but it is one that was used in the document-it was the interest of the American people, the British people, the Soviet people, and the French and Chinese to keep the peace and to rebuild their countries and to improve the economic conditions which have been interrupted, which have been so badly injured by the war and to resume their social and economic programs. If we are going to have a world in which peace is being maintained by a partnership in which force is the essential element, then it is obvious, if we want our influence to be felt in the progress of the affairs of that partnership, we have to have the force to back it up. The American people have twice in their past two wars gone forth from the continent of North America with their military power and defeated their enemies beyond the seas. The military system which they created more or less out of whole cloth for these purposes has been effective because it has had time to work. Now, that military system, in conjunction with our association in this world organization, is the principal pillar, the principal strength of that organization over a very large part of the earth's surface. If people can have confidence in it, if our allies can have confidence in it, then the world organization may work. If they cannot have confidence in it, then each will seek by his own means to make himself secure in his own territory and we shall have constant conflict, constant difficulty, and finally the disintegration of the organization which we are now so hopefully forming. This is all a part of the task that lies before us. The adoption of universal military training for the young men of this country is, of course, only a part of the essential military preparation which we must undertake. It is a necessary part and it must be considered in connection with the over-all military policy of the country and fitted into it. The relation which this trained reserve will bear to the regular armed forces of the United States with the National Guard to a program for industrial mobilization must, and I presume, will be considered by your committee in writing legislation. That is the substance of how I feel about it, gentlemen. If there is any question you would like to ask me I would be glad to try to answer. Mr. ALLEN. Major Eliot, first I want to say I am a great admirer of your writings. I have very seldom, if ever, missed any of them. Major ELIOT. Thank you. Mr. ALLEN. The thing that confuses me here most of all is we have one group of representatives in the United States out in San Francisco telling the world they want to cooperate, we want to do everything in the world to keep peace throughout the world, yet here I understand within 3 or 4 days some of our highest military and naval officers will be here saying that although these representatives are out there trying to cooperate, they question whether there is good faith in the United Nations. They think that something might happen. Do you think that is a good psychology under those conditions? It reminds me of those six Missouri boys. They used to fight all the time. The father brought them all together and he had them convinced that it was not right to fight, that they should cooperate, that is what they wanted and should do. Then he took one of the boys out and taught him all the hammer locks and toe holds and all the art of prize fighting. That is what I am wondering about, if that is not comparable to what we are doing now in San Francisco. Major ELIOT. No; I do not think so. Mr. ALLEN. We have one group of representatives saying we are making this plan and there is a good chance of world peace and then we have high Army and Navy officials coming in saying that that is a good thing, but we doubt if we can put it across. Major ELIOT. Mr. Allen, I have just come back from San Francisco. I was there during most of the opening phases of the Conference. I became fairly well acquainted with members of the American delegation and other delegations and also the military advisers to the American delegation. I must say I did not see the spirit that you describe and I must say that I do not think that the War and Navy Departments, insofar as I have talked with their representatives, are coming here to impugn bad faith to any possible future member of the world organization. I am not and cannot speak for the War and Navy Departments and I won't attempt to do so. They are much more ably represented than by me, but at San Francisco we are obviously building an association which is going to depend on the strength of its several members. Specifically and precisely, what we are doing is building a world organization which, in the last analysis, depends on Anglo-American cooperation on the one side and sea and air power backed up by adequate forces to maintain its bases and, on the other hand, by the great continental power of Russia. As long as those two powers agree and those two types of strength work together we shall have peace in this world, and if they do not work together, we won't have peace. I do not think the Army and Navy is coming here to impugn the good faith of the Russians. I do not think that is the case at all. What we do have to consider is this: The Russians are a practical people. They respect strength and the ability to carry out promises and engagements. They have been invaled and almost destroyed by a great German army which came within an ace of overthrowing their Government and completely subjecting them to the will of Hitler. They are determined that is not going to happen again and they are going to make themselves secure by their own means unless and until they see this is a world organization which they can have some faith in and whose principal support, other than themselves, the armed strength of the United States and the armed strength of Great Britain is ready to do its part of the job and able to do it. One of the manifestations that we can give them of our determination to maintain the position of this country and the world and to maintain those ideals of right and justice which the American delegation in San Francisco specifically wrote into the charter is to show that we are willing to undertake the necessary military preparations and to do what we have never done before, to authorize the training of our young men in time of peace to meet their responsibilities. Mr. ALLEN. Do you feel that the other nations feel the same way about it; in other words, that they are there and want to cooperate, but, on the other hand, maybe they had better look out for this whole thing and load up with guns too? Major ELIOT. My feeling with regard to all of the delegates at San Francisco with whom I talked was they came there determined to make this thing succeed, determined to do their part of it, that is, to turn out a charter which would be a reasonable basis for security. They also came there with the very real realization that the writing of the charter was only the first step in a long series of steps, the first step on a very arduous road and that the success depended not only on them but on people who would come after them in the third and fourth and fifth generations who had to find the means to prevent this world and civilization from being torn apart by weapons man has made. One of the means of doing so, one of the means that every civilized nation has found necessary is to keep power, weapons, ability to protect the peace in the hands of those who are law-abiding members of the community and to deprive those who might disturb that peace of the means to do so. We do not let criminals or we do not let anybody, any irresponsible citizen, run around Washington with a machine gun. You have to take the same attitude toward other possible disturbers of the peace in the world community. I think the people came out there with that feeling. There is no serious divergence on that point between the British and America and there was no serious divergence on that point between the American delegation and the Soviet delegation. They all came there with the same purpose of mind. The Russians came there with suspicions of us and the Americans with suspicions against the Soviets, but in building up confidence between the Western World and Russia lies much of the hope of future success and we will not gain the confidence of the Russians by laying aside our weapons and going back to sleep. That is what they are afraid we will do. They say, "All right, you have licked the Germans and you are going to lick the Japs, and then you are going back to your peaceful ways, just like you did before, and in 20 years we are going to have these people to deal with alone." Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Major Eliot. The committee is very grateful for your attendance. The committee will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 2:50 p. m., the committee recessed to Tuesday, June 5, 1945, at 10 a. m.) UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1945 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT COMMITTEE ON POSTWAR MILITARY POLICY, Washington, D. C. The select committee met, pursuant to notice, 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. Colonel Taylor, will you have a seat, please? Col. John Thomas Taylor, director, national legislative committee, the American Legion, is our first witness today. The committee will be glad to hear from you, Colonel. STATEMENT OF JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN LEGION Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the American Legion wholeheartedly endorses the principle of universal military training for the youth of this Nation, and we urgently recommend that such a system be placed upon our statute books without delay. We realize there are organizations and individuals sincerely opposing a system of universal military training. Others oppose it but temporize with majority public sentiment by suggesting "Let's wait until after the war," and still other groups oppose it because they have always opposed this Nation's national defense and security. In the latter class I place the pacifist groups and, unfortunately, some educators. I shall take this up in detail a little later in my statement. I used the phrase "majority public sentiment" because I base it upon all the public polls thus far taken. On November 17, 1943, the Gallup poll announced the results of its survey as compared with 1939, as follows: Approve training Undecided. 1939 Today According to the editorial polls of the country, so far as the ladies are concerned, we have picked up 1,005 editorials in the press of which 825 were for universal military training; 165, "No"; and 15 were neutral. On November 6, 1944, it was announced in the Washington Post that a majority of the members of the United States Chamber of Commerce favored universal military training; and, on December 4, |