The CHAIRMAN. How do they derive their funds? By contributions?

Mr. DOBBS. Contributed by the members.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they assessed? Do they assess the members, or are they contributions?

Mr. DOBBS. They pay $1 a month dues, and occasionally make contributions.

The CHAIRMAN. So they are a sort of a capitalistic organization, collecting money from members in it.

Mr. DOBBS. We live in a capitalistic world, and we have to adjust ourselves to it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly what I was getting at.

Mr. DOBBS. That does not negate the concept of socialism.

The CHAIRMAN. Not at all. Socialism might be entirely desirable, and yet it might pursue capitalistic methods. How many members have you got?

Mr. DоBBS. About 2,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a local?

Mr. DOBBS. No; that is the national organization.

The CHAIRMAN. You have just 2,000 members in the entire United States?

Mr. DOBBS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. The Socialist Workers Party?

Mr. DOBBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the regular Socialist Party?

Mr. DOBBS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That Mr. Thomas heads up?

Mr. DOBBS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. How old is your organization?

Mr. DOBBS. We celebrated our twentieth anniversary last year.

The CHAIRMAN. What sort of a celebration did you have?

Mr. DOBBS. A banquet and ceremonial affair.

The CHAIRMAN. That is nice. I believe that is all. Senator Vandenberg?

Senator VANDENBERG. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hickenlooper?

Senator HICKENLOOPER. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. That seems to conclude our list for this afternoon.

We will adjourn until tomorrow at 10: 30 o'clock, when we will have the Honorable Charles P. Taft; Owen Roberts; Mr. Allan Klein, American Farm Bureau Federation; Mr. Gerard, of New York; Mr. Frederick McKee, chairman of the Committee on National Affairs; Mr. Clifford W. Patton, National Association of Consumers.

I wish we had some of them here now, but we have not. The committee stands in recess.

(Whereupon at 3:35 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m., Friday, May 6, 1949.)

THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1949

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The session convened at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Thursday, May 5, 1949, in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Connally, chairman of the committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Connally, George, Thomas of Utah, Fulbright, Vandenberg, and Lodge.

Also present: Senators Donnell and Watkins.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order.

The committee is meeting in consideration of the North Atlantic Pact, and we have the pleasure of having with us a distinguished American, Judge James W. Gerard, who was former Ambassador to Germany, and who has rendered great and and distinguished public service. We will be glad to hear you, Judge, at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. GERARD, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. GERARD. This is one of the decisive moments of history. The failure to ratify the Atlantic Pact and to arm the nations of western Europe will mean war, the end of democracy everywhere, and the domination of the world by Russian communism.

I have sent to you gentlemen a little sketch of Russian history. It was written to show that the Russians always have been, in the words of Mr. Acheson, "aggressive and expanding."

Do not fail to ratify this pact and to arm Europe because of any change in the attitude of the Soviets. That change is due to the organization of the pact. Do not be fooled.

ATTITUDE OF EX-AMBASSADORS TOWARD THE PACT

Several years ago I organized a council of ex-ambassadors. All, with one exception, joined. I recently sent them a circular asking their position with reference to the Atlantic Pact. I have here the short answers of the 23 who responded. If you are interested, I shall submit them. There is only one objector.

The CHAIRMAN. You may submit the list, and we will put it in the record.

489

EXTRACTS OF REPLIES BY FORMER AMBASSADORS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO JAMES W. GERARD TO THE QUERY, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC PACT?

In answer to the question, Are you in favor of the North Atlantic Pact? the following replies have been received from ex-ambasadors:

"I am heartily in favor of the North Atlantic Pact and trust that not only the pact itself but the important supplement to it in the form of furnishing military equipment will receive the emphatic endorsement of our Congress."-Norman Armour.

"Certainly I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact. The Russians can start a war whenever they feel like it, yet this may make them less anxious to commence one."-F. Lammot Belin.

"Given the faulty policies and actions of the United States and Allied Governments of the past, which have brought us to the present situation, it is my opinion that the North Atlantic Pact is a necessary result and that we should carry it through to its logical conclusion."-Robert Woods Bliss.

"I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact. I do not think it adds very much to the plan of the United Nations, but if it can give confidence to democratic nations of Europe it will be well worth while because it is confidence, more than anything else, which will make them stand firmly against the Russians."-William R. Castle.

"Are you in favor of the North Atlantic Pact? No. At best it is 'just another,' but with this added situation, that if the language of the pact is interpreted to mean anything near what it might be interpreted to mean, any little country in the central European Balkan area could involve us in a global war by thumbing its nose at Russia over some little bit of policy or action which would have no effect whatever on the rest of the world and of which the rest of the world might really not even know till it was all over.

*

"The situation of the Atlantic Pact versus the United Nations reminds me in one way of the remark of Canning on the Congress of Verona, who is quoted as saying: "The issue of Verona has split the one and indivisible alliance into three parts as distinct as the constitutions of England, France, and Muscovy. Villele is a minister of 30 years ago—no revolutionary scoundrel; but constitutionally hating England, as Choiseul and Vergennes used to hate us-and so things are getting back to a wholesome state again. Every nation for itself and God for us all.' To which may be added the old dictum, and the Devil may take the hindmost.'"-J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

"I strongly favor it."-William Miller Collier. "Yes."-John W. Davis.

"I am strongly in favor of the Atlantic Pact. I trust it will be followed by→ and that soon-a Mediterranean pact, a Near Eastern pact, an Asian pact, and a Latin-American pact. Africa and Australia may line up where they choose."Fred Morris Dearing.

"A good beginning in lining up United States popular understanding and support for realism."-Wesley Frost.

"As to your second question as to whether I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact, my reply is emphatically in the affirmative, and in a recent speech in Boston on the subject Faith and Freedom I expressed my support of the treaty in no uncertain terms. I do not think I need to argue the reasons for my approval of the pact, which should be patent to all."-Joseph C. Grew.

"I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact."-Lloyd C. Griscom.

"The answer to question 2 is in my mind quite simple. I am heartily in favor of the North Atlantic Pact."-Harry F. Guggenheim.

"Not in favor but think it necessary."-Ogden H. Hammond.

"The answer to question II in your circular letter of April 1 is easy for me. I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact, although I hope that in due time, with general consent, Spain may be included in the pact. The strategic importance of the whole Iberian Peninsula should be self-evident."-Carlton J. H. Hayes. "In favor."-Boaz Long.

"I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact."-John Van A. MacMurray. "I am heartily in favor of the North Atlantic Pact."-John Van A. MacMurray. "I am wholeheartedly in favor of the Atlantic Pact."-Lithgow Osborne. "I am heartily in favor of the Atlantic Pact."-William Phillips.

"I am strongly in favor of the North Atlantic Pact and believe that both national safety and honor require that the pact be ratified as soon as possible.

Whether we as a people realize it or not, we are living in a great historical moment comparable, as Mr. Churchill pointed out a few days ago, to that period when the eastern hordes were before the gates of Europe and only the death of the Stalin of that time saved the civilization of the world. We can, of course, say that Europe is not our affair and for a certain time go our complacent way, but that only puts off the day of reckoning.”—Robert P. Skinner.

"Yes; in the absence of any enforcing agency for the United Nations, the Atlantic Pact is, in my opinion, a good substitute."-William II. Standley.

"I am strongly in favor of the North Atlantic Pact. I regard it as a positive step toward collective security under the United Nations. I hope, however, that this Government will take every opportunity during the months to come to use the pact as a means of strengthening the authority of the United Nations and as a means of encouraging the Federation of Western Europe.”—Sumner Welles.

"On balance, I favor the Atlantic (North Atlantic) Pact. The advantages deriving therefrom or the reverse vary considerably for the different regions in which it may affect our policies.

"The United States of America: The Truman policy, now rarely mentioned, committed us to rendering assistance to those peoples disposed to resist Communist aggression. That policy is morally decent and has the strategical advantage of bespeaking allies and bases in the event of a shooting war. It is true that economic and financial implications of this policy are serious; on the other hand we tried to make single-handed preparation for war on an isolationist basis, adequate measures would probably have been frustrated by public indifference and the claims of pressure groups. The Atlantic Pact, if ratified, will make it more difficult for the American people in general and professional pacifists in particular to evade those preparations, which afford the best chance of avoiding war.

"Other signatory countries: The pact should have a good progaganda value, provided that it is properly implemented from a military point of view; otherwise it may prove a boomerang.

"Other friendly, but nonsignatory countries: The limited participation may have a bad propaganda effect in the Moslem world. For instance it may be asked 'If the Mediterranean forms part of the Atlantic, why not all the Mediterranean area and not merely Italy and Algeria?

"Soviet satellite countries and Yugoslavia: The pact should have a good propaganda effect-if implemented adequately-for what that may be worth. "The Kremlin obviously cares not a jot for what we may say or write; the pact will only produce an impression to the extent that it is followed up by military coordination. Indeed as far as the Soviets are concerned, unobtrusive military arrangements would have been better without the publicity of the pact, which given an opportunity for counterpublicity, as to encirclement, etc."-John Campbell White.

Mr. GERARD. Norman Armour [reading]:

I am heartily in favor of the North Atlantic Pact and trust that not only the pact itself but the important supplement to it in the form of furnishing military equipment will receive the emphatic endorsement of our Congress.

The next one is from F. Lammot Belin:

Certainly I am in favor of the North Atlantic Pact. The Russians can start a war whenever they feel like it; yet this may make them less anxious to commence one.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those two fair samples of all of them except one?

Mr. GERARD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Vandenberg, have you any questions?
Senator VANDENBERG. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator George?

Senator GEORGE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas.

Senator THOMAS. No questions.