I think there are also serious misconceptions. But we do not pass legislation merely because it is harmless."

After all, is this not true, that a sound civilization must be built upon spirituality, and that means that we have to get the men together anyway?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think that is an erroneous proposition. I think when you are up against people who think in terms of material force, to oppose them with Christian persuasion and think you can do anything is a fatal mistake.

Mr. JONKMAN. I did not mean to go that far, but I mean by the processes like we are doing in Europe at the present time, to create public opinion as a trend toward at least an ethical concept, if not a spiritual one.

We have to get that before we can ever eliminate the causes of war. Mr. EASTMAN. I think you have got to have an ideal that people will believe in and go out for. You have got to have a blueprint of the future to oppose to this blueprint of world revolution, and here you have it. You have the idea of a world federation, a federation of States really aiming to bring peace to the world.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is a spiritual concept rather than a material

one.

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes. But it is also a practical measure.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is just what I mean. Are we not in a practical way making progress toward the objective through the organization of the United Nations?

Mr. EASTMAN. I do not think so.

Mr. JONKMAN. You know after all some of these vetoes did not get the Russians anywhere. Take the first one with reference to Iran, then the one with reference to Lebanon, and Syria. We are making progress.

Do you not think that we could leave it to for instance the Little Assembly at the next session of the General Assembly to see what action they take and what the results are of that action with reference to eliminating the causes of friction within the organization?

Mr. EASTMAN. I do not think so. I do not see how you can feel so leisurely in this emergency.

Mr. JONKMAN. And you say that House Concurrent Resolution 59 would not do any harm and might lend impetus to that effort?

Mr. EASTMAN. I am sure that the resolution I advocate, which I understand is numbered 163, would do so.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Chiperfield?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Eastman, by my line of questioning I did not want to leave the inference that this committee would not do what it thought was right simply because there was possible inaction on the part of the executive department. I have the firm belief that when this committee arrives at a decision they will do what they think is right.

Mr. EASTMAN. I did not think you meant that.

Chairman EATON. Mrs. Bolton?

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Eastman, I am deeply interested in your presentation of the facts about the Soviet. As it happens, my subcommittee of this committee finished only a few weeks ago a report which

was a history of the strategy and tactics of communism for the past hundred years.

You have put into very concise and trenchant words the contents of our small, but I hope effective, contribution to the knowledge that this country does need so dramatically at this moment.

Time is not on our side and we cannot wait indefinitely.

I was wondering this: Would it be your reasoning that some expression from Congress, through some resolution, might point up the thinking of the executive department?

Mr. EASTMAN. I certainly do think so.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do you think that would be of great value?

Mr. EASTMAN. It would be of great value without any doubt. Mrs. BOLTON. You feel that possibly on the strength of that, the Kremlin might be forced into more practical methods, even under the present United Nations Organization?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think it would have that effect to some extent. Mrs. BOLTON. I am not certain, but I judged from your remarks that you felt much as I did when Secretary Marshall said that the purpose of our foreign policy is to dispel misconceptions of the Soviet leaders.

Mr. EASTMAN. That, to me, is absolutely terrifying. He does not have the slightest idea what this country and world civilization is up against, and he is in a position of power.

You know they talk about the terrible military influence that is getting into this Government, some of my friends do. I am sorry to see the military people come in because they come in with an inferiority complex which prevents them from thinking like a soldier, and that is how we must think when we are up against these Marxian revolutionists. They are thinking in terms of material power and that is the way we must think.

Mrs. BOLTON. The quotes you have read are so familiar to me that I sometimes fail to believe that they are not known to everybody, but most people do not read Lenin and Stalin.

Mr. EASTMAN. I think it is very evident. When anybody in the country gets hold of some of these facts raised by those of us who are called radicals and extremists, someone who is in official position, it is an enormous event.

Mrs. BOLTON. You suggest that with "a little fixing" of the United Nations set-up we could make more progress. Could you just be a little more detailed?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think it might be possible. I think the measure of calling a conference to amend the Charter should be adopted and the Charter amended if possible. But if that is blocked, if either the calling of the conference or what the conference may do is blocked by the Soviet veto, I think the present proposal to form within the structure of the United Nations a sort of club within a club, or an alliance, you might call it, of the democratic nations under the clause which permits military self-defense, is a very astute way of moving toward what we must really have, a world federation of the democracies with police power and court.

Mrs. BOLTON. I believe you did begin your remarks on what were suggestions on what we must do. To use your words, "we must proceed with great subtlety and great diplomatic wisdom." That may possibly rule out some of the suggestions made in one or two of the

resolutions before us. I think in one of these resolutions, I think 163, there are phrases to the effect, "it shall be" so and so. For myself, I have no desire to have our country to say to the world, "This, that and the other must be." I think we must bring the other nations along with us. They may have better suggestions than we have. That is my first reaction to that phrase.

Mr. EASTMAN. I agree to that in principle, only I would add that I think a greater danger is that in the attempt to conciliate those other nations we would leave the thing a little bit fuzzy. That to me is the great danger. That is where the Communist leaders are so far ahead of us. They think in hard, clear, crystal terms because they are fanatical about all the facts. We have a sense of the fluidity of fact, and the indefiniteness of the future. We are more intelligent in one way, but in another way that is our weakness. We are inclined to let it all be a little bit fuzzy. I think that is a much greater danger than the one you have mentioned, although they both exist.

Mrs. BOLTON. If we can find a path between the two which will be clear, for our people and the people of democratic countries, something of spiritual value that will bring them an equal zeal for peace that has been instilled into the 20,000,000 Communists, we shall have something worth while.

Mr. EASTMAN. This really sets a goal. The ideal of a world federation of democratic nations to prevent war is an ideal really capable of arousing all the enthusiasm of people who love liberty, and believe in consecration to it.

At the present, everything on our side is a little vague and on the defensive. It is negative. This is something positive. So much so that if it were not so absolutely right, you would feel that you had to put it forward anyway, to gather the forces against what is threatening us.

Mrs. BOLTON. Is it not possible that those of the 20,000,000 world Communists who live among us are doing a very good job, keeping our thinking a bit fuzzy, in suggesting that the Christian spirit is one which must always be tolerant and understanding and bring the other boy in? Is that not a possible fact?

Mr. EASTMAN. I do not think I can agree with that.

Mrs. BOLTON. You do not think so?

Mr. EASTMAN. No.

Mrs. BOLTON. You do not think they would use us?

Mr. EASTMAN. I do not believe I got your question.

Mrs. BOLTON. Is it not possible that the Communists are using us, as Christians, to keep us thinking that after all they will come in someday?

Mr. EASTMAN. Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I agree with you absolutely. I did not understand.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you Mr. Eastman, for your very clear picture of the situation which you feel we must get over to our people. They do not understand it, they do not know it and will not accept it, up to this point. The moment they do, they will chide us for not being there ahead of them; will they not?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think so, yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. Will the lady yield to me for a question?
Mrs. BOLTON. Surely..

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think, Mr. Eastman, that within the United States within the last year, the United Nations Organization has created a tremendous change of feeling toward the communistic background? In other words, communism is repudiated to a far greater extent at the present time than it was a year or a year and a half ago?

Mr. EASTMAN. It is. That is without doubt. But if the United Nations has done much toward that, whether it has or not, I am not

sure.

I think the actions of the Soviet Union have done it and not the United Nations. But if the United Nations has done it a little bit, that is not a reason for not wishing it could do it a lot more, as Í think it could under this change.

Mr. JONKMAN. In the United Nations, the Communists are beginning to sound the real philosophy?

Mr. EASTMAN. I think a better way to show that philosophy would be to make a big appropriation to spread the report of this subcommittee abroad among the American people. I do not believe they get it through the newspaper reports or the radio reports of the United Nations. What you suggest does not seem to me to rank up in size with the reasons for adopting this measure. It does not seem to me to be of the same importance or weight.

Mr. JONKMAN. Would you say it is true that they are?

Mr. EASTMAN. I am not sure that perhaps our thinking might not have been further along had there been no United Nations. I do not believe what you say is absolutely self-evident, but even if the UN has done a little, it would do a lot more if it took a step which shows we are really defending democracy and would say to them: "Here! Come in or stay out."

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you not think that in the forum of the United Nations, Gromyko and Vishinsky have exposed to the American people what sovietism really is, how antagonistic it is and how destructive it is?

Mr. EASTMAN. There you have to divide the American people. You see, what they are doing is assembling the discontented, the neurotic, the crazy, the oppressed, the people who cannot think, but want a change and believe in their lying propaganda about a classless society. Those are the people they are appealing to-and they are appealing to the people who are filled with hate and just want to denounce everybody. In a situation where agitators are advocating a revolution, you cannot speak of the American people as a bloc. They are splitting up this bloc, and one of the instruments they are doing it with is the United Nations as at present constituted.

Mr. JONKMAN. Of course, you have reference to what we might call the lunatic fringe.

Mr. EASTMAN. It is a lunatic fringe if you call Hitler and his following a lunatic fringe. He got the whole mass of the German people behind him before he got through. He started out a lunatic. Mr. JONKMAN. Thank you.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. JUDD. Is it true or is it not true that while the actions of Messrs. Vishinsky, Molotov, and so forth have alienated further a great many people who probably originally were not favorably inclined toward

the Soviets; on the other hand, they have fanned to fever heat the devotion of millions of Americans?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JUDD. Therefore, balancing the good results against the bad, the chances are they would not have done it as they did unless they realized there would be tremendous benefit for them?

Mr. EASTMAN. That is what I was trying to say. I think that is unquestionable.

Mr. JUDD. Frequently it is said that Mr. Stalin has abandoned communism as the political or economic philosophy which it was under Marx and Lenin, and now uses it merely as the instrument of one nation's foreign policy. What is your comment on that?

Mr. EASTMAN. That is not true. I think Stalin could not abandon it temperamentally because he got his education as a Marxist and a Leninist and he does not know the world in any other terms. He cannot think in any other terms. That is what everything is to him. The position which has been given to him happens to fall in with his natural instinct, which is an enormous thirst for power and an enormous love for intrigue.

While I think Stalin is absolutely devoted to the world revolution, so long as he is on the crest of the wave, I think may be if a revolution, say, in France or Germany or America were in the wind, and were such that Stalin would lose his leadership if it were successful, he might not go through with it. It may be that his love of power must combine with his belief. However, as long as they are working together, he does not waiver an inch.

Mr. JUDD. You do not agree, then, with those who say that Stalin now is primarily a Russian nationalist and not an international Communist?

Mr. EASTMAN. No. Those two things have been right together from the beginning. The minute the Russian revolution occurred, the leaders identified the world revolution with the wonderful Russian revolutionary knowledge and understanding of Marxism.

And this identification was extremely trying to me. You know, I tried for awhile to believe in that system, and I went over there, after defending it here, as a sort of special guest of the Bolsheviks. I was never a member of the Communist Party, but, as I had defended the revolution in two left-wing socialist magazines in the United States, they sort of took me in and I was quite close to some of the leaders. I was present at a congress of the international. I was even present at a convention of the Russian Communist Party, which is a very extraordinary thing for a foreigner.

However, I always maintained a detached and critical position in regard to the movement. I never was a fellow traveler in the sense that I backed up the party line where I thought it was wrong. I retained the right to criticize. And this Russian nationalism, mixed up with what I had conceived as international socialism, evoked the one adverse criticism I wrote in my magazine before I left America. I attacked the Bolsheviks on their policy of organizing the international in such a way that the Russian party dominated it. They have never yielded from that position at all. They believe in the world revolution, but they believe it is going to be controlled from Moscowand it is, if we are not careful.