UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE OF POSTWAR MILITARY POLICY,

Washington, D. C.

The select committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in the Caucus Room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Clifton A. Woodrum (chairman) presiding.

Chairman WOODRUM. The committee will be in order.

Our first witness this morning is Dr. Edward C. Elliott, president, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind.

We are glad to have you, Dr. Elliott. Will you proceed?

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD C. ELLIOTT, PRESIDENT, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, LA FAYETTE, IND.

Dr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Chairman, I wondered why I was asked to be here. I represent nobody but myself. I represent no philosophy but that which has developed out of a good many years of experience with students in particular.

The chief points of my position as to the pending proposal for the enactment of a measure providing for so-called universal military training are indicated by these brief declarations:

1. Do it.

2. Do it now.

3. Do it now to be effective for a trial period of 5 years.

4. Do it now as the prime essential of any provisional plan for national security.

5. Do it now, and in such form as to provide for the effective selection, development, and conservation of the best of the scientific and technical ability of American youth.

These elements of the national problem of military training were discussed in a recent article prepared at the request of the editor of the American Legion magazine. There is nothing new in the arguments there presented. However, they are fundamental for the solution of the problem, and they are here again presented for consideration.

While this proposal does mean a revolutionary change in historic American policy, I am unable to avoid the conclusion that such change is dictated and defined by the tragic course of events in the world during the past 30 years. And the happenings of the present, day by day, afford little encouragement for the removal of the stresses and strains of war conditions during the years immediately ahead.

At the moment I have the conviction that this Nation must face the grim and realistic fact that conditions approximating an enduring peace in the world are beyond early attainment-human nature being what it is, the governments and the moralities of nations being what they are, and are likely to remain for years to come. While we have the task of dreaming and doing for peace, at the same time we have the solemn and continuing obligation of being fully prepared to protect all that which is ours to protect. The experiences of the past 4 years have taught us how dependent we are upon our youth to provide this protection. All these youth are entitled to basic preparation for their duties as protectors of the American faith. Therefore, it is my clear, though reluctant, conclusion that this new thing needs to be done, and done now.

Not long since a wise American journalist observed that "Americans have the habit of doing their planning afterward." Pearl Harbor furnished tragic proof of this habit.

Granting that we cannot now know the size of the armed forces required at the end of the present war, I am too skeptical as to the practical meaning of the phrase "the end of the present war" to depend upon mere partial preparedness as a guaranty for our safety. It has been impossible for me to follow the logic of those opposed to the prompt enactment of this proposed legislation on the grounds that such a step might endanger our efforts to establish an organization of nations to preserve the peace. Neither am I ready to be enrolled in the school of those advocating a "wait and watch" policy or of those defending the philosophy of "stop and study."

It is admitted that this universal military training proposal is in direct opposition to our long-established national policies. Yet why regard the proposal as necessarily a permanent policy for the future? Why not consider it as a measure designed to provide the Nation with a reserve stock of trained strength for possible use during the uncertain, explosive days separating active war from active peace? In my opinion it would be well to examine the advisability of adopting the plan for universal military training for a definite trial period3 to 5 years. Then we shall know things we cannot now know, and then we shall have learned the invaluable lessons learned only by experience.

This hearing is being held by the Select Committee on Postwar Military Policy. One is disposed to observe that while military policy naturally includes universal military training, this policy is but one part, all-important though that may be, of any comprehensive and closely knit program of national security. Such a program involves the Nation's industry, communication, transportation, food supply, health, and finances. Any practical plan for military training must be adjusted to the whole program.

It is my judgment that the American people should be informed as to the annual financial cost of the universal military training plan. For in operation this plan will certainly prove to be an important factor in any postwar economy.

The bills now under consideration by Congress may well be modified so as to cover at least two items of major importance.

1. As I read these bills it does not appear that adequate provision has been made for the integration of the proposed training with the

work of the higher educational institutions of the country. There are sound arguments to support the stand of the Army and Navy for one continuous year of compulsory military training for which there is to be no substitute. I may add here that I have spent my entire life with colleges and universities, and naturally I have just a little bias for the protection of their interests. Nevertheless, there are also equally sound arguments for a plan that would continue and capitalize the grains of 1 year of training for the group of young men who will be in our colleges, universities, and technical schools. Personally, I hope that some form of the ROTC and NROTC will be retained as a recognized part of a scheme designed to make the maximum use of many of our best youth.

2. The experiences of the present war have demonstrated the critical importance of highly trained scientific personnel for the conduct of modern warfare. We have not yet learned efficiently to identify, to segregate, and to utilize such personnel in a national emergency. Consequently, it is clear that some definite provision should be made whereby those young men possessing specialized, scientific talents of a high order, after the required 1 year of training, may be permitted to qualify as members of the Scientific Reserve, and be relieved of the so-called refresher training as now provided in H. R. 1806 and in H. R. 3947. The maintenance of such Scientific Reserve is to be considered to be a prime element for any national security program. Throughout the analysis of this whole matter there has been one fear. This is centered in the oft-used and over-used arguments relative to the advantages to the individual under training. I am far from convinced that "military training will teach, as no other system of education can teach, personal hygiene, public sanitation, neatness and promptness, respect for property and authority, to care for one's self in emergency." Under the conditions of a military camp, perhaps, yes. Under the civilian conditions one is justified in having doubts as to the extent to which the discipline of military authority is automatically carried over as practiced self-discipline. Let us not claim too much. Would it not be better for the American people to know and to feel that here is a disagreeable, necessitous job in which all must assume a properly proportioned share if all are to retain a chance for living as Americans aspire to live during a period—not of peace, but of armed might.

My entire working life has been devoted to efforts to add, through education, reality and vitality to the ideals and practices of freedom in American life. Now there is more than a small amount of disappointment that the course of events among humankind compels my support of the national policy represented by the projected plan for the military training of all of the able-bodied male youth of the Nation. This plan in operation will result in revolutionary changes in our colleges, universities, and technical schools. Weighing all the known facts, and having in mind the experiences with thousands of young men from the armed services who have been in our institutions of higher learning during the past 4 years, I hazard the prophecy that higher education in this country will gain and not lose from universal military training.

My own feelings-and perhaps yours also-were expressed by one of my young friends, a marine officer who landed with the first wave

of invasion of Iwo Jima. Writing on the eighteenth day of battle, he said, "Oh God, how I hate this dirty business of war. Then he added, "But who is to keep the country safe if men of my generation do not know how to fight the enemy?"

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much. The committee is very grateful for your attendance.

Dr. ELLIOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WOODRUM. Rev. Edwin F. Lee, Methodist bishop and director of general commission for Army and Navy chaplains, is the next witness.

Will you come around, Reverend Lee?

STATEMENT OF REV. EDWIN F. LEE, METHODIST BISHOP AND DIRECTOR OF GENERAL COMMISSION FOR ARMY AND NAVY CHAPLAINS

Reverend LEE. First, I wish to express my appreciation for the courtesy of the invitation to share with you in consideration of this most important subject of universal military training. I hope that all of you will understand that I speak solely as an interested American citizen. I do not at this time represent nor speak for any organization or group.

I am deeply interested in the postwar situation in which America will find herself, and am much concerned because of my experience of 2 years in Europe during the last World War and shortly thereafter. This is supplemented by 23 years of residence in the Netherlands Indies, Philippine Islands, and British Malaya. I flew from Manila to Singapore on November 5, 1941, and was in Malaya under Japanese bombardment for nearly 2 months, escaping with 76 Americans by way of Java and Australia. I cite this because it necessarily influences my opinion. I have seen how quickly nations can strike in serious military force. Years of residence abroad compels one to recognize that much of the rest of the world does not hold to the same ideals of fairness and justice that are held in the United States of America.

I cite that because I respect many people in America who do not appreciate this situation. They have never been outside of America and do not know that their mind is not the mind of much of the outside world. I think that, sir, is an important point.

We are forced to conclude, therefore, that there must be a sufficient international military strength for the policing of the world for the few years ahead to enable the United Nations to work out some plan of international understanding and cooperation. As I see it, we have a choice of two alternatives: Either a large standing professional Army and Navy, or a military organization of smaller dimensions undergirded by a trained citizenry.

I find myself, therefore, leaning toward the thought that we might advisedly plan for a temporary emphasis on universal training, with a definite understanding that it shall be reviewed within a period of 4 or 5 years. This will provide for a decision that seems to be generally desired of setting our Army, Navy, and Air Forces upon a plan commensurate with international demands at that time.

I am convinced, however, that we must hold our military organization steady for the immediate months and a few years ahead, to avoid having a repetition of what occurred shortly after the last World War. Our Government has wisely in this present conflict placed great emphasis upon the medical, cultural, and religious service to the troops. This must be continued on a high level regardless of the program that is found to be necessary. If universal military training is decided upon, I wish strongly to urge that in the very forefront of the program an emphasis upon the educational, cultural, and religious influences that can be thrown around the young men who are trainees, be definitely endorsed.

If this universal military training is endorsed, I sincerely hope that the plan to continue these young lads as trainees instead of as enlisted men in the Army and Navy is carefully considered. I would also advise that if reasonably practicable, a man be given his choice of taking one complete year of training or of breaking the training into approximately 2 years of 6 months each, so that he may begin his college training at the normal age, if so desired.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Reverend Lee. We are very glad to have your statement.

Our next witness is Mr. Arthur L. Williston, retired educator and engineer, Dedham, Mass.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR L. WILLISTON, DEDHAM, MASS.

Mr. WILLISTON. Mr. Chairman, today I am speaking solely as an interested American citizen and from a background of many years' experience as an engineer and educator. I have had extensive experience in designing and reorganizing industrial plants and in making industrial surveys; have directed and organized two important technical institutes at Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y., and at Wentworth Institute, Boston, Mass.; and have held important office in a considerable number of national engineering and educational societies.

During World War I, I was directly responsible for the training of 23,000 military specialists, and in civilian life I have been responsible for the training of over 50,000 young men for industrial occupations. At the outset I wish to be recorded as definitely and unqualifiedly in favor of a thoroughgoing and efficient system of postwar universal military training as being essential to the safety and the defense of this Nation against the possibility of aggressive attack.

The lessons of this war should convince every American who stops to think that such a system of universal training is an imperative necessity. And this is not, as many persons think, a departure from our recent practice and experience.

We, in America, have had peacetime universal military training. And, it has been extremely fortunate for this Nation-perhaps for its very existence and also for the civilization of the world that we did have peacetime military training.

It was our extraordinary good fortune that in 1940 we were given dramatic warning. The tragic fall of France, Dunkerque, and the possible destruction of an almost defenseless England gave us a graphic warning of what might happen even to this country.