then the Army is in deep trouble, inevitably, and unless the structure we now erect is built to meet that inevitable situation, our best resolu tions today won't amount to much for the future.

I think I said once to you, Senator Wadsworth, that with all the splendid work you did at that time, that factor was overlooked. The ship was not built to ride out the typhoon.

Mr. BULWINKLE. What, then, will be your policy in regard to the National Guard?

General MARSHALL. National Guard?

Mr. BULWINKLE. Yes.

General MARSHALL. The National Guard policy, I would say, hinges almost entirely on universal military training.

With the one night of drill a week in the National Guard, it has been found out of the question to attain the standard of training or efficiency that will be required if we can hope to employ the troops within a reasonable period of time. It is out of the question.

We gave the National Guard divisions 13 weeks of basic training in the field, but that wasn't sufficient. It was not until they had 17 weeks-every day, long days, almost 12 hours a day-that they began to acquire a semblance of what was needed. Not until we took the men and trained them in separate camps in our training centers and then sent them to seasoned units, did we get them to where they were near a satisfactory basis.

So, unless you have a system of universal military training so that a man only goes into the Guard after having had systematic, continuous training, the organizations will not be sufficiently effective, in my opinion, to back our position and discourage wars. I think all are in agreement on that point.

The same applies to the Reserve forces. The great confusion now, it seems to me in what I read, is that many people do not distinguish between training a man to enter a veteran unit where he is surrounded by veterans of many battles who prescribe the path he is to follow and give him their leadership in following it, and that which would be required in a time of peace, which is the creation of an entire unit, a division to be ready within a very short time to enter into a campaign. The one is totally different from the other.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Bates?

Mr. BATES. General, how large a standing army do you estimate could raise on a volunteer basis after the war?

you

Of course, I realize there are many intangibles, but have you any estimate as to how large an army could be raised and could be maintained through a volunteer system?

General MARSHALL. We had great difficulty without any war threat in getting sufficient recruits for an army of about 175.000. I think by a great recruiting campaign and by rates of pay which I think would be prohibitive we might reach a strength of 250,000. We would have less difficulty in getting men in the Air Forces than in the Ground Forces. We would have great difficulty in getting men for the most basic service of all-I mean the Infantry.

I will give you this example:

Chairman WOODRUM. Anything else?

Mr. BATES. Then, that being so, General, if you should have the same experience in the postwar period, or whenever you would inaugurate

this system that you advocate, would 250,000 men of a standing army be sufficient to form a nucleus which would meet your over-all requirements with the reserve that you would build up under a compulsory system?

General MARSHALL. I am not committing myself to 250,000. That was given you with regard to how many men we might get on a volunteer basis; it is my thought that it would be a very much simpler proposition to maintain a volunteer regular establishment if you have the background of universal military training than it would be otherwise.

Mr. BATES. Now, along with the Reserve, and the question of Mr. Bulwinkle, do you thing the National Guard could be developed to play an important part in this over-all problem?

General MARSHALL. I would say that with universal military training, it not only could be but must be, and I am quite certain can be. I would assume that every officer in the National Guard would have had the universal military training as a foundation. He would be well grounded and informed before he was passed up into the commissioned rank. We would be in a position to see that he had the necessary qualifications before the Federal Government honored him with a commission, and we would know that every man in the ranks was splendidly trained basically.

Mr. BATES. So you would be in favor of a continuation of the National Guard?

General MARSHALL. Yes; very much so. The National Guard would be an entirely different institution and a very valuable one, with a background of universal training.

Mr. WADSWORTH. One of the tremendous advantages would be the effect on the ROTC; would it not?

General MARSHALL. Yes. The ROTC should meet with much more interest than in the past. We have been under the necessity of conducting primary school instruction in a university setting. We had to begin with the elementary features of military routine, some of which were resented by college men.

With universal military training, the ROTC in half the length of time could produce quite a different result. There will be a sound basis for the selection of the ROTC student. He will be almost 2 years further advanced than he was under the old system. He can therefore go forward from that point to a much more complete degree of training for duties as an officer in 2 years than was previously accomplished

in 3.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Andrews.

Mr. ANDREWS. General, there has been some discussion in connection with this proposal of offering a trainee, at the conclusion of his training, alternate obligations, that is, as against serving 6 years in the Reserve, of serving one enlistment of 3 years in the National Guard, which would fill the National Guard immediately.

Would you favor that?

General MARSHALL. You are getting into very exact details-and I would rather keep aloof from details because they are just detailsbut I shall attempt to answer your question. I would say that we would want to encourage service in the National Guard because there is a going organization that we want kept up to strength. There

should therefore be some compensation for the man who gives that additional service to the country, and incidentally to his State.

I think there are a great many permutations and combination for the details in this matter. I might say, I avoided talking about details, but I had in the back of my mind through all this that we would find as a result of universal military training, a decided stimulus to education, which is exactly the opposite, I understand, of the views of some college authorities.

One of my difficulties has been to meet the situation where the college man had a great advantage over the other man in gaining a commission. It was very difficult to have the other man feel that we were being entirely fair and not merely favoring the college graduate. The fact of the matter was the college man was the far better prepared to win a commission.

Now, when you got down to the cold business of leadership in battle, despite lack of education, we meet that in part by authorizing the actual commissioning of a man on the battlefield if he demonstrated a special capacity for leadership. We commissioned him there and educated him later. Even so, it was so evident to the men that the college men in general, had a great advantage. The nongraduate thought that if it was education that gave the other fellow this great advantage then he must have it too.

Chairman WOODRUM. General, we certainly thank you for your splendid statement and for your generous willingness to answer questions. It has been a privilege to have had you with us this afternoon.

The committee stands in recess now, until 10 o'clock Tuesday morning, when we will hear Members of Congress, and that will be the conclusion of these hearings.

(Whereupon, at 3: 40 p. m., the committee recessed until 10 a. m., Tuesday, June 19, 1945.)

UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON POSTWAR MILITARY POLICY,

Washington, D. C.

The select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Clifton A. Woodrum (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

First, we will have the Honorable Earl R. Lewis, of the Eighteenth District of Ohio.

The committee is very glad to have you make a statement for the record so that we may consider it when we go into executive session on this matter.

Will you proceed, sir?

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL R. LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. LEWIS. First, I would like to state that what I have to say here is purely my own idea. And I think I should add this also: That I come from a military family.

My two brothers are graduates of Annapolis. One is on duty at Annapolis now as a member of the faculty.

I have been a little disturbed by the suggestion that we have compulsory military service. I do not want to see America become a militaristic nation, and what I have to suggest here I think might go far toward preventing that sort of situation and at the same time lead to preparation, because I realize, on the other hand, that while we are trying to set up a world state or a world combination of states for the preservation of peace, all such combinations of nations or agreements in the past have failed and, frankly, I see no particular reason why the one that is now being set up will be any more successful than those that have preceded it, although I wish it were otherwise.

But I suggest that, instead of making this a compulsory proposition, you make it a voluntary thing and to substitute for the compulsory part of it an incentive to take military training on the part of every boy who comes of whatever the military age may be fixed at, and the incentive should be a year or 2 years, or more if you think advisable, of training at Government expense in the colleges and universities, technical schools, and vocational schools of all kinds, and that you allow the boy to choose the school which he will attend.

And I believe that that incentive of a year or 2 years of college or vocational school training at the Government's expense will be

sufficient to induce practically every boy in the country to take military training in connection with his college or vocational work.

I think, if you thus combine training for civilian activities in life with military training, that the two will be kept in proper balance and there will be practically no danger of America becoming a militaristic

nation.

That would, of course, require the Government to set up in every college or technical school or vocational school a military department. This, of course, should be under the control of the War Department, and the faculty should be military men, preferably graduates of West Point, and the course should be an honest-to-goodness course and not one of those wishy-washy ROTC course such as the have had in the past.

And I think you can thus combine voluntary military training and education for civilian activities at the same time.

This is subject, of course, to a variety of plans, but I am merely outlining the broad general plan and you can fill in the details and make the thing a really workable system and one that would not endanger America becoming miltaristic or military minded.

I think we could accomplish everything that the Army desires and everything that the needs and safety of the country requires by such a system as that.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Are there any questions of Mr. Lewis? (No response.)

Thank you very much, sir. The next witness will be Hon. Charles R. Savage, Representative from the State of Washington. The committee will be glad to hear you, Mr. Savage.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES R. SAVAGE, A RESPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. SAVAGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Postwar Military Policy Committee, first, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me to appear and testify today. I hope that what I will have to say will be helpful in bringing light on this most important question.

I am not speaking today on behalf of any beliefs or feelings I might have personally in regard to postwar military training, but instead I feel I should place before the committee a first-hand report of what men now in the service, whom I have contacted, think of a postwar conscription program.

I was in Europe in May and was fortunate in securing passage home on a troop transport. On board were over 7,000 of our fighting men, more than half of whom were recently released prisoners of the Germans. Some of these men were coming home to be discharged, and others to continue the war against the Japs.

Since the trip consumed 11 days and I had freedom of the ship, I was able to talk to a great many of these men, and also to a number of Army and Navy chaplains who were fellow passengers.

Naturally, as a Congressman, I took it upon myself to talk to these servicemen about a number of the problems which face Congress in regard to the treatment of veterans, both now and in the postwar era, and also about economic problems, but of course in connection with