defense. It is to be hoped that this committee will consider the problem of education and health in relationship to preparation for war and that the importance of a sound economy, of a well-functioning democracy, of the elimination of racial, political, and economic injustices and prejudices, will not be overlooked in the committee's program for prevention of, or preparation for, the next war.

I am convinced that if Congress takes sufficient time to consider all aspects of defense that it will defer action on peacetime military conscription in spite of pressure from military and special-interest groups, in the face of wartime hysteria and lack of perspective.

I wish to file with the committee a statement on compulsory military training adopted by our commission last July. In view of the fact that many soldiers in the service who are opposed to peacetime conscription dare not oppose it openly, I wish also to file several anonymous statements from servicemen that have appeared in the

press.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, very much, Doctor.

Dr. DUSHANE. Thank you, sir.

Chairman WOODRUM. We have an unexpected pleasure this morning in having with us Mr. Maverick, Chairman, Smaller War Plants Corporation, who was a distinguished Member of Congress and who is in favor of the idea of compulsory military training.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURY MAVERICK, CHAIRMAN, SMALLER WAR PLANTS CORPORATION

Mr. MAVERICK. In all, my statement will only take about 3 minutes, I think.

Chairman WOODRUM. All right, sir.

Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, to drag Russia into the discussion of universal military service, one way or the other, is gravely dangerous talk and is certainly harmful in connection with any military policy. One speaker indicates we should arm to "get ready" for Russia; another says that since Russia is going to have universal military service, Russia would beat us, and therefore we should not prepare but lay down our arms, relying on the mercy of Russia.

Both of these viewpoints are entirely without reason or sense and deserve the strongest condemnation. It is also knavish to be causing suspicion and picking trouble with Russia at the very moment we are fighting to preserve the peace of the world. Whatever may be our military policies now or in the future, they should include building up friendship with Russia as well as all other countries.

COCKTAIL HEROES WHO WILL NEVER HAVE TO DIE ON A BATTLEFIELD ARE BRAVE ENOUGH TO LET MILLIONS OF OTHERS DIE

Around and about I have heard some silly anti-Russian gossip which in no sense represents American public opinion or serious thinking. This loose cocktail gossip, plus the innuendos and insinuations of certain extremely minority groups, may lead to serious international misunderstanding. What's worse, unless checked, this martini bleeding might possibly spread to moblike thinking on a bigger scale throughout the Nation.

Such provocations and agitations certainly demand the serious condemnation of all sensible people. For my part, I am talking for our grandchildren, born and unborn.

For that matter, I might say that I represent a broad group, in that I am father of a captain in the Marine Corps, as the chairman is a father of a lieutenant colonel, I believe, in the Army; and I was a soldier in the last war and got wounded, and I came back and built up a lot of illusions in my mind about war, all of which were wrong; and I don't want to see my grandchildren, if I get any, get killed. That is the reason I am here. I represent the unborn grandchildren of myself and the rest of the people of the United States.

Imagine anyone with the bloody crust of needling for a war with Russia after what we have suffered, and after what our courageous ally, Russia, has suffered! Isn't a million casualties enough for us? Do we want to get 5 or 10 million killed?

The point is, Russia is not the issue and should not be brought into the argument, either by those for or against universal service. What I object to is the singling out of Russia. That brings bad feeling and suspicion. What we must do is to have military service for our protection, and to cooperate with our allies, of which Russia is one, to keep the peace. To bring in such an irrelevant and provocative issue is to make any military policy difficult.

LET US COOPERATE WITH OTHER NATIONS, AND BE PEACEFUL,
BUT IF WAR COMES-

But let us view the subject of war, generally.

Would Japan have originally attacked, and have continued to beat, China to a pulp all these years if China had been able to resist? It is true that in the end China will win, but at the cost of 60,000,000 people wounded, starved, and killed. Would Japan have struck us had we been properly prepared for their attack, plus the ability to suddenly counterattack on them? Would Germany have attacked Poland and France? Don't forget-that although Germany is utterly destroyed-the horrible cost to our allies and to civilization.

WE CAN HAVE DISCIPLINE AND DEMOCRACY AT THE SAME TIME-WE HAVE THE DEMOCRACY AND NEED THE DISCIPLINE

Let me controvert a point by some of the opponents of universal service which I believe is badly taken. The point against universal military service is made that "discipline" will somehow become fascism and destroy democracy.

It is true that an unchecked tendency to militarism would be harmful, just as lack of military preparation may bring anarchy and defeat. But what's wrong with national discipline? Our boys-all of them should be trained to serve their country. For my part, I think we will need discipline; we will also need a feeling of individual, national, and international responsibility. I do not fear that military discipline, under our Constitution and with our free people, will lead to a totalitarian state. There is no reason why we should not have a free democracy and along with it a spirit of discipline and sacrifice

I don't mean, by what I say now, that I am angry, but I resent the statements of people advocating such, who are thoughtful people

and I hope I have been in war enough to think this thing out enough— that we distrust democracy. I have spent my life getting people out of jail for what they say and fighting for what I think is democracy, and the use of terms like, or just the thought, that came to me as I was coming here this morning. I don't even know the gentleman that came before me, and this is not a personal remark at all, but something was said about saber rattlers, so forth and so on. It seems to me that discussion along that line is not beneficial. And as for relying on trained men this war, why, after the Civil War they dropped training and dropped military preparation and inside of 10 years after the war we had practically no army at all in the United States, and if we drop training immediately after this war, why, we will grow fat again. As for emotionalism, I was emotional in the last war, and I think my emotions are much calmer than they were then.

As for education, universal military service will, in itself, give medical, health, character, and physical training, the lack of which they can't get or avail themselves of the opportunity of getting any other way. In this war, I have seen medical advances that have astonished the world, and all those things-the education they speak of-would come with this universal military service.

Our war effort-military and civilian-has been magnificent.
During all this we have also preserved our liberties.

If we did it in war, we can certainly do it in peace.

With our high standard of living and education, and with our devotion to the Constitution, we can maintain democracy if we want it. Or, we can choose now, because of our fear to require service, to be wiped out as a people and as a nation in the future.

The financial argument, to me is without any basis whatever, because the war is costing us $8,000,000,000 a month, and $2,000,000,000 or $3,000,000,000 a year-if that is true, and I do not think it would be anywhere near that much, nowhere near that-would be, even at those top-heavy figures, cheaper than spending $8,000,000,000 a month on war, in addition to the misery and suffering and millions of lives. that you lose in a war.

WE MUST HAVE REALISM

But in fear of war,

We do not want war-we want peace. or idealistic notions based on hopes or illusions without common sense or foundation, do not let us fail to prepare-and then get beat. Let us face the question affirmatively.

UNIVERSAL SERVICE IS DEMOCRATIC-POOR AND RICH ALIKE MATURE AS GOOD CITIZENS

It seems to me that the honest, fair, and democratic way is to have universal service-I should think at least a year. There are many angles to it. Educational features can be included, but on this I have not prepared to testify. The point is, service should be universal, for rich and poor alike, and a maturing experience for our youth in America.

We must give up none of our ideals. But national strength is also a necessary thing. Moreover, it is our duty with our great Allies to help preserve the peace of the world in the future. We cannot do our

part if we as a nation become a big fat duck. And we can only do our duty with a sense of realism, and by being always ready for peace or war.

Mr. Chairman, my principal purpose is as an ordinary American to urge against this provocative war talk against Russia. It is one of the most harmful things going on in America, and responsible people, whether for or against universal service, must frown on such talk until it is stopped.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Maverick.
We are glad to have had your talk.

Mr. MAVERICK. Thank you.

Chairman WoODRUM. The representative of the Department of Higher Education of the National Education Association, Mr. Ralph McDonald, executive secretary is present.

We will hear from you, sir.

STATEMENT OF RALPH MCDONALD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, WINSTON-SALEM, N. C.

Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am executive secretary of the Department of Higher Education of the National Education Association, with offices here in Washington. I am also chairman of the Conference of Educational Organizations in the South, which is composed of the presidents and officers of the State educational associations and other educational bodies in 14 Southern States. At the outset I should like to make it clear that we are not pacifists. We believe in preparedness. We are in favor of every sound measure for national security. We realize that until an effective international organization can be established which will prevent aggression, our Nation must be ready if necessary to take up arms in defense of our country and of the ideals for which we stand. We subscribe wholeheartedly and completely to a program of preparedness both now and in the postwar period.

We do

I want to make it clear also that we are not isolationists. not believe that in our modern world you can build a fence around the United States within which our people can live separate and apart from others. Among the college and university people of the United States, it is my opinion that you will find a smaller percentage of isolationists than in the general population. You will find that during those critical years from 1932 to 1941 the voices which were most often raised among our people urging that we face the aggressors realistically were the voices of college and university leaders.

I should like also to make it clear that I personally am not a pacifist. Members of my family have fought in every war in which this Nation has ever engaged from the Revolutionary War down to and including the present one. One of my grandfathers fought in the historic battle of Kings Mountain which took place in the congressional district represented by Major Bulwinkle, honored member of this committee from my home State. Another four times great-grandfather died a few years after the Revolutionary War as a result of wounds which he had received in that conflict. His widow, having moved to the State of Illinois with her children, saw her son leave his pulpit in

one of the earliest Presbyterian churches to be established in that State, to go into battle against the Indians in the Black Hawk War. Incidentally it was in Indian warfare that my great-great-grandfather saw his father killed and scalped before his own eyes. Three boys in my family have already been killed in World War II. One was killed in a training accident in the Army Air Corps as he was taking his last flight before becoming a commissioned pilot. His body was crushed beyond recognition, and he was the first casualty of this war to be buried in the cemetery at Winston-Salem, N. C. It is for that reason that the 'American Legion in that city holds its annual Memorial Day services at the grave of this boy. The second of my kin to be a casualty was a seaman first-class, who went down on March 8, 1942, when the Langley was sunk in the Java Sea. The third boy was a private first-class, killed by the Germans this spring. This third boy was inducted on September 1, 1944, landed in Europe on February 2 and was killed in action on March 3, 6 months and 2 days after his induction. It may be of some significance to note that if the United States had had compulsory military training under the May bill, or that type, for 20 years before Pearl Harbor, neither one of those boys who have been killed would have had a day's training before he was inducted; they were all too young. And I do not for a minute think that the General Staff sent these boys into action without the necessary preparations.

I mention these facts because there has been some effort at these hearings to make it appear that the persons opposed to compulsory military service may be less interested in the defense of their Nation than others. That is not the case. I do not believe there is a person in America today more interested in seeing our Nation prepared and more willing to do the things that are necessary to bring about that preparedness than I am. I think the same thing can be said of most of the educators whom I represent.

Neither am I an isolationist. We had a United States Senator from North Carolina in the Seventy-eighth Congress whom I opposed for reelection because of his isolationism. That isolationist former Senator is a great supporter of compulsory military training. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would call your attention to the fact that some of the most notorious isolationist newspapers in the country are now going all out for compulsory peacetime military training.

The truth of the matter is that there are patriotic American citizens on both sides of this issue, and all should have the fullest right to voice their opinion. I am not a militarist, but I believe the militarists are entitled to an expression of their opinion. I am not a pacifist, but I believe that the pacifists are entitled to their beliefs.

I should like to present a resolution adopted unanimously by the executive committee of the department of higher education at a meeting held in Chicago, January 28, 1945. The resolution is as follows: Be it resolved, That the Department of Higher Education of the National Education Association request Congress—

1. To make a full and thorough study of all matters pertaining to the future military security of the Nation, including the proposal for compulsory military service in peacetime.

2. To provide for a representative commission of citizens to make a careful study of the various proposals for compulsory military service, such commission to include able and distinguished leaders in the field of business, agriculture, labor, education, and the professions, and to use the most competent military and naval authorities as consultants.