the dictatorships far more than the democracies of the west. In the second place, we are opposed to peacetime conscription because of what it will do to the development of young men. In the discussion of proposed measures, the plan would be to take boys in their late teens and subject them to this year of military training. These are years of great moment in the life of any individual. Speaking as the pastor of a church, I know what great significance is attached to these late teen-age years by all the churches and synagogues. It is during these years that the important convictions of life are being formed, character is being molded and vocational decisions are being reached. At such a time, it is important that these boys be exposed to those agencies which all agree to be the most constructive influences of our common life, namely, the home, the school and the church. To strengthen the impact which these have upon young men rather than to deprive them of their opportunity to do their work is surely the best counsel for any nation to follow. To surround boys of this impressionable age with the pressures of Army life, to subject them to an all-embracing military routine, to train them in the assumptions of warfare, and to deprive them of the opportunity to make their own decisions regarding their problems and their work, would be to damage incalculably the normal and wholesome development of multitudes of our young men. For, as the Army has frequently pointed out, the purpose of this year of training is purely military, and not educational, cultural, or physical in its central intention or effect. The military procedures are to be learned, the techniques of taking human life are to be inculcated, and, in the final weeks of the training, the conditions of war are to be simulated. The disrupting effect of such a year is beyond calculation, and there will be thousands of young men whose normal plans will be destroyed and whose development will be curtailed or frustrated if such training is required. In the third place, we are opposed to peacetime conscription because we believe that it will cut the nerve of our country's efforts for peace. No more cynical commentary could be made by any nation regarding the possibility of achieving world organization than is made by the fact that compulsory military training is introduced. The fact that Russia has adopted conscription to take in 15- and 16-year-olds, instead of making other nations trust her motives the more, has added to their suspicion. We regard our motives as beyond question or reproach, but it is not easy to persuade other nations that this is so if we are spending our wealth and substance training young men by the hundreds of thousands in military science. History does not provide us with any illustration of a great nation which has adopted universal peacetime conscription without eventually becoming involved in disastrous wars, as well as subjecting itself in its domestic economy to an unbearable financial burden and to increased regimentation of its life. We cannot put our strength behind both peace and war. Every dollar and every life devoted to military preparation means that much less strength given to efforts to effect permanent peace. Some countries must lead out with courage and faith. America with all its prestige is the hope of the world today and is uniquely qualified to take this leadership. It will not be ours if we begin at once to prepare for war. It will be ours if other nations are persuaded that we not only talk peace but live peace. The leadership of America against conscription might quite logically and probably result in the abolishing of peacetime military training on a world scale. Thus a great step forward would be taken for general disarmament. Down such a path, rather than down the path of increased faith in and support of military measures, will lie our country's hope and the hope of the world. Mr. MAY. We thank you very much. That was a very fine state ment. Any questions? If not, that ends our list of witnesses today. The committee will be in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3 p. m., the committee adjourned to Saturday, June 9, 1945, at 10 a. m.) |