Four chapters reported an uncertain vote. So we had 17 chapters that said it should be made now, or approximately 11 percent; 129 that said the decision should be delayed until after the establishment of the peace, or approximately 85 percent, and 4 of the chapters, or approximately 3 percent were uncertain. So it is evident that the large majority of the chapters favored delaying the decision upon this grave question until after the establishment of the peace, and that, I submit, Mr. Chairman, is a significant result. Chairman WOODRUM. How many chapters did you send the questionnaire to? Dr. HIMSTEAD. Three hundred. Chairman WOODRUM. And you got how many replies? Dr. HIMSTEAD. One hundred and fifty. Chairman WOODRUM. And out of the 300 were 117 whose said it should be delayed? Dr. HIMSTEAD. One hundred and twenty-nine. Chairman WOODRUM. That is out of 300. Dr. HIMSTEAD. Yes, and out of the 150 that replied. Chairman WOODRUM. I see. Dr. HIMSTEAD. The second question was: Do you favor the creation by the Congress of a National commission representative of many interests, Army and Navy, education, business, labor, agriculture, and religion, to study all aspects of postwar national defense, including universal military training, and to make recommendations to the Congress? The replies on that question were as follows: "Yes"-146, or 97 percent. "No"-3, or 2 percent. "Uncertain"-1, or approximately 1 percent. It is to be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the proportion replying which favored this course of action is even greater than the majority favoring the delaying of the decision until after the establishment of the peace. Question No. 3: Irrespective of your judgment expressed in reply to question 1, if the decision concerning universal military training is to be made now, do you favor the establishment as a peacetime policy of some form of universal military training for physically qualified men? The replies on that question were as follows: Keep in mind that the question is "some form of universal military training." Now, further on in the questionnaire, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of detailed questions with reference to the form of universal military training, and I would like to call your attention to the replies to those questions, and I will read question No. 4 so you will see how it was presented to the chapters. It reads: Irrespective of your replies to questions I and III, if we are to have peacetime universal military training for physically qualified men, which of the following details for such a training program do you favor? I am just going to run over the questions. The training should consist of: (1) Basic or recruit military training only. (2) Basic or recruit military training, specialist military training maneuvers and field exercises. (3) Basic or recruit military training, specialist military training, maneuvers and field exercises, and nonmilitary training, such as vocational training and general education. To question No. 1, basic or recruit military training only, there were 8 chapters that indicated an affirmative answer, or 5 percent. To question No. 2, basic or recruit military training, specialist military training, maneuvers and field exercises, there were 37 replies in the affirmative, or approximately 25 percent. To question No. 3, basic or recruit military training, specialist military training, maneuvers and field exercises, and nonmilitary training, such as vocational training and general education, there were 97 affirmative replies, or approximately 66 percent. Now, these replies would seem to indicate that in reply to question No. 3, some form of universal military training, what these chapters or a great majority of the chapters had in mind was that it should be some form of military training which would carry with it a considerable amount of general education. Mr. VINSON. Your last question is on vocational training? Mr. VINSON. And that is what percent? Dr. HIMSTEAD. There were 97 affirmative replies or 66 percent. There is another question which I think is quite significant, which reads: If you have checked IV-A-3 (just above), where should the control and direction of this training program (military, vocational, and general education) rest? The replies are significant. There are two alternatives. The first is: "Armed forces exclusively," and the second, "Armed forces in cooperation with civilian education." To the first of these there was only one affirmative reply. To the question "Armed forces in cooperation with civilian education," there were 128 affirmative replies, or approximately 99 percent of those that replied to this question. I submit that is a significant reaction. I submit it represents the fear on the part of educators of the country that it would not be safe to turn over the whole of this program of universal military training, if one is established, to the exclusive control of the Army. On the questionnaire, a large majority favored one continuous year, if we are to have it at all. Now, there was question No. 5, which Dr. Brumbaugh commented on when he reported for the American Council on Education, which was to be answered only by those who had recorded a "No" answer to the question, "Do you favor some form of military training?" There were alternative means for preparedness listed here, and I would like to run through those briefly, and then I will close. They are as follows: (1) Establishment of an adequate professional standing Army and Navy recuited by voluntary enlistment. Note that does not say a large Army and Navy; it says an adequate Army and Navy. (2) Establishment of additional Federal service academies for officer training comparable to West Point and Annapolis. (3) Establishment of a comprehensive program of research in the sciences and technology of war; that is, ordnance, aviation, communications, transportation, chemical warfare, etc. (4) Development and establishment of plans for rapid industrial conversion to wartime needs. (5) Enlargement of Reserve Officers' Training Corps, National Guard, program, and reestablishment of the citizens' military training corps. (6) Extension of cadet training in secondary schools. (7) Increase of emphasis in schools and colleges on health and physical training. (8) Development of international cooperation looking toward limitation of armaments and establishment of an international police force. Remember this represents the 66 that voted "No" on the question of establishing some form of universal military training. With reference to the establishment of an adequate professional standing Army and Navy recruited by voluntary enlistment, 64 said "Yes," or 97 percent. In reply to No. 2, establishment of additional Federal service academies for officer training comparable to West Point and Annapolis, 14 indicated favoring that proposal, or approximately 21 percent. No. 3, establishment of a comprehensive program of research in sciences and technology of war, 36 indicated they favored that, or approximately 55 percent. No. 4, development and establishment of plans for rapid industrial conversion to wartime needs, 36 indicated their approval, or 55 percent. To No. 5, enlargement of Reserve Officers' Training Corps, National Guard program, and reestablishment of the citizens' military training corps, 13 indicated approval, or 20 percent. To No. 6, extension of cadet training in second schools, 2 indicated approval, or 3 percent. To No. 7, increase of emphasis in schools and colleges on health and physical training, 45 answered affirmatively, or 68 percent. Now, here is the significant answer: No. 8, development of international cooperation looking toward limitation of armaments and establishment of an international police force, 66 indicated favoring this, which represents a 100-percent answer. I am sorry my time is up, but the thought I wish to leave with you is I am not speaking officially for the association because it is too large, 17,000 members, for me to say what the association believes or does not believe, but the officers and members of the Council of the American Association of College Professors are on record by an overwhelming majority that it is wise to delay this decision until after the establishment of the peace, at which time we shall know what our military commitments are, and when we keep in mind the significance of this question, that it is going to determine policy for a long time to come, I hope this committee will give serious consideration to such recommendation. Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, Dr. Himstead. Is Mr. Otto Steele, of the National Conference of Methodist Youth Fellowship, here? Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OF OTTO STEELE, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST YOUTH FELLOWSHIP Mr. STEELE, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Otto Steele. I speak today on behalf of the National Conference of the Methodist Youth Fellowship, an organization including nearly a million Methodist youth. The Methodist Church, of which we are a part, through its general conference, the highest authoritative body of the denomination, by almost unanimous action, has urged Congress to postpone all consideration of legislation on peacetime compulsory military training until after the war. The council of bishops of our church has taken similar action, as has the Association of Methodist Colleges and Universities. The National Conference of the Methodist Youth Fellowship, which I represent, took action at its latest session last fall (1944) in opposition to peacetime compulsory military training. The following reasons form the basis of this action. First. Of vital concern to us is the effect that peacetime military conscription will have upon the life of our democracy. We have a rich heritage-rooted and grounded in the principles of freedom. We have sought to achieve freedom-freedom from fear and want, as well as freedom of speech and religion. We as a Nation have respected and cherished the right of every man to be free to live his own life in harmony with the laws of society. It isn't every land that has supported freedom as we know it. European countries have created military castes and have adopted conscription measures. And the verdict of history is that war has not been prevented. Invariably the "universal training of large populations to the use of arms has been followed by increased resort to armed force, both within nations and between nations." But we cherish the peace which freedom brings. We honor and reverence the citizenship and character developed and achieved through self-discipline, not the discipline imposed from without which involves blind obedience. Military discipline does not contribute to the building of moral fiber and the making of good citizens. It is, in essence, mass regimentation which most surely crushes the initiative and freedom of the individual. The spirit of democracy is fostered not through coercion, but through the voluntary cooperation of free people. In a democracy, the highest sort of premium is placed on the freedom of the individual. Second. We believe that compulsory military training in peacetime will not build up the health of the nation. It is a poor and utterly inadequate substitute for the kind of national health program our country really needs. Even if military training were good for health, it would affect only a small section of the population. Girls are altogether excluded. Then, too, it would apply only to those youths physically fit for such training. Nothing is being done for the 4-F's today. They are the ones who need health attention most. Neither will anything be done in peacetime military training for the boys whose weaknesses and defects are most pronounced. And finally, military training would come too late in the life of the youth to do any good. Let me quote from Hanson Baldwin, the leading writer on military affairs for the New York Times: Selective service which does not have jurisdiction over the youth until he is 18 years old does relatively little about improving fundamentally the Nation's health. Any real program for improving the health and mental well-being of the Nation, it is clear, must begin at an early age in the home and in the grade school. What we need is a national health program which will be inclusive of all phases of American life. As Congressman Celler has pointed out: It is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Nation when we choose the Army as the instrument to cure our social ills. Let us confess that our public-health services need attention-and then let's take part in some constructive action for the whole Nation, not just for the young men of 17 and 18. Third. We believe as Christians that we should cooperate with other nations in making world peace a reality. It is our firm conviction that the passage of peacetime military conscription legislation will encourage war as a means of settling disputes among nations, and will create suspicion, mistrust and fear among our allies and other nations. Enactment of postwar conscription will be the outright admission that we have failed to keep our promise of a world community of nations. We are letting the world know that our faith in the postwar period rests, not on international collaboration, but on our own military might. Confidence in military power and might leads inevitably to war and insecurity: "Not by power, nor by might, but by my spirit, saith the Lord." We Methodist Youth are deeply concerned that our Nation shall cooperate in the achievement of world unity and peace. Such a policy of international cooperation involves faith in each other as nations, and faith in the possibility of peace on the part of all. We will oppose any measure that destroys that kind of faith, and support every measure that fosters its realization. Conscription in the postwar world will not maintain our national security. The Christian Advocate, our Methodist publication, states that France, which had by 1939 gained through conscription the largest standing army and trained reserve in Europe, collapsed tragically when attacked. Great Britain and the United States-neither of which had accepted the peacetime conscription policy-were victorious in World War I and seem destined for military victory in the present struggle. If we conscript our youth and arm to the teeth, is it not logical that other nations, viewing our acts as threats to their security will feel compelled to do the same? In conclusion, let me say that we believe there are steps toward enduring peace and security which our Nation, in the role of a leader, can and must take. It should practically encourage the removal of all barriers to the development of a spirit of world community. It should discourage every advance toward nationalism, militarism, and imperialism both at home and abroad. It should continue to foster the democratic spirit which respects the dignity, worth, and freedom of the individual. It should take immediate steps toward reconstruct on and rehabilitation in the war-torn areas of the world. It should strive diligently and wholeheartedly to create and maintain the conditions of a just and enduring peace, here and throughout the |