personnel." Personnel or missions must be sent. Whether you call it missions or not does not seem to me to be material.

Secretary MARSHALL. There is a separate bill for missions now under consideration.

Mr. LODGE. I presume the furnishing of those missions would be for screening military requests?

Secretary MARSHALL. That would be a matter of agreement between the countries concerned.

I think the difference that is involved here is we cannot send a mission to advise another government. We can send a mission to supervise something we are doing in relation to that government, but a government asks for a mission to assist and advise them and lend them something, and then it requires a specific act of Congress.

We have had that authority, I believe, in Latin America and we are now trying to give it general application to any country asking for such a mission.

Here in this particular bill, it relates to training cadres in relation to their personnel.

Mr. LODGE. In other words, this is a matter of authority which will be taken care of by adequate legislation.

Secretary MARSHALL. This is a detail regarding training rather than advice.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you would care to comment on this, but if you do not I will understand.

Do you feel that the State Department's attitude toward Franco. Spain contributes to understanding in Latin America?

Secretary MARSHALL. Would you repeat that?

Mr. LODGE. Do you feel that the State Department's attitude toward Franco Spain contributes toward mutual understanding in Latin America?

Secretary MARSHALL. I wouldn't care to answer that, sir.

Mr. LODGE. It occurred to me that there might be some disposition in the State Department to bring all of the elements of our plans in line with our general policy.

If the Secretary feels that we can have an answer to that in executive session, I shall be glad to have it.

Now I understand that it is not proposed to increase the size of any army or navy. In answer to Mr. Judd's question, I understood you to say we were going to be very careful not to upset the balance of power within Latin America.

That seems to me to raise the following problem: If we are primarily interested in this hemisphere as an entity, it seems to me that the entire matter must be approached from that view in order to be consistent and that therefore if the War and Navy Departments determine that certain countries must have a different type of armament than they have had in the past, we should provide them with that under an over-all strategic plan. It seems to me in this connection that we might inevitably upset some of the balance of power there, in order to take steps to protect the entire hemisphere from some outside force. I wonder if you would care to comment on that, Mr. Secretary. Secretary MARSHALL. Under the particular provisions of this law we would become involved in the gradual standardization of equipment in Latin America, so that we would avoid the complications

which were ours in 1938 and 1942 or 1943, before the menace of threatened attacks in the Pacific and South Atlantic had been dispelled.

Along with that comes the consideration that you have mentioned in connection with the balance of military power in Latin America. It would be very definitely the policy of the Government to avoid, insofar as it is possible to avoid it, a disturbance where we build up one nation to the great disadvantage of another, and that presents a very delicate problem.

What we are primarily trying to do here, and which, if this becomes law, we will proceed in the doing with as careful avoidance of the complications as you imply, is to make it desirable for these people to procure our equipment instead of the equipment of some other government, desirable to establish intimate relations with us in connection with military matters, instead of with some other government, desirable to unify in that manner gradually, as far as we can all our relationships that flow out of any military adjustments in Latin America.

I repeat again in doing that, we are immediately and automatically confronted with the delicate question of whether or not we are arming one country against another, and that is what we will have to be very careful in avoiding, but the purpose of the law is outside of that. That is merely a difficulty in the implementation of the law.

Mr. LODGE. That is a very interesting answer, Mr. Secretary.

I wonder whether in the event that such a dilemma should arise the over-all strategy would take precedence over the question of upsetting the balance of power?

Secretary MARSHALL. I could not attempt to answer that right now. It is a question of weighing pros and cons of the immediate situation.

Mr. LODGE. I suppose that in discussing this whole question with the Secretaries of War and Navy, the question of what type of attack we are to help the Latin-American countries to protect themselves against, must have come up.

After all, we cannot very well attempt to protect ourselves against every conceivable type of attack. I wonder if you would comment on that?

Secretary MARSHALL. That would be a rather broad question for me to discuss without having discussions with the officials of the War and Navy Departments.

We would get into the character of the war of the future and the different approaches that could be made to it. You are correct in saying you cannot prepare against all forms of an attack and also I would add to that that there are certain forms of attack that would probably be outside their technical possibilities of handling. They would have to depend very largely upon us in such defense.

However, the general arrangements and general procedure would be to develop a fair basis for defense against certainly minor raids, sudden air action, and the matters of that sort in regard to which we were almost helpless at the outbreak of the last war.

Mr. LODGE. It is not my purpose to cause you any embarrassment, Mr. Secretary, and I do not want you to attempt to answer here any question that may be embarrassing.

However, I do want to suggest, and I am sure this is a matter to which you have given very close attention, that we should be very careful in trying to prepare these countries for the likely war of the future and not for the war of the past.

I think we must be careful not to hand them weapons which would be of no use in protecting themselves.

Secretary MARSHALL. That is true; but we get into a long train of argument as to what the war of the future is going to be.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Jackson.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Secretary, by and large, would you say the diplomatic considerations of this program actually outweigh the strictly military phases of it?

Secretary MARSHALL. It is hard to answer that question, because the two are so intimately interrelated. One involves the other.

When you have an intimate military understanding of the character involved in this act, you have automatically created a more favorable diplomatic basis.

As I say, the one directly involves the other.

Therefore, I do not believe I could answer that by saying "Yes" or "No." Both are intimately involved and one breeds the other.

Mr. JACKSON. Possibly this is more a question for the military, but do you know the source of origin of most of the armaments in Central and South America at the present time?

Secretary MARSHALL. That is a matter of factual information which can be given to you.

In Brazil, I know that the major portion of the armaments were German and the arsenals were being run by Brazilian officers who were trained in Germany.

In the Argentine, I think the influence was decidedly Italian in connection with the naval efforts and I believe also with the air.

I recall that the Brazilian Army also had some small Italian tanks. Across the mountains over into Chile, what their basic equipment was I do not recall, but its armament was in a very poor state and they were very anxious to get equipment from us, which we did not have to

spare.

In the air, I think Colombia had German advisers. We finally got an air mission located there.

However, the exact details on that are obtainable if you desire them. Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Just one more question: It is my understanding that the Charter of the United Nations does provide for such regional organizations and groups as will serve to promote the implementation of world peace. Secretary MARSHALL. That is right.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Bloom.

Mr. BLOOM. I would like to call your attention to article 52 of the United Nations Charter.

In San Francisco there was a great deal of debate on this article 52, and I would like for the secretary to read it so there will be no misunderstanding as to what the United Nations Charter calls for.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Article 52 of the United Nations Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action; provided that such arrangements or agencies and activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations itself.

We also have this reference in the staff analysis of the bill:

The draft bill contains safeguards that any agreement reached under it shall be subject to any general system for the regulation of arms that may be adopted by the United Nations, and to any international treaty or convention for the regulation of arms or arms traffic to which the United Nations may become a party. There seems to be no prejudice implied against multilateral action on a broader scale for the control of armaments as and when such action becomes possible. Mr. BLOOM. Now, Mr. Secretary, this is multilateral action; is it not?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. According to article 52 of the United Nations Charter, you are complying specifically with what the United Nations Charter calls for; is that not correct?

Secretary MARSHALL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EATON. Mrs. Bolton.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Secretary, I do not want to go into the details which have been gone into by the other members of the committee, but I would like to ask you whether in your opinion this whole action is perhaps putting into effect what we of the new hemisphere believe, that we are a new hemisphere, and within it we have possibilities of building a better way of life. Should we permit the encroachments of the old ways of the Old World it would be unfortunate indeed. On that basis would it not seem to you that one of the first things we should do is to join together for protection?

Secretary MARSHALL. I agree with exactly what you have said.

Mrs. BOLTON. If we are going to permit the encroachments of other differing ideologies, of old ways of life, we in a way side-step our whole destiny, do we not?

Secretary MARSHALL. I will have to answer that by saying that our only hope is a practical proposition of seeing the continued development of our conception of how free people should live and how nations should regard one another. The freedom of government and freedom of the individual hinges in the Western Hemisphere on general unity of action and this bill represents one of the items of that unity which is, in our opinion, essential.

Mrs. BOLTON. And the possibilities for a clearer action are greater in this part of the world than they are in the complex societies of the rest of the world.

Secretary MARSHALL. I should say very much so.

As a matter of fact, history may eventually show the Western Hemisphere to have been the saving grace in this generally confused world.

Mrs. BOLTON. For clarity may I say that when I used the pronoun "we," I meant both the north and the south of the hemisphere. Secretary MARSHALL. That is what I had in mind. Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your attendance and for your very illuminating testimony.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, we have a few more questions to ask, if

we may.

Chairman EATON. Please make it short, because we have some other very distinguished witnesses here.

Mr. LODGE. I would like to stress a point which I think was brought out, Mr. Secretary.

I think the Secretary will agree that the 65,000-man army which the Hungarians are allowed to maintain under the terms of the Hungarian treaty which was recently ratified by the Senate, will probably now be used to assist the forces with which we appear to be in continual disagreement.

My thought is that we must do everything in our power to prevent such a situation from arising in connection with any agreements, that we might make with any of these South American countries.

Secretary MARSHALL. Would you please repeat that?

Mr. LODGE. Under the terms of the Hungarian treaty as I recall, the Hungarians are permitted to maintain an army of 65,000 men, and the Russians have a right to maintain an indeterminate number of troops in Hungary to guard their lines of communication with Austria.

As I understand the present situation in Hungary, it is a reasonable assumption that these Hungarian troops will now be used in conjunction with the Russian troops.

The point I have in mind is that if under this plan we help some South American army or navy to strengthen itself, we must certainly be very careful and very stubborn in resisting any attempt by some conflicting force to take over this strength which we shall have done so much to build up. We must take every precaution to prevent such strength from being captured by some power which is not friendly to our interests.

Secretary MARSHALL. I am in agreement with you on that statement. Mr. LODGE. Thank you.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Jackson has one question.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Secretary, would you care to say whether or not our foreign policy relative to South and Central America today is a single instrumentality, or are there several policies which vary in degree, as has sometimes been the case in the past?

Secretary MARSHALL. I will have to go back to the State Department and read a little bit before I can answer that, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your very helpful and illuminating testimony, and you may be excused.

Secretary MARSHALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courteous treatment of the members of the committee. Chairman EATON. The next witness is the Honorable Robert P. Patterson, Secretary of War.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. PATTERSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Secretary PATTERSON. In a general sense, the proposed Inter-American Military Cooperation Act can be accurately regarded as the in