Mr. LODGE. Would you say that the trouble with the functioning of the United Nations has been a defective Charter or the attitude of the Soviet Union?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. I would say that a defective Charter had made that

attitude possible.

Mr. LODGE. Let us assume that the Soviet Union had not belonged to the United Nations. Do you not believe that the United Nations Charter would have proven to have been a very serviceable document since the inception of that organization?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. I am sure it would at the inception but there is no assurance it would for any length of time. It would depend entirely on the thin thread of everybody being nice at the time.

Mr. LODGE. Everything has been going along all right, with the exception of the Soviet Union.

Mr. RIMANOCZY. You would always have a charter potentially capable of break-down, so long as that veto is there.

Mr. LODGE. Nevertheless you agree with me that the trouble has been the abuse of the veto by the Soviet Union. In large part that has been the main cause of the trouble; would you say that? Mr. RIMANOCZY. Yes, certainly.

Mr. LODGE. Then does it not seem rather peculiar that once we have arrived at the point where we have a United Nations within the United Nations to which the Soviet Union does not belong, that we then proceed to lock the door after the donkey has escaped and put in a lot of amendments which have been necessitated largely by the attitude of the Soviet Union?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. Well, the Soviet Union is just an example of what you would always be facing.

If everyone were nice, you would not even have to have the United Nations; but you have a different situation.

Supposing up in Connecticut you could veto being arrested for driving too rapidly If no one drove too rapidly you would not have to arrest anybody.

There is always a danger in any strictly voluntary cooperation scheme, that you have a mechanism that can break down overnight, time.

at any

Mr. LODGE. In other words, you think that even in an organization from which the Soviet Union is absent, that these amendments are vital. These amendments did not arise from your preoccupation with the attitude of the Soviet Union. They are perfecting amendments which you think are apropriate whether the Soviet Union is a part of the United Nations or not?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. About 3 years ago I went on record in a debate and was criticized for it, in saying that the United Nations was worse than nothing because it gave the illusion of protection. It was purely a psychological situation which unfortunately made the American people think that they had some protection, whereas they had nothing. Had they not had the United Nations, they would have kept working until they had something else.

I would say we have lost 3 years.

Mr. LODGE. That is the second point I wanted to batten down. Our first point is we have a United Nations with a charter which is like the United Nations Charter with these three exceptions.

The second proposition is that you believe these amendments are appropriate without regard to the Soviet Union.

Mr. RIMANOCZY. That is right.

Mr. LODGE. The third point I want to make is this:

Do you believe that once this thing has occurred these smaller nations are going to join this organization, when they realize that the international contingent to which they will contribute can be committed without their consent, whereas in the present United Nations Charter, the smaller nations have much more representation on the Security Council, by virtue of the fact that they have six permanent votes which are rotated among them?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. These policemen, just like the policemen in New York City, would be in essence men without countries. They would be career soldiers.

An Italian policeman in New York may be sent into an Italian district. He never thinks of it in those terms. He is a cop. That is his profession.

I would say there is no psychological handicap in committing a professional soldier to anything. That is his job.

Now, your volunteer armies, or your civilian armies, would be entirely different.

Mr. LODGE. This would be like the Hessians.

Mr. RIMANOCZY. We are turning the clock back to the mercenaries. I might say it would be very popular politically in Connecticut that no American boys be shipped abroad.

Mr. LODGE. How do you think the French and Chinese are going to feel about having one vote each on this new Security Council, whereas the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, if she is a member, and the United States, would have two votes each?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. I think they are going to love it because it cuts their armament burden in half.

Now if they want two votes, they can have it, if they will double their armament commitments but you must certainly allocate the voting in proportion to armament strength.

Mr. LODGE. Do you feel Great Britain will be able to make a commitment commensurate with ours?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. I rather would not comment on that. I think probably not but we have to go through those motions. If England does not want to take those commitments she can not have her vote, I suppose, but I don't think that is important. It is the final collective security that is important.

China, of course, might not want any. I do not know.

Mr. LODGE. In the quota arrangement, which is the second amendment, I believe, the participating nations on the new Security Council would be limited to a 20-percent quota in heavy armaments. I would like to ask you this:

Heavy armaments are one thing in which we have a very definite predominance because we are a highly industrialized Nation.

Does it seem to you wise to limit us to a 20-percent quota in heavy armaments, while not limiting Soviet Russia if she is included in this arrangement in the elements of power in which she has predominance?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. A mass army today is a terrific economic burden. You have to feed them, transport them, and keep them happy.

One American armored division is worth 100,000 of the vaunted foot soldiers of Russia who did nothing much but march into a vacuum.

anyway.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Rimanoczy.

We come down to this point, I believe, that a great many of us favor Resolution 59, and many of us have favored proceeding under article 51.

The question comes down to this:

Once a conference called under 109 fails, do we proceed under 51 as we have been proceeding or do we under 51 form another United Nations, with the amendments suggested in Resolution 163, while retaining our membership in the old United Nations.

It seems to me that is the question and that is a question upon which honest men can differ.

Thank you very much.

Mr. JUDD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LODGE. I yield.

Mr. JUDD. To tie down this one question about the veto, is it true, Mr. Rimanoczy, that if you have in a constitution or structure a provision which one nation can abuse, then other nations can abuse it?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. That is the point I tried to make. It happens to be Russia now but who knows who it will be a hundred years from

now.

Mr. Jupd. If it is capable of abuse by anyone, you have not a good structure and you ought to amend your structure.

To go back to prohibition days: It was not enough to say that people violated prohibition. If there was a law which a majority of the people wanted to violate and succeeded in violating the only thing to do was to change that law? It was not workable?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. That is right.

Mr. JUDD. Thank you.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Lodge spoke of proceeding under article 51. Article 51 provides:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.

Do you think that is the situation that occurs now?

Is there a case of armed attack occurring against a member of the United Nations?

Mr. RIMANOCZY. I do not know. I understood the Mutual Defense Pact in this hemisphere was based on 51.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. That was my understanding but looking at the language here I can hardly understand it. I always felt that an agreement like the Act of Chapultepec, ought to be under article 52, which says:

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.

We keep talking about 51 when it seems to me it would be more logical to have a club within a club under 52.

Mr. RIMANOCZY. I was surprised to see it was done under 51. I like the phrase in the Senate bill, which reads "or other methods found suitable by the United Nations."

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much for your very constructive

statement.

The committee will recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Chairman EATON. The committee will come to order.

The first witness this afternoon is Mr. Max Eastman. We are glad to have you here Mr. Eastman. Please identify yourself and give us your official connection. You do not need to identify yourself any further.

STATEMENT OF MAX EASTMAN, AUTHORITY ON SOVIET RUSSIA

Mr. EASTMAN. I am an author and I am a roving editor of the Reader's Digest.

Chairman EATON. We congratulate you on that very lucrative posi

tion.

Mr. EASTMAN. Do you want me to go ahead and make my statement?

Chairman EATON. Have you a statement?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes; I would like to make a statement.

Chairman EATON. Please read the statement first.

Mr. EASTMAN. I will not read it, but I will read some quotations as I go along.

The main thing I want to say is that I do not think the opponents of this measure realize that the heads of the Soviet state are not merely the heads of a police state in Russia, but they are the heads of a totalitarian world revolution.

What we are up against is an organized, tightly disciplined army of fanatical Communists numbering 20,000,000 all over the world who have their general staff in Moscow.

The general staff of world revolution is the Politburo in Moscow. Only 6,000,000 of these 20,000,000 Communists are in the Soviet Union. The official number of Communists in the world is taken from the World Almanac. The figures on the number in the Soviet Union are from Pravda, the official organ of the Communist Party.

The policy of this organized and very largely armed movement against democratic civilization is to overthrow our Government and establish in its place a totalitarian police state, and a society on the model of that in the Soviet Union. The policy of it is laid down mainly in a little book written by Stalin called Problems of Leninism, which is published by the International Publishers in New York, and is available in a very good English translation, at 30 cents for the paper edition and a dollar and a half for the cloth-bound edition.

It is also laid down in the constitution and program of the Communists International, which is published by Human Events in Washington under the title "Blueprint for World Conquest."

There has been some talk, and there still is, about the enigma of the policy of Stalin. I think it was Senator Vandenberg who not long ago referred to it as a "supreme conundrum," and there still is a feeling that some mystery or doubt hangs over the behavior of the Russian

delegates in the United Nations and the Russian ambassadors and foreign ministers. This doubt survives for no reason in the world except that, just as we refused to read Hitler's Mein Kampf, we are refusing to read the documents in which Stalin, addressing his own followers on whom he relies to achieve his ends, has written down his plan as plainly and openly as Hitler wrote his.

The bedrock of Soviet foreign policy I can read to you in one sentence from that little book, Problems of Leninism:

It is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue to exist for a long period side by side with imperialist states; ultimately one or the other must conquer.

Imperalist states means us. And this isn't something that Stalin said in the 1920's or before the war or during the war, or yesterday. It is something he is saying right now all over the world in a book which is translated into all important languages, authorized by him, currently revised by him, used by his 20,000,000 followers as a campaign book and a handbook in every corner of the planet.

You can go out and buy it at a Communist bookstore anywhere in the United States. It is being shipped about the United States while we sit here talking. Stalin in that book is saying what I just read you, which happens to be a quotation, a reverent quotation, from Lenin.

Let me read you another quotation from the latest Russian edition of this book which was revised by Stalin in 1939. But first I will pause to say that if Stalin wanted to take back a word of what is written in this book he could do it by uttering one sentence in the right place, to the right people, and in the correct Marxian phraseology. Here is another basic proposition of Russian foreign policy:

The international significance of our revolution lies in this, that it is the beginning in our country of the cracking of the system of imperialism, a first step in the world revolution and a powerful base for its further development. What is our country as it builds socialism but a base for the world revolution? That was Stalin's answer to those in his own party who imagined that in purging Trotsky and the other old Bolsheviks he had abandoned their program of world revolution, their program of producing chaos in the capitalist nations and effecting, when a crisis came, a Communist transformation. He didn't mind having our statesmen believe that, but not his own followers. They must know the truth. And they must know that it is going to be a bloody, violent, antidemocratic, and lawless job. So he put this also in his book, even in the English translation: "Can such a radical transformation of the old bourgeois system be achieved without a violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat? Obviously not. The scientific concept of "dictatorship" means nothing more or less than power which rests on violence, which is not limited by any laws or restricted by any absolute rules.

Dictatorship means unlimited power resting on violence and not on law. That in words quoted as gospel from Lenin is Stalin's blueprint for the future of our country. That from his own lips is his foreign policy and the foreign policy of 20,000,000 Communists all over the world. That is what we are up against.

And Stalin doesn't want any confusion about this among his American disciples. He doesn't want them to take seriously the hocus