AFTERNOON SESSION

The committee reconvened at 2:30 p. m., upon the expiration of the

recess.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The committe has the pleasure of having before it today Secretary of Defense Johnson who will testify on the North Atlantic treaty and related matters.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Secretary JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am appearing here today at the invitation of your committe to add the views of the National Military Establishment to what Secretary Acheson has told you about the North Atlantic Treaty.

As you know, I have been in office only about 1 month and there have been many serious problems to face. I have had an opportunity, however, to study this momentous document. I say it is momentous with feeling, because it is a long stride in the peacetime path of American history. It is a bold and important step for us all, for in it we join our great power with that of our neighbors in a common effort for safety and self-preservation-for peace before victory, and without

war.

INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State has outlined to you the progress the Government is making in what he calls "waging the peace." He has demonstrated that the North Atlantic Treaty and the military assistance program are components of our progressive foreign policy. The initiative and responsibility for both have clearly and properly been with the Secretary of State. This great structure of freedom has been built through months of careful and precise work by Secretary Acheson and his foreign colleagues. He and his staff took over this heavy burden where General Marshall and Mr. Lovett left off and were aided by the cooperation of this committee. I think that all who have worked on this treaty are deserving of the highest gratitude of this country.

ECONOMIC STABILITY AND PREPAREDNESS

There has been very close cooperation on these matters between the Department of State and the Military Establishment, for all of us are seeking the greatest security for our country. In striving for this objective, however, we must carefully balance the military requirements of coping with the dangers we now face with the maintenance of a sound and prosperous American economy. At the same time we must give first priority to restoration of economic stability in Europe while assisting her to regain greater military security. All of these calculations involve risks, but our willingness to face them may well measure our ability to prevent war. We must face them squarely and courageously.

It is absolutely clear to me, as it was between 1937 and 1940 when I was last in the Military Establishment, that we must be prepared to

counter foreseeable threats. This requires preparedness not only in terms of guns, ships, and airplanes, but in terms of readily convertibleresources of manpower and industry. It is equally obvious that we need friends and partners. Through this treaty we band together with many of our friends and by the military assistance program we put the means in their hands to defend themselves, thereby increasing our own security.

Ambassador Austin has explained to you the importance of this treaty to the United Nations, how it is consistent with the UN Charter and serves as a strong brace in support of the peaceful objectives of the Charter. It is and has long been my belief that we must continue earnestly and faithfully our efforts to make the United Nations succeed. What he has said confirms my belief that the ability of the western nations to work for peace through the United Nations will be strengthened.

THE TREATY-NOT A MILITARY ALLIANCE

I expect that sometime during the congressional consideration of these matters that someone will say that I have been inconsistent in my attitude toward treaties of this character. They will probably refer to a speech I made a year ago to the Daughters of the American Revolution. At that time I stated, and I quote:

Military alliances are not in the tradition of the United States.

As Secretary Acheson has carefully pointed out, this treaty is an association of nations that have come together under the Charter of the United Nations to exercise their inherent right of self-defense through a collective security arrangement authorized by the Charter of the United Nations.

This treaty, like the Rio Treaty, is thus a vital measure for selfdefense. Neither of them, in my opinion, is a foreign military alliance in the customary sense, and therefore my remarks in the speech I referred to do not thus apply. These treaties are logical extensions of the time-honored Monroe Doctrine, and entirely consistent with our policy of seeking international security through the United Nations. When I made that speech, I was referring to the Brussels Pact, the signatories of which had held their first meeting only 3 days before. At that time I considered it to be a purely western European military alliance. But, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I was then a private citizen, and properly did not have access to information regarding implementation of that pact which has since been made available to the entire world.

The North Atlantic Treaty is of much wider scope and involves a broad area in which the very preservation of the United States is at stake. It is a partnership with our friends for the common defense. In that speech I also said, and I quote:

We cannot give to any foreign nation or group of nations the power to say when the United States should go to war.

I can assure you that I continue to believe this. It seems clear to me from a reading of article 5 that in this treaty we do not give to any foreign nation or group of nations the power to say when the United States should go to war. We obligate ourselves to take what

ever action we deem necessary "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Now, as Secretary of Defense, I want to tell you how important this treaty is from the point of view of the Military Establishment. I understand that you have invited General Bradley to testify before your committee next week. He will give you more detailed information about the meaning of the treaty to our armed forces.

STRENGTHENING OF UNITED STATES SECURITY THROUGH TREATY

From the military viewpoint, the basic objectives of the collective defense system contemplated by the treaty are to deter war and to attain maximum military effectiveness in war, if war cannot be prevented. The North Atlantic Treaty will form a basis for improving United States security by improving the military potential of all the member nations. This potential will be improved in terms of collective action as well as individual armed strength.

I am sure that its value as a war deterrent and, in the last resort, in war itself must be obvious to you all. Nevertheless, it is our firm belief in the Military Establishment that the ratification of the treaty cannot, in itself and without further action, safely be relied upon to accomplish the objectives of the treaty. Unless its terms are vigorously implemented, its force for peace will be vitiated and, if there should be war, we should have to pay an inordinate price for our failure to implement it.

NEED FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE

We must keep constantly in mind the three fundamentals of preparedness-manpower, materials, and suitable positions from which to employ them in the event of attack. The treaty goes far toward making available for the common defense the manpower and strategic positions. The main lack in this great partnership will be materials—the materials required for defense. Some of the required materials may become available over the next few years as byproducts of economic recovery and we must assure uninterrupted effort toward attainment of the goals set by the Marshall plan.

If we are to strengthen the line of defense in Europe and elsewhere, we must go further and supply our friends with some of their deficiencies in arms and equipment and help them to help themselves. We have invested a great deal in rebuilding the western community and now we should join these friendly neighbors in building a bulwark against aggression.

MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE

There has been some talk lately of the possibility that by joining the treaty we can reduce the investment in our Military Establishment. It is confidently hoped that over the next few years we will enhance our security by joining this partnership for peace. However, I am sure it is clear to you that until the world situation clarifies we cannot afford to relax the strengthening of our military forces. We may, over the long term after the strength of our partnership is built up, be able to reduce our annual expenditures for the armed forces. How

ever, until the danger that confronts us subsides and an efficiently operating, coordinated defense system is established under this treaty, we of America cannot afford to reduce our investment in preparedness. In passing, I want to tell you that Mr. Forrestal planned to appear before your committee to lend his strong support to favorable action on this treaty. You will recall from his annual report that he considered greater solidarity with our neighbors in the Atlantic area and military aid to western Europe as matters of highest priority to the Military Establishment. With that thought I concur.

And there, for a moment, Mr. Chairman, may I digress to say that it is with the greatest pleasure I say to you that at Mr. Forrestal's invitation I visited him for about 35 minutes in his room at the hospital the first of this week, and I found him like his own self, in good health. The doctors expect him to leave in 2 or 3 weeks. He will take some rest; he will be a completely restored and able man. I am glad to tell you that.

BENEFITS TO THE UNITED STATES FROM THE TREATY

To resume: On the assumption that the pact becomes, as intended, a force to discourage war and a basis for improving the military potential of its member nations in the event of war, I believe that we shall get, in return for joining the pact, a greatly improved prospect for the maintenance of the security of the United States and the world. We will get it, in my opinion, through an improved sense of security and stability abroad under which the moral, economic and military strength of our friends can be rebuilt.

We will feel a greater assurance that friendly governments will not fall to fifth columns. We will see a growing nucleus of defensive military force on which to base our own strategy in the event of war. Furthermore, it is to be expected that our actual strategic position will be improved, in that we shall be much better able to make effective use of our armed strength, if the necessity arises, as a result of the mutual aid we will get from our partners under article 3 of the treaty.

The Military Establishment certainly does not want war. We are striving for peace and security with honor. The North Atlantic Treaty, in our opinion, is an instrument for such peace and security. We believe, in the National Miiltary Establishment, that ratification of the treaty is essential to the future security of the United States as well as to the peace and freedom of very important areas of the world.

THE MILITARY-ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I will ask you a few questions, and then turn you over to the questions of the committee.

It is contemplated, is it not, at a later date, after the ratification. of the treaty, that such plans as may be in the making for military aid to Europe, will be laid before the Congress in the form of a bill or some other appropriate action?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and much intensive work by our most competent men is being done, so that when the hour arrives, under the State Department's leadership we shall submit the data to this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood from your main statement that General Bradley, as our Chief of Staff and our chief military officer, would give us a good many more details than you have been able to give us; is that correct?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. On those details, sir, you are entitled to the highest and best authority, the most qualified men we have. I therefore, as has been my custom, put it up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Bradley will be here at such time as you indicate.

TREATY AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM DO NOT LESSEN NEED FOR MAINTAINING UNITED STATES MILITARY STRENGTH

The CHAIRMAN. I want to stress one point that you made, and that is that the ratification of this treaty and the adoption of a military plan for western Europe does not in any wise lessen the necessity for us to maintain our own military strength here in the United States.

Secretary JOHNSON. Until such time as, in the western union, or in the area of this pact, there is there constituted such military strength as can be substantially relied upon, there can be no lessening of our own burden of keeping up sufficient military strength in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I was speaking of the present. Those are desirable ends that you mention, but for the present, in our present situation, Congress is going to be faced with the problem of the size of our military budget and all those things.

The point that I want to bring out is that regardless of this treaty we still will have the obligation to the people of the United States to provide for their proper defense.

Secretary JOHNSON. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Through the Army, the Air Force, and all the other auxiliary branches. Is that not true?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. I agree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume from your statement that it is our ultimate hope that by doing what this treaty provides, and following it with military assistance to western Europe, we may decrease that necessity in the course of years, as it goes along.

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chiefs of Staff, I assume, are working on this military program now, are they? Or have they finished it?

Secretary JOHNSON. They have not finished it. Among other pressing things they are working on this, and the joint staff, working under the Joint Chiefs, is giving elaborate attention to this.

COMPARISON OF TREATY TO OLD MILITARY ALLIANCES

The CHAIRMAN. With regard to your speech where you quoted on the subject of military alliance, is there not a wide divergence from this treaty and what was traditionally known as military alliances?

Secretary JOHNSON. In the first draft that I intended to give you, the reference to my speech was left out-the speech is very vivid in my mind- -so that it might not later be misconstrued. It seemed to me advisable not to explain it away but just to say what was in the