gressively, then we must agree that the greater the share of world power that is governed by liberty, the safer we and the world will be. If we have the courage of our convictions, our problems come down to this threefold how: (1) How to develop more freedom in the world? (2) How to make sure that the bulk of the world's armed power is governed by freedom? (3) How to put more power, particularly productive power, behind freedom? To each of these questions I find this one answer:

Federate the freest fraction of mankind in a great union of the free, and thereafter extend this federal relationship to other nations as rapidly as this proves practicable until the whole world is thus governed by freedom.

Individual freedom not only rises from the union of freemen, but grows stronger and develops through the extension of that principle to other free individuals. Certainly that is the history of freedom in our Republic. It began with freemen forming little unions of the free called Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and other Colonies. Then came a new birth of freedom when the 13 free and independent States united in the world's first Federal Union. Every previous generation of Americans has gone on extending the benefits of that Union's common citizenship, common-defense force, common currency, common free-trade market, common communication system and common free Federal Government to more men and more States, until the Union has grown freer, safer, and richer in the process, but all mankind has profited.

Every American generation has gone on extending the principle of "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable"-every generation but ours. And ours is the first generation of Americans to say that their dead have died in vain. We have fought two world wars for freedom but for freedom without federation, not for liberty and union. Tavert a third world war, we must return to the true American line o freedom through ever-expanding free federation.

It is difficult for people to govern themselves with equal individual freedom that I find only about one-seventh of the human race has succeeded in doing this even fairly well for even as short a period as 50 years. We Americans provide half of these free people ourselves. The other 140,000,000 or 150,000,000 are divided into 14 sovereign nations: The United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium-Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Eire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa. You may object that even some of these hardly meet the 50-year qualification, and if you can find any nation that meets it better, you can add it to your list. You must agree, however, that civil-liberty democracy is very young indeed; and that individual freedom is in a very dangerous minority in a mass long habituated to despotism. You must agree, too, that modern techniques in mass deception, mass subjugation, and mass destruction immensely increase the danger to the one-seventh of mankind whose governments have assured freedom the past 50 years.

UNION GIVES FREEDOM EVERY ACE

Yet such is the power that freedom brings through union that these 15 unions of freemen need only federate in a great union to put behind their freedom overwhelming power-much more than half the power

now available in all the world. Power can be divided like a deck of cards into four suits, and these 15 democracies need only federate, as our 48 States are, for their union to hold every ace.

The ace of clubs, or armed power: Not only would their soldiers, if united, number as many as Russia's, and be much more mobile and better equipped; this union would begin by having the bulk of the world's air power, 90 percent of its naval tonnage, advanced bases everywhere on earth, 100 percent atomic power.

The ace of spades, or productive power: Tangled up though they are with their tariffs and currencies, these democracies have long outproduced all the rest of the world-and how their production would soar to undreamed-of-heights if they had one currency and formed one free trade market as do our 48 States.

The ace of diamonds, or raw material power: This union of the free would not need to spend billions stock piling; its territory and possessions would contain nearly all the essentials it needed, and produce from 50 to 95 percent of the world's supply of most of them.

The ace of hearts, or moral power: This union would unite all the lands toward which the rest of humanity has long looked for refuge from oppression and leadership toward liberty. Nothing can appeal to men so deeply as can individual freedom, and to back it with every ace is to add irresistible authority to its appeal.

All four aces-and the joker, too-for the union would need merely to admit other nations to it as they proved their freedom to keep increasing its overwhelming power. The far west of this nuclear union-in the sense of a vast area of vaster potentialities from which many new states could be added to the union by mutual agreement— would lie to the south and cover more than two continents, South and Middle America, and Africa. The imagination is staggered as the picture of this great Atlantic union of the free merely starts to unfold.

It is enough for the moment to note that we need merely federate with another 140,000,000 men and women with whom we have the closest natural, political, economic, historical, cultural, social, and religious ties, who live in the lands from which most of our forebearers come, who have contributed as much to our freedom, perhaps, as we to theirs. We Americans need merely live in federal union with them as we already live with each other to give to world peace immediately a double guaranty, the strongest one possible.

For, on the one hand, we thereby put such crushing power behind freedom that the Kremlin dictatorship dare not attack it, or any nation to whom the union extends the protection of its own modernized Monroe Doctrine.

On the other hand, by forming this union of the freest people on earth we give the most effective guaranty that its gigantic power will not be used to attack others, for we subject it to the strongest of checks-federated individual freedom. Though the union of our 48 States has made the United States more powerful than all the LatinAmerican Republics put together, they have never formed a military alliance against it, for our free institutions so checked aggressive military use of our power that they had no incentive to ally against us. By the same token the freedom of this greater union of the free, which would have much the same position as regards the whole world that

the United States now has in this hemisphere, protects it from dangerous coalitions being formed to oppose it, gives non-Communist states none of the incentive they would need to submit voluntarily to the yoke of the Kremlin.

If with this double guaranty we cannot stabilize the world situation and keep the peace long enough for the world to evolve without war into the free federal world government that this jet atomic age makes increasingly necessary, then nothing can save us.

UNION SOLVES THE RECOVERY-REARMAMENT DILEMMA

Federal union of the free would do more than doubly guarantee world peace. It is the only policy that solves the most dangerous dilemma that faces us, and the freedom on which peace and prosperity depend. The dilemma is this:

If we do not decisely strengthen freedom's defenses, we risk seeing the Communist dictatorship, already the greatest land power in Eurasia, grow so powerful that war is inevitable. On the other hand, if we do not decisively speed world recovery we run the same risk through hunger, cold, and despair causing people to deliver themselves to dictatorship by revolutions and the democratic machinery of free speech and free elections.

I said "decisively strengthen freedom's defenses," decisively speed world recovery, and I mean decisively, for there is no solving this dilemma by nibble and gnaw. Billions for air groups, with their bases left uncertain or feebly defended, will daunt a dictator no more than billions for Maginot Lines with a gap left in Belgium, guarded only by an alliance. Nor will he be discouraged by our putting Europe on a year-to-year dole, however many billions we vote in any one

year.

A policy that assumes that American voters are children, a policy of "little steps for little feet," invites the Kremlin to an armaments race, encourages it to hope that our recovery program will end by making discontent only stronger. We pay the most in the end by nibble and gnaw, but we never get the freedom and peace that we bargain for-haggle for.

And yet, the heart of our dilemma is that we do not have the means to do more than nibble and gnaw at rearming and recovery, so long as we democracies keep independent of the other democracies. We ourselves are already short, or facing shortages of various things. Our prices are already high. We are already running a practically full employment. We carry already a huge burden of debt, and taxes are so high that Congress has decided they must be cut.

To double our armaments expenditure, add some kind of draft, and arm the free in western Europe with military lend-lease, while spending $5,000,000,000 on European recovery will not free us from our dilemma. This is not enough to do the job but is more than enough to raise prices still higher. The higher they go, the less arms and goods we and our friends will get for our billions.

The more men we put in the armed forces, the fewer we have left for civilian production. And other men and materials must be diverted from civilian production to arm, freed, and clothe each new soldier, leaving that much less to thwart dictatorship on the recovery front.

Worse still, this also is true of the free in western Europe. France, for example, is now spending one third of its budget on defense while students at the Sorbonne, its intellectual leaders of tomorrow, live on thin soup.

All this makes for worse inflation, here and in Europe, and inflation makes for dictatorship. Nothing would seem more calculated to aid communism now than the destruction of private capital, and inflation or devaluation wipes out the savings of the stablest element in any nation, the middle class. The middle class in Germany, after inflation robbed it of its savings, turned to Hitler's national socialism. Communism has risen as successive devaluations have been converting the French bourgeoisie into the proletariat. And now the British are threatened with this blow at their private capital. The higher prices are driven by rearmament, the more vulnerable the basis of free enterprise and middle-class stability becomes in Britain.

By arming European nations at the cost of their living standards, we risk seeking them, when it hurts us the most, deliver their arms, perhaps through an election, to some dictator who will use them against us-deliver their arms, their country, their bases.

Yet, to speed recovery in western Europe at the cost of defense is to risk seeing the Red Army one day take over the prize with no more of a battle than it had in Czechoslovakia, or the Nazis had in Denmark or Holland. And the road to recovery will be costly and slow so long as Europeans fear that all they rebuild will be destroyed by war or seized by dictatorship.

Neither course solves our dilemma. There is still less hope of solving it through the United Nations, or through calling a conference to revise its Charter. Nor can we escape it by merely seeking to create a security pact through article 51 of the Charter.

These proposals seem to me to pay too little attention to the recovery side of the dilemma. Moreover, they ignore the basic relation of freedom to recovery and peace, and place the freest nations on the same plane as the others, even the dictatorships. They further ignore these practical facts: (1) The armed power on which we and the UN must depend to meet the aggressor is overwhelmingly concentrated in the few democracies I have listed. (2) the economic power on which the world depends for recovery is also concentrated in these same democracies. All that the proposals before you would do, if carried out, would be to shift at least some of the control over this armed and economic power from the 15 democracies to 30 other nations none of whom have succeeded in assuring individual freedom for even 50 years. This means lessening the safeguards that freedom gives against aggression, while lessening, too, its stimulus to protection.

UNION WOULD SAVE $5,000,000,000 ON ARMS

The only way we can solve our dilemma is by federating the free, forming the Great Union of the Atlantic. The experience of every one of the world's freed federal unions-the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa-shows that free states immensely increase both their military and productive power by uniting organically in a political, military, economic, and monetary federal union.

Whatever power for recovery and defense the free can achieve as 15 separate nations, they can achieve far more economically and effectively by federal union. Every one of them, large or little, needs only federate with all the others to be infinitely better protected than it is now, or can be by alliance. Whatever power they can achieve as two separate unions-a United States of Europe and a United States of America-they can achieve far better by forming one union.

Whether divided into 15 soverign fractions or into two sovereign halves, experience teaches every free people to fear that it cannot depend on an ally, and encourages every dictator to hope that where the free are unfederated they can be taken one after another.

Merely by removing all uncertainty on this score, federal union of the free adds enormous power at no cost whatever. By leaving no doubt anywhere that all our industrial, sea, and air power is tightly united to the far-flung bases of the British and European democracies, the union could enjoy much more effective naval and air power at far less cost than we pay for these arms. By my estimates, this union could provide much more effective protection than we have now, at a saving of at least $5,000,000,000 a year-enough to finance the recovery of the European states of the union.

As for production, to quote Fortune magazine's editorial on my book, Union Now; which called it a vision of the greatest political and economic opportunity in history:

* * *

Gigantic opportunities would be opened up. A rise in the standard of living of millions of consumers would result from the expansion of markets and the consequent lowering of prices for mass-produced goods. A genuine union of the democracies, then, opens up a vista of industrial growth to which the only enlightening parallel is the growth of the United States itself.

UNION REQUIRES NO CHARTER REVISION

Now, how does this affect the structure of the United Nations and the relation of the United States to UN?

This policy of federal union is completely in accord with the policy urged by Secretary Marshall and Ambassador Austin, that the United States should avoid trying at this time to revise the Charter drastically or abolish the veto, and should seek to strengthen the United Nations without changing its structure. I strongly support their policy in these regards. I could add some more arguments, should you desire, to those they have given.

I agree with the proposers of the resolutions before you that the Charter is defective; indeed, I find it far more defective than the resolutions indicate. But even if I believe that they got to the heart of the trouble, I would deem them uswise for I believe it is impossible to remove the basic defects from the UN as a whole, at this stage in world development, and that the attempt to do so by revising the Charter would do far more harm than good.

With all its profound defects, the UN is at least a stronger organization than could be made tomorrow on so universal a basis. Though I believe that no organization on a universal basis, or composed of too divergent nations, can be strong enough to keep the peace, I agree it can do much secondary good, and the more universal it is the more secondary good it can do. I would keep the structure of the UN as it it for the present, if only to keep Russia in it.