Allen, Oliver S., vice chairman, Progressive Party of Massachusetts__ Bender, Mrs. Clifford A., Woman's Division of Christian Service, the Boss, Charles F., Jr., executive secretary, Commission on World Peace Cockrell, Ewing, president, United States Federation of Justice___ Cotton, Rev. J. Paul___ 1121 Culbertson, Ely, chairman of the Citizens Committee for United Na- 974 Kohlberg, Alfred, chairman, American China Policy Association__ Reardon, Thomas J., United States Constitutional Defense Committee_ Rhoads, Paul L., secretary, Progressive Party of Central Pennsylvania- Statements by-Continued Thomas, Dr. Joe T., president, United Congo Improvement Associa- Page tion, Inc 967 Tittman, A. O......- 1094 Topping, Nicholas 1168 Tyler, Alcott L., Local No. 121, Chemical Workers of America, CIO__ 1163 1142 1139 Waters, Mrs. Agnes-- 1144 Walls, Bishop William J., African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church__ Weitzer, Bernard, national legislative representative, Jewish War Veterans of the United States_ 1023 911 Letters, resolutions, telegrams, and statements submitted for the record by Wilson, Don, American Legion_. Gilbert MacBeth, associate professor of English, Villanova College---- 1183 R. C. Dickerson, executive vice president, American Cotton Shippers Association___ Moses H. Douglas Parker McCollester-- 1171 1185 1185 1187 G. D. Yoakum, City Club of Chicago.... 1188 William Harlee Bordeaux, the American Council of Christian 1188 George M. Harrison, grand president, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks- 1189 1191 1191 1191 1192 Rita Schaefer, the Catholic Association for International Peace_-_ 1193 1194 1195 William Green, president, American Federation of Labor. 1137, 1197 1197 William Scarlett, chairman, Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, Inc-- 1198 James M. Youngdale_-. 1200 Charles E. Sands, international representative, Hotel and Restaurant 1200 Willard Uphaus, executive secretary, National Religion and Labor 1200 Sol Oaklander, secretary, Furriers Joint Council of New York- 1203 1203 1206 Helen S. Mangold, president, Social Service Employees' Union, United 1206 Christian Rendeiro 1208 Clifford R. Johnson___ 1212 Fred Pierce Corson, bishop, Philadelphia annual conference of the 1213 Abe Skolnick, chairman, Ladies Garment Center, American Labor 1214 Joseph D. Stecher, secretary, American Bar Association__ 1214 1215 Mrs. Bjorn Bjornson-- 1216 International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 1216 John Gilman_. 1222 John J. Abt, general counsel, Progressive Party___ 1223 Thomas Buckley, Commissioner of Administration, Commonwealth of 1225 Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr- 1226 Hon. Dean Acheson___ 1226 Joseph Scott, national president, American League for An Undivided NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Wednesday, May 11, 1949, in the room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Connally (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Connally (chairman) and Vandenberg. Also present: Senator Donnell. Senator Vandenberg (acting chairman). The committee will come to order. Senator Connally is temporarily detained in a meeting of the Finance Committee, and will be here shortly. He has asked me to make the record until he arrives. On the list that is handed me the first witness is Mr. Oliver S. Allen, vice chairman, Progressive Party of Massachusetts. Mr. Allen, will you have a seat? We will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF OLIVER S. ALLEN, VICE CHAIRMAN, PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. ALLEN. My name is Oliver S. Allen. I am appearing against ratification of the Atlantic Pact as vice president of the Progressive Party of Massachusetts, as a former Democratic nominee for Congress in Massachusetts, and also as one who served in Europe as a United States naval officer for 21 years in World War II. On Tuesday, I received a telegram from the clerk of your committee saying that the committee would be "willing to allot me 5 minutes." Then I picked up the New York Times and read "Senators to Speed Ratification to Aid Paris Talks." Senator, I have nothing against speed in the proper places, but I know I express the conviction of most New Englanders when I say that no considerations can warrant precipitate action upon a proposal which, for the first time in our history, commits us to a peacetime military alliance. REASONS FOR OPPOSITION TO THE TREATY I oppose the pact for the following reasons: First. It strikes at the heart of the United Nations no matter how artful the language employed to conceal that fact. It is the climax to our policy of killing UNRRA, proclaiming the Truman Doctrine, launching the Marshall plan outside the UN, and retaining potential war industry in unrepentant Nazi Germany. Beyond the pact lies an inevitable arms race and beyond that, as history tells, us, war. No informed historian can conscientiously advocate the pact as a promoter of peace. Second. The pact is based upon the theory that you can't do business with the Russians but the Russians have repeatedly expressed a desire to negotiate outstanding differences and have lifted the Berlin blockade without the condition that we give up our plans for western Germany, plans which we will ultimately have to forego if we are to avoid world war III. Much is said about Russian aggression, but John Foster Dulles tells us that no responsible high official believes the Russians plan conquest by military aggression. And if you mean ideological aggression, the only way to meet that is to raise living standards to the point where communism will lose its appeal. The pact will interfere with that job. Third. The advocates of the pact assume that you get agreement in international affairs by means of a get-tough policy so ardently espoused by military men. Franklin Roosevelt knew better. You may get a temporary armed truce that way but never a settlement. Settlement is going to require that we provide security against a renascent German militarism, that we support long overdue industrial and agricultural reform, and a world program for abundance under the United Nations without strings of political ideology attached. Fourth. The financial outlay morally committed by the pact to police the world with arms, in the long run, will leave us weaker than the Russians. It will mean lower living standards and neglect of human welfare. It will mean shackled labor, further invasion of civil liberty and increasing military control of our lives. And temporary employment in arms production would be provided at the expense of a catastrophic depression with radical social change later on. Fifth. By ultimately channeling western European manpower into military pursuits, the prospects of European recovery would be destroyed and western Europe would be on a permanent American dole. Sixth. As the obligations of the pact have been defined by the Secretary of State, we might well find ourselves involved in domestic and colonial uprisings against exploitation all over the globe. The common people would hate us as many of them now undoubtedly do in China. We cannot prosper or even survive if we lose the affection of the common people. Seventh. The pact means military arrangements with countries right up to the borders of the Soviet Union. The suspicious Russians might well believe that they were going to be attacked as they have been so many times and that belief alone could produce war. Eighth. As a practical matter, the pact much reduces Congress' power to declare war. A Fresident, strongly influenced by the military, could feel much less restrained by our Constitution if he had the pact. Ninth. From a military point of view, there would be little sense in sending the arms without the men. Europe does not have the available manpower to handle the arms and what manpower it has will have little taste for arms for a long time. Therefore, you will have to draft American boys. DANGER OF HASTY ACTION For these reasons, I respectfully urge rejection of the pact, and I urge that caution be followed at this time in taking precipitate action. I close with a quotation from an editorial in the Boston Globe of yesterday, entitled "Undue Haste" [reading]: Senator Connally seeks to justify his sudden dedication to haste by explaining this speedy ratification will impress Russia. The need in this tremendously important matter is not to worry about the viewpoint of the Russians, but to emphasize the importance of giving thorough and complete information to Americans. Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Allen, I simply want to suggest to you my own complete agreement with the thesis that this pact must be totally explored before there is any action upon it, and I feel that the chairman of the committee is also quite anxious to pursue that policy. If there have been any suggestions with respect to limitation of time, it is simply a reflection of the fact that we have a terrifically long list of applications to testify, and there is obvious duplication and repetition in much of the list. I think you can be sure that at least so far as one member of this committee is concerned it is his opinion that this pact if adopted, is of no greater use than is measured by the conscious acceptance of it by American public opinion. Mr. ALLEN. I am sure those remarks will reassure the country. Senator VANDENBERG. Senator Donnell, do you wish to ask any questions? Senator DONNELL. Just a few. DECLARATION OF WAR The eighth point which you make is "As a practical matter, the pact much reduces Congress' power to declare war." Am I correct in understanding by that statement that you do not mean that the pact would alter the fact that Congress under the Constitution is the only body that has power to declare war, but that you do mean that under the operation of the pact it would be easily possible that through Executive action in going ahead with war preparations and actual participation in war there would be no practical alternative left to Congress except to declare war? Mr. ALLEN. That is what I mean, Senator. Of course, as matters now stand, the President has authority as the Chief Executive to move our armed forces about. The power to declare war is in the Congress. The effect of this pact, as I see it, would be to encourage a President who might be at some time strongly influenced by the military to take action without feeling the restraint of the Constitution. Senator DONNELL. And would you agree with this, that although the President does have power today as Commander in Chief of the Army to move our forces under some circumstances, at any rate there is today no contractual obligation between this country and 11 other countries obligating us to consider an attack on one of them as an attack on us. Mr. ALLEN. I feel that is true, and I feel that the pact here, no matter how artful the explanation, is a contractual commitment on our part to do certain things which will lead to war. |