Being personally acquainted with each member of this committee, I have great admiration for its members and much respect for its decisions. It appears to me, however, that better results will obtain if a fact-finding commission is appointed by the President or by Congress, or by both, to be constituted of Congressmen and of business and professional men. I would include in such membership no military officers, but would have the commission furnished with Army, Navy, and Air Force advisers.

Universal military training in time of peace is but a part of the whole problem of postwar defense. As has been well said, "We are legislating for tomorrow, not for today, and sound thought and long study are essential to the success of future investments." The new character of industrialized warfare has made a healthy expanding economy essential for sound national security.

Chairman WOODRUM. We next have Brig. Gen. Henry I. Reilly. Please proceed, General Reilly.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. HENRY I. REILLY

General REILLY. We hope for a long period of peace. We are trying to do everything we can at San Francisco and other places to get it. One of the most important things is the question of how are we going to get it and how are we going to maintain it. Mr. Ford may have said that history was bunk, but with 21 years out of this country and seeing war in France twice, Spain, Mexico, Russia twice, Poland, Manchuria, I am inclined to differ with him.

Looking back in the 25 years between our two wars I think the evidence exists overwhelmingly that the people who disarmed us are primarily responsible for our war with Germany just finished. They are primarily responsible for the war with Japan now going on and probably going on for a couple of years yet.

They are responsible for the unnecessary prolongation of both with unnecessary loss of life, limb, and treasure through that prolongation. If they succeed once more in disarming us they will be responsible for our being without influence in establishing peace or in maintaining it according to our ideas. They will be responsible for another war and our entry unprepared with the same old results, unnecessary loss of life, limb, and treasure, and a terrible bill to be paid afterward.

Now, I know that is a very broad statement to make. The only reason I am making it is because I think that with my experience out of the country in peace and in war, and it having been my business to study international affairs for at least 30 years, and watched their progress, that I have some background of experience from which to speak.

I went back to Europe in 1937. I visited every country in Europe a number of times. I went to all the Balkan countries, Turkey, and around the Mediterranean, and I have found everywhere exactly the same thing. I happen to have had the entree to military people and diplomatic people, members of different governments also.

I found everywhere a simple thing. They said, "If you, the United States, and other democracies want us to follow your ideas you have got to be prepared to meet the terrible military force which Germany

now possesses. We have no illusion about it. We know on the ground and in the air what she can do. We know Germany's readiness to use it if we do not do what Germany wants us to do. If you and other democracies will not show you have got the force to meet that force, why should we, to use slang, stick our necks out? We will get them cut off and you won't be around to help us."

Now, certainly, that happened in the case of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium,, Luxemboug, Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Bulgaria.

From the beginning of the war we have been talking about getting Turkey into it. Turkey kept out of it. The answer is very simple. The Turkish sympathy was with us, with the democracies, but she found out very quickly that the plan was that Turkey do the fighting, and, to put it roughly, we do the talking. The Turks told me, "When you and the other democracies will come here and furnish us with troops, the guns, the airplanes, the tanks, and everything which is necessary to enable us to face Germany, we will be glad to do it, and until you do it we haven't the slightest intention of going to war."

Now, when it comes to the other side of the earth, Japan, I happen to have been mixed up in the inside of things out there at various times in my life. My second tour in the Philippines was as far back as 1909. I was then in the Military Information. It is so far back there is no secret about it.

One of the things that I personally did was arrest two Japanese spies in the act of purchasing Corrigedor plans from a sergeant. There is no secret about the thing; that is just one of the thousands of things reported between the two wars.

Leaving the Army, for lack of promotion-not that I didn't like the Army; I didn't want to stay a lieutenant always-I became a newspaperman. I went to all of these places as a foreign correspondent. When I came back from Europe for a few months in 1941, I found no one that wanted to listen. No one wanted to publish anything except the service journals, the Infantry Journal, the Cavalry Journal, and one or two other service magazines. No news reel and no broadcasting company wanted anything about what was really going on from a military point of view in Europe, and you wouldn't believe for one instant there was any danger of war with Japan.

There is no use of going into details, but all that is a matter of producing the proper evidence at the right time if it is necessary to do so. We are being told once more that disarmament brings peace and armament provokes war. We accepted that propaganda after the last war. We accepted it for 25 years. In 1920, we passed a National Defense Act because the country was against universal military training. A citizens' army was raised by voluntary enlistments. They provided for the Regular Army, Reserves, CMTC, ROTC, and all those things.

Mr. Wadsworth remembers all the details. That was to be substituted for just the thing we are asking for today, universal training in peace and service in the war. What happened to the substitute? It was never carried out. Year after year the appropriations were whittled down under pacifist hammering until when the war broke out in Germany we hadn't anything you could call an Army at all and what.

little we did have was due to that act and the people who fought to maintain it.

If it hadn't been for that act, some of it having been kept going, and if it hadn't been for General MacArthur and others insisting on mobilizing the National Guard, bringing the Regular Army up to war strength, taking the fullest advantage of the graduates of the ROTC, which we did have, we would have been caught in a much worse condition than we were when we finally entered the war in 1941.

Under the influence of pacifists and the disarmament advocates. as a road to peace at the Washington Arms Conference, which I happened to have attended as a newspaperman, we gave away, among other things, six new battle cruisers and seven battleships. We haven't yet caught up on those 45,000-ton battleships with all the building which we have been doing. We are only beginning to get the strength at sea which we would have had if we had kept those ships instead of giving them away.

We gave away our position in the Pacific. We didn't get out of the Philippines and neither did we put sufficient force there to hold them. We didn't do anything with Guam except leave it with a few sailors and a few marines, just nice bait for the Japanese to take and boast about. We didn't do anything about the Japanese taking the mandated islands and violating every one of their promises.

Incidentally, at the close of the war with Spain at the Paris Conference in 1899 where signed peace, Spain offered us those islands, but we didn't take them. Germany took them and later Japan took them from Germany. Look at the trouble they have been giving us ever since and are giving us today. We haven't got them yet.

Now, as to the prolongation of the war. First, I flew back from London to Paris the day before war was declared. Some of my friends in the French Senate told me they were going to declare war and they didn't want to do it. All you had to do was look at the relative strengths of the two sides. All you had to do was look at Germany's aviation, which the French and British and ourselves had ample reports on for several years, the Germany Army of nearly 200 divisions rapidly being increased, and the French with only 61 in the field.

The British sent them 5, the Belgians had about 20, and the Dutch about 8.

In the first blow the Germans struck with 125 divisions and all of their air. This business that there was no infantry, that machines can do things, is contrary to the facts. I have all the details of that invasion day by day. I have the path of every armored German division day by day and sometime by hours. Out of the 125 German divisions which started the attack, renewed by over 50 more, only 9 were armored divisions. Only 10 were motorized infantry divisions. The rest of them were the same old infantrymen marching on foot carrying his pack with their artillery horse-drawn, except the antiaircraft and the antitank and a few long-range guns.

The wagon trains were all horse-drawn. And yet we were told in this country, and we are being told still, that one of the reasons you don't need large armies of soldiers is because the machines can get the better masses of men. We are constantly being told that it is machine versus men and aviation versus ground troops.

Everything from the Spanish Civil War, which I saw the last part of, witnessed 20 battles on, has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that it is not machine versus men but that it is machines with men. It is not aviation versus ground forces. It is aviation with ground forces and ground forces with aviation, and when you get the maximum result they are both under one command attacking the enemy's ground toops and not wandering off blowing up cities.

That idea of machines versus men, aviation versus men instead of "with" goes along with a number of other things, blockades and strategic bombing. Strategic bombing is all right in its place. When the day of action comes that aviation should be attacking the enemy's armed forces directly in front of our forces.

That is what the Russians have done from the beginning. That is what the Japanese do. That is what we do in the Pacific, or have up to the present.

There is no easy way to win a war. It is still won by the mass of people fighting. If they don't want to do it they won't win it.

Now, as to the statement that universal training in service is not democratic; it is a totalitarian thing. That simply shows an ignorance as to history. The oldest Saxon custom carried out in England until William the Conqueror arrived was that every individual man not only had to serve any time he was asked to serve, but he had to provide his own arms and equipment.

There is nothing more democratic in history than the fact that the citizen who has the right to vote has the obligation to fight for his

country.

There were only three nations that didn't have conscription or universal service in training. They were China, Britain, and the United States. China, with 400,000,000 people has allowed 80,000,000 Japs to take all her seacoast, to take Manchuria, Korea, all the rivers up to the head of navigation, their mines, their industries. Anyone that says China didn't have a chance-again I go back to history.

In 1894 at the time of the first Chinese-Japanese War the Chinese had a bigger and more modern army than the Japanese. China had a bigger navy, with more modern ships and bigger ships than the Japanese. The Japanese were fighters. The generals and admirals of Japan sat up 2 days and nights debating whether they dare attack back in 1894.

They finally decided on the old principle that the bigger they are the harder they fall.

There isn't anything at all to support the Chinese contention and the contention of their friends, some of them big publishers, that they never had a chance. They had the same chance that Japan had, and a better chance because they had more natural resources of every kind and more manpower. They wouldn't use it.

In China it was a disgrace to be a soldier.

As far as any danger of militarism is concerned, that rests in the individual. We can have two armies. We can have the Regular Volunteer Army to do service abroad and we can have a home army in which the average individual gets his military training and which cannot be ordered out of the country unless Congress declares war.

In conclusion, I will only say, ask the average soldier who really fought; ask the infantry soldier and the artilleryman, the man in the

tank and the flyer, the men who have actually been shot at. Let's stop being influenced by articles by Gertrude Stein and all the antimilitarists and everybody else who know nothing about war and have never really been under fire and haven't the slightest idea what the real soldier thinks.

Thank you.

Chairman WoODRUM. Thank you very much.

The committee had scheduled for hearing on Monday representatives of the Chicago Committee to Oppose Peacetime Conscription. Dr. Morrison, representing that committee, is in the committee room at the moment and would be accommodated by being heard at this time, and we will be very glad to hear you at this time.

Dr. Morrison, will you give the committee your name and address? STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES CLAYTON MORRISON, EDITOR, CHRISTIAN CENTURY, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF CHICAGO COMMITTEE TO OPPOSE CONSCRIPTION

Dr. MORRISON. My name is Charles Clayton Morrison. I am editor of the Christian Century of Chicago. The Christian Century is a nondenominational religious organ circulating throughout the entire country among the leaders of all the Protestant denominations, Jewish leaders, and a few Roman Catholic leaders.

My presence here, Mr. Chairman, I must say, is very impromptu. I have no prepared address and must apologize to the committee for that lack.

I was asked to come this morning on the basis of the fact that I happen to be at this moment in Washington and was urged to come and testify before this committee on the bill that you are considering. I do not intend to extend my remarks at any length, but the most I can do is cast my vote in an impromptu extemporized form against the bill that is under consideration.

I have been asked by the Chicago Committee to Oppose Conscription to testify here. My sympathy is with that committee and all similar agencies that are working at this moment against the passage of the measure that is before you.

Perhaps the Christian Century might be said to be represented also in anything I say, because the measure is one which editorially we have opposed from the beginning.

Chairman WOODRUM. Doctor, I wonder if I might help you in your informal presentation if I remind you that we have no particular bill or measure. This committee is a policy-forming committee. We do not report legislation and the matter we are considering is the over-all policy question of whether or not there should or should not be in the postwar period some system of universal military training. Dr. MORRISON. I am glad to have you correct me on that. I was misconceiving the function of the committee.

Chairman WOODRUM. There are several detailed plans pending in Congress. They are pending before the legislative committees. This committee is merely trying to get a preview of the over-all tendency in the country on the fundamental question of policy.

Dr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That makes me a little more comfortable in that it absolves me of any duty to consider the details of a specific bill. Is that not right?