cialism. Or, we can give western Europe less than the minimum, and insure that those nations will presently make terms with Soviet Russia.

But the first alternative is not so simple as it sounds. Even if we should make the sacrifices necessary to arm western Europe, we could not be sure of stopping the Soviet Union.

Communist infiltration in western Europe has gone too far for us to count upon an undivided effort from our allies in case war should begin even after they have been adequately armed. There is no guaranty that both Italy and France would not be rent by civil war of such a nature as to paralyze their armies and render them impotent to protect their frontiers. Indeed, such civil war is highly probable.

Even what would happen in Britain is clouded with doubt. The Labor Government there is still supplying both Russia and Poland with implements and machinery essential for war. Infiltration of Communists and Communist sympathizers within the Labor Government is much greater than commonly understood. There is grave reason to believe that in Great Britain, Communist agents could seize or destroy vital communications and power centers and take other action to prevent any effective war effort being launched from Britain.

Who, then, would march against the Soviet Union on the Continent? Would the Red tide be stemmed by the armies of Luxemburg, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Portugal?

Another fact that complicates the rearming of western Europe lies in the power of the Soviet Union itself. Are we so naive as to imagine that the masters of the Kremlin will sit by idle if they see us actually building up preponderant military power in the West?

And it deserves note that in the framing of the Atlantic Pact, Spain has been left out. Yet Spain is potentially the strongest anti-Communist country on the Continent of Europe. The leaving out of Spain is a clear indication that Marxist influences had a powerful say in the framing of the Atlantic Pact, just as they have had in our public affairs, foreign and domestic, for many years past.

TO BOMBOR NOT TO BOMB

Doubtless Russian cities, in the event of war, would disappear under atomic attack-but what strategic effect would that have? It could not destroy the Red Army in the field. It could not prevent or even slow the occupation. And, after the occupation, would we bomb Paris, Rome, the Hague, Brussels, Copenhagen, or Oslo with atomic weapons? Or London? There is reason to believe that the Soviet Union has deliberately counted the cost of atomic warfare and decided that its great cities are expendable. But even if we should bomb every important city both in the Soviet Union and in western Europe, we would still have to land and occupy a continent in which frustration, privation, and hatred of us for atom bombing our friends would be - obstacles perhaps more formidable than the Red Army. Nor is there any guaranty that the great cities of the United States would escape atomic bombingwhich in our case would be infinitely more serious for us than the destruction of Russian cities for the Soviets.

THE AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE

The alternative we propose is not perfect. It is not guaranteed to win in any struggle between us and the U. S. S. R. But in this world there can be no absolute guaranty of safety. We must intelligently do the best we can, keep alert, and place our cause in God's hand.

First. We should preserve America's own freedom of action. The Atlantic Pact should be rejected, no matter how much loss of face some of our bureaucrats in the State Department may suffer.

Second. We should at once and with drastic thoroughness proceed to root out every Communist and Communist fellow traveler from Government service. They should be given a week to resign, and after that should be subject to the death penalty if they have not declared themselves. We should immediately outlaw the Communist Party, take its key personnel into custody, and keep strict watch upon the others. Nothing else will so convince the Soviet leadership we mean business. The firmer we are with Communists and their sympathizers in America, the more respect will the U. S. S. R. have for us.

Third. We should take steps to make real a Western Hemisphere defense zone. Its outposts should be as far-flung as geography and politics will allow. Bases :should be secured, at least in Spain, which is probably (with Portugal) the only

area in western Europe capable of sustained defense. A sound military defense can be made for the Western Hemisphere without the North Atlantic Alliance, and it will be within our capacity and means. Nor need it result in the socialization of our own economy.

Fourth. We should drastically cut the bureaucracy in our own Government, thus relcasing large numbers of persons for productive economic activities as well as reducing Federal expense. We should reject once and for all the whole Truman program for a socialized welfare state. This will be stripping our decks for action.

Fifth. While not being indifferent to the fate of free peoples anywhere, we should become reconciled to the reality that it does not lie within our means or power to see to the defense of everybody. If the U. S. S. R. occupies western Europe, it will be a tragedy. But the tragedy will not be as great for them or for us as the alternatives that would follow adoption of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Nor would Soviet conquest of Europe be permanent. Students of the history of empires know well that the conqueror is normally beaten, not by external force, but by the weaknesses and internal contradictions of the system he himself sets up. In our opinion the U. S. S. R., in taking over Europe and Asia, will be attempting far too much. Within a few years this will become apparent. And when freedom-loving peoples at last revolt against bondage, their case will be much more hopeful than if the Continent had first been blasted by bitter, atomic

war.

THE OVERSTUFFED GIANT

Indeed we think that if this strategy is followed, we may never have to fight the U. S. S. R. at all. Doubtless they expect and want to rule the world. But with more than they can digest in Europe and Asia, their conquests will weaken rather than strengthen them. The very rigidity of the Soviet leaders in not permitting the smallest variation from their own blueprints among satellites, can be their undoing. And the existence of a unified, homogeneous core of armed power in our own hemisphere will dissuade them from attacking us if they have two fermenting continents to hold down.

American participation in two World Wars has, on balance, multiplied the evil results of both wars. While we went into the first with the best of motives, and were slyly and deceptively maneuvered into the second, if we permit alien influence to shape our course now, then America is doomed.

She will have been reconquered by those tyrannies from which our ancestors fled the Old World to escape.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Libby, how short is your statement going to be? Mr. FREDERICK J. LIBBY. I would like 30 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot have 30 minutes. We will talk it over with you at the recess.

Mr. Ordower?

STATEMENT OF SIDNEY L. ORDOWER ON BEHALF OF THE
PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF ILLINOIS

Mr. ORDOWER. I have a statement which will take just about 10 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. We want you to make it short. We have had four or five representatives of the Progressive Party here. We cannot have all the membership. We have had most of them here already. But I do not want to have all of them.

Mr. ORDOWER. I would like to also testify, if I may, as an individual

veteran.

The CHAIRMAN. Can't you file your statement and then make a brief oral statement?

Mr. ORDOWER. It won't take long. Couldn't I read it? I came all the way from Chicago, sir. I would appreciate it.

The CHAIRMAN. We want to confirm to the authorities of the Progressive Party that we cannot have every one of their members here to testify. We have had three or four already.

Mr. ORDOWER. It is the first chance I have had to come to Washington in a long time.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad you came to Washington, of course, but this is not a pleasure trip. This is a business enterprise at the moment. Whom do you represent?

Mr. ORDOWER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Sidney L. Ordower. I reside at 3446 West Thirteenth Place in Chicago, Ill. By profession I am a radio commentator and I represent the Progressive Party in Illinois.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you authorized to represent them and designated to represent them?

Mr. ORDOWER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the president of the Progressive Party in Illinois?

Mr. ORDOWER. The chairman of the Cook County Central Committee is Mr. George Cermack, and I am the official representative of that. organization.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. ORDOWER. In addition to testifying for that organization against the ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty, I should also like to speak as an individual veteran of World War II.

Perhaps it would be well for me to describe briefly my service during the recent war. In 1940, I volunteered as a private in the Army the first day of the draft and served for more than 5 years in the Infantry, finally being discharged as a captain.

For more than 31 years I served overseas in England, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, and north Africa, and was commissioned in Europe. I participated in five major battles and hold a number of decorations.

I tell you this, not because I look for any special praise for this service to my country, but to point out that I have seen the horror of war first hand. Both my wife and child were killed during the war by a V-2 rocket in England and I tell you, gentlemen, that I want no part of another holocaust, one which will mean misery, suffering, and devastation far greater than anything witnessed in the past.

If this has not happened already, you probably will have official representatives of veterans' organizations testifying in behalf of the North Atlantic Pact. They will tell you that we must prepare for any possible contingency-for war, if necessary, with the Soviet Union.

I do not represent a veterans' organization, but I tell you that the veterans of World War II did not fight the last war merely to waste their lives in world war III. No matter what their political opinions might be, the vast majority of veterans fought for decent homes, jobs, and the opportunity to raise their families in peace, without worrying about an atom bomb falling on their head.

THE ATLANTIC PACT AS A WAR PACT

The Atlantic Pact, gentlemen, is a war pact, not a peace pact. It will create an armaments race which can only result in war. No military alliance in history has stopped war. Its very purpose is to prepare for war.

But let us examine the arguments that the Atlantic Pact is a defense treaty, designed to stop aggression. If this is so, why is it that Norway, which borders the Soviet Union, is a signatory to the pact? If it is a defense pact, how do we account for the inclusion of Portugal, which is not a member of the United Nations and which is headed by a Fascist dictator, Salazar? If it is a defense pact, why is it that even now efforts are being made to bring Fascist Spain into the treaty?

General Omar Bradley gave the answer not long ago. It is a military answer. And Representative Clarence Cannon, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, also gave the answer on the floor of the House on April 13 when he stated, according to the New York Times of April 14 [reading]:

Moscow and every center in Russia, we must hit within 1 week after the war starts, and it can be done only by land-based planes such as we now have. With the signing of the North Atlantic Pact we would have ample land bases. We will absolutely demoralize the enemy. We will destroy all his lines of communications. We will blast at the centers of operation, and then let our allies send the army in-other boys, not our boys-to hold the ground we win. The CHAIRMAN. Whom are you quoting?

Mr. ORDOWER. Representative Cannon.

The CHAIRMAN. Make that clear. Don't confuse that with General Bradley's speech.

Mr. ORDOWER. I am not. This is Representative Cannon's state

ment.

INCLUSION OF SPAIN

And gentlemen, I must protest the statements made by Senator Connally, chairman of this committee, and by Senator Vandenberg, calling for the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and Spain. As one who fought in the recent war, I say that it is unspeakable to think of allying ourselves with Fascist Spain or to give aid and comfort to Franco by resuming diplomatic relations with his Government.

Let us remember that Spain assisted our enemy in the last war. Spain provided a Blue Division to Nazi Germany to fight against our wartime ally, the U. S. S. R.

No matter what our differences with the Soviet Union, only by establishing a firm friendship based on mutual understanding with our wartime allies, and not by negotiating with countries like Portugal and Spain, can we secure the peace of the world.

During the recent war we were taught many things in the Army. In addition to the use of physical weapons, we were also told how to arm ourselves with ideas. We were told, for example, that the only possible way to defeat the enemy was through the unity of the Big Three: The United States, Great Britain, and the U. S. S. R. We were told that only by building a strong United Nations with the unity of the big powers as its core, could we establish an enduring peace. We were told that we must denazify and decartelize Germany if we were to prevent future aggression by that country.

We were told that it was possible to get along with the Soviet Union and other countries with whom we fought, despite such political and economic differences as might exist. We were told that those

nations which united against the common enemy during the war could and must unite to preserve the peace of the world. We were told also that the war was fought to defend our democratic way of life and that when we returned home we would have the opportunity of extending democracy.

I contend that these policies of the Army and of our Government during the war were honorable and democratic ones. What has happend to them?

POLICY IN GERMANY

Even while the war was going on there were American officers in high places who talked of the next war with Russia. Even before the end of the war our present policy in Germany was being applied. Instead of denazifying and decartelizing Germany we were putting important Nazis back into power and preventing the breaking up of the huge cartels which were even then envisioned for use in a future war with Russia. The recent report issued by the Ferguson Commission should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that instead of democratizing Germany and destroying its military potential, we are giving comfort to those same forces who were in great measure responsible for World War II.

Since the end of the war we have been supporting reactionary governments in China, Greece, and Turkey. We have influenced the elections in France and Italy. Through Marshall-plan aid we are making the countries of western Europe dance to our tune instead of giving them genuine aid through the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. You are against the Marshall plan?

Mr. ORDOWER. I am. I am for aid through the United Nations. The CHAIRMAN. Has the United Nations any aid they can give? Mr. ORDOWER. I think if we all pooled our resources we could do it. There is a Commission in the UN, the United Nations Commission for Europe, of which Russia is a member and where there is no veto power, and perhaps that might be the place to discuss the aid. I do not say it is an easy job, but we did not even discuss the granting of aid on a nonpolitical basis in the United Nations, and we now are attempting to create a military alliance which could kill the United Nations and guarantee war.

CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The best way to judge the futility and madness of our post-war foreign policy is to examine its effects on our everyday needs. Where are the homes that we were promised would be built after the war? Millions of veterans and nonveterans alike virtually walk the streets in search of roofs over their heads. And even today, 3 years after the war is over, we talk of building a paltry number of homes compared to the millions we need to house our families.

What about the millions who are unemployed in America today and can't find work? You probably know that approximately 750,000 veterans are out of work today and that more than 1,000,000 veterans, as of December 1948, used up their unemployment compensation under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act. Even now, unemployment compensation under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act