We can and should empower this Court to review all charges of aggression properly presented to it by the Security Council that would correspond to a world district attorney.

The third gear is the cop on the corner. We can and should place at the disposal of the Court, a strong, tyranny-proof policeman in the world police force, composed entirely of citizens of small nations and under the direction of the General Staff of the Security Council. When these three steps are taken, one of two things will happen: Russia will either come in or stay out.

Should Russia come in, the threat of war is ended. She can neither attack nor be attacked.

But suppose Russia stays out and sulks behind her iron curtain ? There is still very little danger of war. The world community consists of about 2,300,000,000 people. On Russia's side, including all her satellites, would be only about 260,000,000, which is about 10 percent of the world's manpower.

The productive assets of the world, the things needed to produce for war, total about $812,000,000,000.

On Russia's side would be only about $140,000,000,000 of these assets, less than 20 percent.

This means that Russia's mathematical chances of eventual victoryregardless of how sweeping the first campaign might be-would be hopelessly against her. And nations seldom fight hopeless wars unless they are hopelessly deficient in national resources, a fact which is not true of Russia.

Another way of looking at this plan is to ask: What is against it? I find little or nothing. It in no way weakens our defensive position. Should we desire we could have a million short-range attack and pursuit planes and a coastal gun every hundred feet of our coast line.

It does not involve increased expenditures. In fact it is the only plan I have seen that promises to lighten the burdensome cost of national defense. It does not involve the surrendering of national sovereignty except in one matter and that is one we have no use for.

It does not increase our need for a standing army. In fact, it removes much of this need.

It does not increase the risk of our boys fighting on foreign soil. In fact, it practically eliminates any such possibility.

In this plan I believe the world has found the answer to peace. It is not an impractical, idealistic answer, but a practical answer that appeals to the enlightened selfishness of all nations and guarantees crushing defeat for any nation or group of nations that would once more spread death and destruction and desolation across the face of the earth.

Now, there are two points, sir, that have been in the public press, on previous testimony. I have not seen them contradicted in the public press and they seriously affect this thing:

One was a statement by the Secretary of State which was quoted in the New York Times. Secretary Marshall said he is unwilling to see the United States lose the protection of the veto power, against having its men committed to military action.

There were three newspaper articles in New York on that speech and in each one the reporter went on to interpret that as meaning, ommitment without congressional action.

Of course, people never read anything carefully nowadays but in line 21 of Resolution 163, page 5, dealing with the armed forces of the five major powers, it says "subject to their constitutional processes." I suggest that the committee have the public press correct this inference, which in the city of New York, at least, was general. Every article had that in it.

The second one is attributed also to the Secretary of State. He attributed the policy of the administration to the balance of military strength that so greatly declined in the western world against a rising strength in the eastern world.

From this, the average man in the street would assume a very substantial military strength on the part of Russia, and when you say two parts, you think of halves.

If I cut a finger off I would be in two parts but I would not be in two halves.

I think it is extremely important.

I have a study here, just completed by our research director. The documentation of this would fill, almost, this room, because we have had access to practically all of the records of every nation in the United Nations.

The World Assets Audit Corp. does the work for us. It is one of our affiliates.

It even has Russian sources, which rather surprised me.

I will leave this with the committee, because it is the final answer to this question of the dividing into two parts, and the rising strength of the East.

(The document referred to is as follows:)