the Soviet Union. It splits Germany in half. It ends Germany as a great power, possibly forever. This development means that the Soviet Union succeeds Germany as the dominant power in Europe. There is not a single political power in Europe, there is not a possible coalition of European powers, that can successfully resist the Soviet Union henceforth. The blood relationship of the various Slav races that live in much of the area behind this new frontier adds to the cultural unity of the people who inhabit it. The political program will, in all probability, be carried out with the same zeal that has characterized its execution within the Soviet Union proper. The Soviet Union becomes the greatest free-trade area in the world, of which these new constituent republics will be an important part. The economic strength that will come of such a development will add to the strength of the Soviet Union as a political force. This development should have a direct meaning to us and our future military policy. Two World Wars should make us appreciate that we are a definite, organic part of Europe-though most of us hate to admit it. If we obligate ourselves to help maintain peace, we must take the lead in forming a defensive coalition to keep western Europe from being overrun by the Slavs, If they are able to dominate western Europe, they will, in a brief period of time, be able to conquer the British Isles. They will also be able to become masters of the African Continent. With bases reaching from Africa through the Azores to the British Isles, they will definitely be in a position to launch an attack against us. And they will have the excuse to do it. With all of the religious ardor that characterized Mohammed, they will seek to rescue, to liberate, their brother toilers who are "being held in chains by the capitalistic powers in the Western Hemisphere." If we allow ourselves to be lulled to sleep, if by the acquisition of great wealth we become soft and flabby, that prospect will become a certainty. Note the pressure the Soviet Union has used within the past year in getting what it has. The safety of our country requires, therefore, that we prevent a continental power from using the British Isles as a base against us. But that will not be effective unless me have a base on the continent from which our own power can be exercised. The security and independence of our country requires that we prevent the development of an overwhelmingly dominant power in western Europe. To keep one power from mastering Europe, it must be our obligation to maintain a balance there as self-protection. A world organization will be faced with the same duty. Whether we like it or not, it seems to me we are going to be definitely interested in what goes on in the Mediterranean and the Near East. We have cultural bonds with Italy and Greece that can never be permanently severed. There are too many strong ties between us and those two nations to permit a neutral or disinterested policy. The same applies to Palestine; and when the people of this country realize what a domestic shortage of oil would mean in their daily lives, they will become interested in the oil reserves of Persia. We shall always be interested in Scandinavia, because the Scandinavian countries have always stood before us as models of highly functioning democracies. While a large section of the American public feels distrustful of England, America will not, as long as we are strong and prosperous, allow England to be conquered. The same can be said of Eire. Many Americans do not care a whit what happens to Ireland, but they would change their opinions the minute any other nation would attempt to conquer Eire. As a jumping-off place for South America, as well as a continent with a great future, Africa will have a definite interest for us. We would be closing our eyes to our own safety if we do not remember that we began the invasion of Europe via Africa. These various tendencies represent facts that should guide us in the making of our military policy. They will call for full consideration when a world organization begins to function. In fact, an effective world organization will require that the United States act her role in a positive and vigorous manner in asserting leadership. Any organization requires leadership in order to function successfully. Unless America can make an actual contribution, as distinguished from a theoretical or paper contribution, to the maintenance of a reasonable degree of law and order everywhere, a world organization will not command respect, and it cannot accomplish the results expected from it. In conclusion, therefore, it seems to me that our postwar military policy must recognize that because we are the strongest and greatest wealth-producing Nation the world has ever known, our interests and responsibilities are going to be world-wide. Hence, no matter what administration we have in Washington, no matter what kind of world organization may be formed, our influence will extend everywhere. Our vigor, vitality, love of adventure, commercial and political zeal will carry our influence into every nook and corner of the world. And there is where the program for universal military training for young men would fit in. It would, within a few years, build up a reserve army of 4 to 5 million trained civilians who could be called in time of emergency. I believe that the development of such trained reserves to support modest Army and Navy Establishments would be much more economical, much more effective, and certainly much less disastrous than the head-in-the-sand policy we have followed in the past. It would, in particular, give indispensable support to the promises we made at Chapultepec, and it would serve notice on aggressors everywhere that the United States has the means to reinforce quickly and adequately the many far-flung bases we have established. In short, it would say to the world that we have the means to back up our political policy. Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Mathews, we appreciate very much your thoughtful discussion. Thank you very much. Mr. MOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a couple of questions of the witness? Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Mott. Mr. MOTT. Your proposal, Mr. Mathews, is simply for a system of universal military postwar training? Mr. MATHEWs. Yes, sir. Mr. MOTT. Do you have in mind any particular system? Mr. MATHEWS. Well, personally, I would be guided much by what the military men want. Personally, I favor 1 year of basic military training. Mr. MOTT. And then putting the trainees in reserve? Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, sir. Mr. MOTT. Which would build up a reserve that probably would be good, as far as the personnel is concerned, for 5 or 6 years? Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, indeed. Mr. MOTT. Until they got past the age of military use? Mr. MATHEWS. Yes. Mr. MOTT. I was interested in two observations that you made. In the first place, do you favor an organization such as they are trying to work out at San Francisco? Mr. MATHEWS. I certainly do; yes, sir. Mr. MOTT. Well, I gathered from your statement you are concerned about Russia's world ambitions and thought it was entirely possible that they include the invasion and subjugation of the United States. Did I understand you correctly? Mr. MATHEWS. I don't think that is consciously considered in the Soviet Union at the present time, but I think this, that as these forces develop momentum, that will be the logical consequence. Mr. Morт. And do you think that your desire to have a world organization and to have Russia be an important part of it, which she will be if she is a member-do you think that Russia's inclusion in the world organization to keep the peace is consistent with what you believe Russia's ultimate objectives are against the United States? Mr. MATHEWS. Will you give me that question again, please? Mr. MOTT. If I get your statement correctly, you think it is Russia's intention couch it in whatever language you want-to be a world aggressor nation, with the United States as the ultimate objective in the line of subjugation? Mr. MATHEWS. I say that if we continue our present apathetic policy of backing down continuously on our diplomatic policy. Mr. MOTT. If that is the case, do you think it is consistent to include Russia then in a world organization to preserve the peace, or should we simply proceed to form a coalition with states like the British Empire to resist any such ambitions on the part of Russia? Mr. MATHEWS. I would say that we very definitely have to form a world organization and by all means get her in on it. Mr. MOTT. Get her in on it, and then try to make her behave herself? Mr. MATHEWS. I would say that by all means exhaust every possible means for peaceful settlement, but I would say this, a world organization will look to us for leadership, and if the peace is going to be maintained we are going to have to take an active part in leading the smaller nations, including the British Empire and France and China, but I repeat what I said just a minute ago, if we back down on our diplomatic policy, which compelled us to go to war, if we back down on that after we have won the war, I would say that the success of the Soviet expansion will sort of feed on itself, and I will say that will be true of Russia whether Russia is Red or White. I look upon that as dynamic growth that is going on and that has to be stopped eventually. 7 Mr. Morr. That doesn't quite answer my question, but maybe I did not make it plain enough. If I understand you correctly, you fear that Russia has definite designs on western Europe, on England, and after that on the United States, and that if it is strong enough to accomplish those designs it will do so. Mr. MATHEWS. I would say those designs will develop within the Soviet Union. Mr. Morr. Then I inquire, if that is the case, is it consistent to watch a world organization which includes Russia? Mr. MATHEWS. Yes; I would say so. Mr. MOTT. You would think that was not inconsistent? You are in favor of world organization even if you can't have Russia in it. A world organization without Russia would be quite consistent with your views as to what Russia's policy is. I am wondering if it is consistent for the world organization to include Russia. Of course, if we didn't include Russia, we wouldn't have any world organization, would we? Mr. MATHEWS. Well, I would not say that. It won't be an effective world organization. Mr. MOTT. Of course not. Mr. MATHEWs. One based on law. Mr. MOTT. Here is another statement which interests me very much : The line of the Elbe in Germany marks a transcending historical change by becoming, unless we are willing to challenge it, the new western frontier of the Soviet Union. Are you willing to challenge it? Mr. MATHEWS. Personally, yes. I think it wouldn't be war, either. Mr. MOTT. And how would you challenge it? It is there. Mr. MATHEWS. I would certainly set the diplomatic machinery in process to challenge it. Mr. MOTT. And would you move it back to where the Russian frontiers were previously? Mr. MATHEWS. I certainly would. Mr. MOTT. Now, you also said that you thought we should have a base in continental Europe. Where do you think we should have that base? Mr. MATHEWS. I think it has to be there in western Europe. Mr. Mort. Where? Mr. MATHEWS. I would say west of the Rhine somewhere. Mr. MOTT. In a part of Germany that we are occupying at present? Mr. MATHEWS. It might be. Mr. Morт. Do you think it would be a good idea to retain that part of Germany, or a portion of that part of Germany, for the purpose of establishing a base, a military base and naval base? Mr. MATHEWS. Something has to be done. That would be up to the military men. Mr. Morr. What do you think of the bases we have established, such as the one in Dakar? Mr. MATHEWS. We do not have one in Dakar, do we? Mr. MATHEWS. Well, I think they are very vital. should be garrisoned. I think they Mr. MOTT. Well, a base certainly wouldn't be any good unless it were garrisoned. You made a very interesting statement, Mr. Mathews. I am glad to have had the opportunity to listen to it. Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Mathews, you mentioned that we should have a base in Europe. Do you think that the Russians should also have a base in the Western Hemisphere? Are they equally entitled to have a base in the Western Hemisphere? Mr. MATHEWS. No; I certainly would say not. Russia did not send 3,000,000 troops to the Western Hemisphere to defend the Western Hemisphere. After sending what we have sent to Europe and doing what we have done to save Russia, why, I think we are entitled to some consideration in the matter of maintaining law and order in central Europe and keeping Germany disarmed, and if Germany is kept disarmed Russia has nothing to fear. Mr. ALLEN. When you come in here saying that we should put bases there and give our men this military training immediately after hostilities cease, have you in mind any reason for that except as against Russia; is there any other nation that you have in mind? Mr. MATHEWS. I think it is important. It includes much more than Russia. Mr. ALLEN. Which other countries besides Russia; England? Mr. MATHEWS. I think it would show England, France, China; it would show the smaller nations of the world that at least America is going to develop means to assert leadership. Mr. ALLEN. The papers carried the story that Russia intends to put boys, some 3,000,000 of them, 15 and 16 years of age, into training for military service. Have you read that? Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, sir. Mr. ALLEN. They estimate that it would cost approximately $6,000,000,000 to put the program through. They are asking the United States for $6,000,000,000 under lend-lease. Do you see why the United States should spend the $6,000,000,000 under lend-lease to train 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 boys of 15 and 16 years of age in Russia? Mr. MATHEWS. I would say I certainly do not. That is one big mistake we made in the case of Germany. Mr. ALLEN. In other words, if you were a Member of Congress you would not give Russia $6,000,000,000 under lend-lease to pay for the training of 3 or 4 million of their boys? Mr. MATHEWS. No. Mr. ALLEN. And then turn around and train our boys. Mr. MATHEWS. That is right. Mr. ALLEN. That is all. Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Mathews. Mrs. Steele, will you come up, please? Mrs. Willard Steele, chaplain general, Daughters of the American Revolution. Chairman WoODRUM. Mrs. Steele, you have a resolution from the Daughters of the American Revolution? Mrs. STEELE. Yes; I have. Chairman WOODRUM. And which you wish to present? Chairman WOODRUM. Very well. |