And now I would like to ask our chairman, who for 30 years has been one of the guiding lights of the American Defense Society, to submit to your committee the ideas gained from that experience and also from his long career as an editor, Mr. Tompkins.

STATEMENT OF LESLIE J. TOMPKINS, THE AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY, INC.

Mr. TOMPKINS. I trust that I am not imposing upon you if I say a word or two born of a personal experience now covering upward of 50 years of training our American youth in ages ranging from 18 to 25, during which years I came in contact with an average of 1,000 young men per year.

There seems to be a fear among our educational people that a year of military training will disrupt the educational life of our young men. After long years of continual struggle and effort, we have built up our American educational system to a point which has never been equaled by any other nation. Our record of literacy far overreaches that of any other nation in the world and is constantly on the upgrade. The record is worth considering: It is that not less than 90 percent of our youth stop their training at the end of the high school and that the average age of the high-school graduate is 18. Few if any of us but that believe that an additional year of training is necessary, whether it be vocational or otherwise. We are imposing no hardship upon them to make this a year of military training-it will serve to bring to him the benefits which Mr. Taylor, of the American Legion's legislative committee, has so tersely stated as

the ability to protect himself in an emergency, self-reliance, promptness, ability to accept and give leadership, physical fitness, respect for authority, and a keen: sense of responsibility to community, State, and Nation.

The greater fear comes from our college authorities in that a year of additional training may serve to discourage the completion of the full college course or may lessen the number of those who will seek this higher education. Without any intention of being offensive, I am inclined to assert that our college authorities assume an attitude of professional superiority which has neither the background of experience nor the courage to face the problems that will arise in adjusting their curricula to meet the requirements demanded. I venture to say that they will do it if it becomes necessary, and it may well prove of benefit to them in that the college curriculum of today needs. a thorough overhauling.

A few years ago one of our leading universities proposed a cutting down of the standard 4-year course to 3 years in the belief that the college student is capable of doing more extensive work and should be given an opportunity to do it.

If our Congress, backed up by a majority of our people, shall once establish the principle of universal military training, I am quite sure our college authorities will come forward with a revised curricula which will overcome and allay the disastrous effects they now seem to apprehend.

I say "backed up by a majority of our people" advisedly, assuming that the several polls that have been taken indicate the true state of mind which prevails today. Mr. Roper, in a recent article, declares:

that 52 to 58 percent of men are for it and what is more surprising, the percentage of women topped that of the men.

I believe our American youth will cheerfully accept the personal obligation thus imposed upon them, and the Congress will do well to "strike while the iron is hot" and adopt it.

Chairman WoODRUM. Does that complete your presentation for the society?

Mr. QUINN. Yes, sir.

(Additional material submitted by the American Defense Society is on file with the committee.)

Chairman WOODRUM. Brig. Gen. Albert L. Cox is present.

We will be glad to hear you at this time, General.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ALBERT L. COX

General Cox. I favor military training for all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 21, inclusive.

I favor the establishment of such training within 12 months after the cessation of the present hostilities.

We have no reason to think that the world has undergone such a change that conditions following this war will be much unlike those that have followed other wars. Christianity teaches that peace and harmony can exist. But those other human characteristics-envy, hatred, and malice-have long prevented the ascendancy of peace and harmony. The role of a victor, while superior to that of the vanquished, has ever been one to guard with exceeding care. This country will emerge a victor in the greatest of all world wars, and likewise will have many enemies. What other nation will have its homeland intact? Jealousies from covetousness, coupled with political and economic conditions, do not present an optimistic picture of a future peace.

In the past, due to friendly nations, America has always had time to prepare after war has been declared. We cannot continue to rely on such circumstances in the future. We must expect war to come suddenly upon us, as it has upon other nations of the earth, and, in consequence, we must be ready to defend ourselves, as any reliance upon others for such defense may be found to be misplaced. War is not won by untrained men. The plight of China is conclusive proof of this, but our own early losses due to lack of trained and equipped men add to that proof. In all wars the advantage is decidely with the side that is ready. We must be ready, or we will be lost.

The future belongs not to us, but to our children and our children's children. The future of America lies in their hands. Unless we give them the training, the opportunities, and the facilities for turning their talents and their genius into a powerful and disciplined machine, we cannot view a bright future for our lands. If we extend training to our youth we will make our greatest contribution to national security. The maintenance of a peace is with those who come after us.

The experience of history demonstrates the necessity for universal military training. Few people volunteer for war. The majority must be actuated by legislation. This is a natural trait in all animal natures, and not a manifestation of cowardice. The only animals

which have deliberately sought combat were the saber-toothed tiger and the rogue elephant. The saber-toothed tiger is extinct. The rogue elephant is berserk.

Every means should be employed to the end that there will never be another war. Ultimate success is extremely doubtful. The fallacy lies in the word "never," for in using that term we deal with infinity, which is an unknown quantity. The introduction of an unknown quantity into our education makes the solution thereof extremely doubtful.

We are now in the midst of the Second World War in which we have engaged in less than 30 years. We were fortunate in World War I that Germany withdrew vitally needed troops from the French front for service in East Prussia, and such withdrawal cost that nation the first Battle of the Marne. Germany's second great blunder was in its failure to do everything possible to keep us out of that war; and, third, that nation's straddling the situation during the great offensive of March 1918 saved the British from being driven into the English Channel.

Already fortune has favored us in this World War II. What a blunder it was when Germany attacked Russia, and what even greater blunder was that nation's declaration of war on us. Had Germany concentrated on England, nothing could have saved the British Isles. In World War I and in World War II the Germans thought we couldn't get ready in time to do any good. Both times they have been wrong. We can't depend upon such blunders forever. Had we been ready and had we demonstrated to the world our readiness and our willingness to act, there would have been no World War I and no World War II. We would then have saved ourselves half a million casualties in World War I, and to date more than a million casualties in World War II with the end not yet in sight. If the saving of lives already sacrificed and of those yet to be laid down is not worth the price of military training, then the destiny of this Nation is being risked for a mess of pottage. To stop the slaughter of our youth, we had best not forget George Washington's reminder, "In time of peace, prepare for war."

Generalship of today is not alone concerned with the handling of large masses of troops, but also with problems in industrial engineering. The armed power of a nation is now measured by the size of its heavy industry. To shift our factories from peace to war production and to make such production available, in the light of experience, requires some 18 months. To assure ourselves of this period of time we need

(1) Outposts reaching far into the Atlantic and into the Pacific, of sufficient strength and sufficiently manned to hold back a hostile force until our production for war is assured and our armies trained. (2) Air and naval strength sufficient to keep open the supply lanes for such outposts.

While strategy and tactics remain much the same, implements of war are ever undergoing change. We now base our strength on a flow of weapons, and not upon a stock pile. To endeavor to create and excessively large air force would be but to emulate the unfortunate experience of France in 1930. In building the largest air force in Europe, the French Air Ministry failed to recognize how

much war planes suffer from obsolesence, and was therefore unable to cope with the Luftwaffe when Germany attacked. The most useful air force will be relatively small, but with a high rate of turnover in order that technical developments may be used to advantage. Such a statement as well holds true for other branches of our armed forces.

As new machines of war are developed so, too, must men be trained in their use. We must avoid developing a training program which too soon will become outmoded.

The training of our young men should include a rehabilitation or personal hygiene period. It should take the place of the sort of adventures and excitements which too often lead to a lack of discipline. It should be so planned that interference with education and interference with the ordinary work and duties of young men should be at a minimum.

I fully see the need, as I have heretofore said, of universal military training. I do not see the necessity, however, for segregating such young men for 12 months of their time in military posts or military camps. Long experience has show me that a perfectly green youngster can be quickly taught the school of the soldier, from which progresses the school of the squad, the school of the platoon, the school of the company, and then the higher echelons.

Gen. George C. Marshall, United States Army Chief of Staff, in a letter to Chairman Thomas, of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, which was read to the Senate on April 23, commented on Senate attempts to require at least a year of military training for young men before they are sent into combat service. He wrote:

Such statutory restrictions are evidently inspired by the belief that our soldiers are not properly trained before being assigned to combat units. The responsible military authorities, however, are of the opinion that the training is adequate to the requirements. The training program is very intensive and equally thorough. Furthermore, most of the instructors now concerned with this work are veterans of actual combat experience. Under the present procedure the newly inducted soldier who is being prepared as a replacement for the ground forces undergoes a training course of from 15 to 17 weeks. He is taught how to care for himself in the field, how to employ both his primary and secondary weapons, and how he and his weapon fit into the squad and the platoon. Satisfactory completion of the course means that he is qualified for service to which he is to be assigned.

If 17 weeks are adequate under war conditions for boys who have never had military training, why is there a demand from the same War Department leaders, Secretary Stimson and General Marshall, for at least a year of such training in peacetime?

There are two classes of these young men for whom provision must be made: First, those who wish and plan to go to college; and, second, those who for good and sufficient reasons do not plan such a course. For the first group I favor the enlargement and development of our Reserve Officers' Training Corps, knowing the splendid instruction which it has accomplished in our schools and colleges in the past.

For the second group I favor giving military training much in the manner in which the National Guard has been trained, and in the same way, without preventing the occupations in which these young men are engaged. The removal of this group from the labor market each year, when they are beginning the business of learning, would affect every American. In many instances, where members of this

group were the family's chief support, deprivation would result. I am satisfied that a course of training could be provided at our armories and at other centers of sufficient scope to give these young men benefits equal to those they would receive at military posts or training camps. Instead of concentrating these men in large training areas and sending them hundreds-even thousands of miles from home for their preliminary training, such training, intelligently planned and covering the development of a soldier up to field training and the hardening process, can be done efficiently while the soldier continues to live and to work at home. The men involved would continue their civilian pursuits while receiving training in military fundamentals.

I would follow the work done by the young men in the ROTC, and the work done by the young men at the armories and at other places of instruction, by more intensive training in larger groups, to be given from the middle of May until the middle of September, a period of 4 months, when the days are longest and when the opportunity for outdoor training without interruption is best. The 8 months' training received at college or in the armories would be sufficient to equip these young men for the 4 months of intensive summer training.

At the end of their 12 months' training, I would insist upon these young men continuing in the Regular Army, the National Guard, or in the Reserves for a period of from 3 to 5 years, that they might have specialized training and improve the lessons they had learned, and that they might be available for training the classes which followed. I would likewise encourage these young men to fit and quality themselves for the performance of duties of noncommissioned officers and of officers as well.

There is nothing revolutionary about such a plan, but rather it is a method of training which has proved to be efficacious and worth while.

The uniforms, the rifles and other munitions, the tanks and other necessary vehicles, and the cadres of instructors would be no more than are necessary in the large training camps. Armories have been built all over this land where the men could report in the evenings and on week ends for their uniforms and equipment and to receive their training. The country is filled with men of much service who would make excellent drill masters and who would glory in the opportunity that was theirs to so engage their time

With the short time at my disposal, I do not attempt to go into details, but merely to express what seems to me, and to many to whom I have spoken, to be a real solution to a definite problem:

Universal military training will profoundly influence our social, economic, physical, and educational life, as well as our military organization. While conscription is a military measure, it is likewise a sociological measure. It will affect not only our generation, but our children and our children's children.

We must guard against setting up a system which will be so expensive to maintain that Congress would be required to cut down on other funds even more necessary for research, for development, and for equipment. It is entirely conceivable that additional savings would have to be effected by limiting the amounts which should properly be spent upon public works, social improvements, and so forth.

73951-45-pt. 1—18