if need be but not necessarily against Russia. Already 30 Senators and Representatives have introduced in Congress a resolution calling for this reorganization by means of a concrete formula known as the ABC plan.

Heretofore Americans have been divided into three groups of opinion on the vital question of our policy toward the U. S. S. R. There are those who feel we should appease Russia. The second group sees no other solution than to "bomb her with the atomic bomb now." The third, at present directing our foreign policy, puts its faith in half measures designed to "contain" further Soviet expansion. Careful scrutiny of these "solutions" can show only that each is bound to fail.

Appeasement might succeed if the issue were only between the Russian and American peoples; their hands might have been clasped in lasting friendship long ago. But the enslaved Russian people do not make their own decisions as to war or peace. The only ones who count politically in Russia today are the 14 members of the Politburo, whose avowed purpose is a Communist world-state and who have proclaimed the United States their Enemy Number One. We cannot risk the destiny of our country on the forlorn hope that these 14 ideological fanatics may lose their absolute power or abandon their announced goal.

A war of aggression by the United States is practically impossible. We are a Christian people who will fight heroically to defend our country against aggression; indeed, our moral strength comes from the conviction that aggression is evil. But a sneak attack on Russia, an American-engineered Pearl Harbor, is simply out of the question. We don't do business that way.

Our present half-measure policy of "containment" is proving equally futile, It does not remove the threat of atomic war now hanging over the world, relieve the backbreaking load of the armament race, or stop aggression. In a world of power politics the United States cannot buy peace on the installment plan.

The only way out of this impasse, the only way that is certain to be supported by the great majority of the American people, is via the United Nations. Not the present impotent, veto-ridden organization, but the promised United Nations, so designed that no nation may rearm for aggression with impunity or attack a divided world with any chance of success. This promise can be fulfilled by the ABC plan.

The plan consists of three proposals to solve the three basic problems which must be solved in order to make the United Nations work-the problem of the veto; the problem of the armament race, particularly the atomic race; and the problem of establishing a powerful but tyranny-proof world police force. These proposals may be summarized as follows:

A. Elimination of the Unrestricted Veto

In the present Security Council, the right of veto applies even when a major state is accused of aggression, so that the Council is like a perpetually hung jury on which the criminal himself sits and has the right to vote in his own case "not guilty." This tragic farce has been played before the peoples of the world ever since the United Nations was founded. Accordingly, revision A provides that in matters specifically concerning aggression and preparation for aggression the right of veto by any single state will be abolished.

In all other matters involvings national sovereignty, however-such as selfdefense, taxation or immigration—the veto right will be retained. The right to veto is the right to be sovereign, and the right to be sovereign is the right to be free. The only sovereign right that the United States would give up in revi sion A is the "right" to arm for, or wage, a war of aggression. This "right" the American Nation may be expected to surrender if the other nations do likewise. With the veto thus abolished in matters of aggression, the representation in the present 11-member Security Council must be changed so that the 6 smaller states cannot outvote the five permanent members. Accordingly, the Council is to be reorganized to include two members each from Russia, the British Commonwealth and the United States; one each from France and China; and two selected collectively by the smaller member states. This makes a new Council of 10 members to be ruled, in vetoless matters, by a majority of 6.

Next, an impartial World Court must be created. The present International Court of Justice has only picayune powers-it is actually forbidden to judge any case of international gangsterism unless the international gangster himself consents to be so judged! The new World Court provided by revision A will interpret the revised United Nations Charter and judge governments and indi viduals.

As

Thus the ABC plan solves the first basic problem of international organization: How to give the Security Council enough power to prevent or stop aggression, and yet preserve the essential sovereignty and freedom of member states. a result, the United Nations is liberated from the strait jacket of the veto, and a true world authority is established.

B. Abolition of the Atomic Threat and the Armament Race

In the midst of an unparalleled armament race, and after nearly 3 years of existence, the United Nations has accomplished exactly nothing to remove the atomic threat or initiate world disarmament. To prevent aggressive war we must first of all prevent armament for aggressive war. Revision B provides for this as follows:

In the case of atomic weapons the revised Security Council will establish an Atomic Development Authority for international control of atomic energy, along the general lines of the official United States proposal of June 14, 1946.

In the case of heavy armament-armored ships of land, sea, and air-the revised Security Council will establish a world-wide limitation on its production in accordance with a new technique, called the quota force method. First, the revised Security Council will fix annually the total amount of heavy armament of each kind that may be produced throughout the world in any year. A quota equal to 20 percent of this world limit will be produced by the Security Council itself in the territories of the smaller member-states. The remaining 80 percent-enough for defense, not enough for aggression-will be produced by the five major member-states in their territories and subject only to their own governments (except for inspection), in accordance with these individual quotas: the United States, the British Commonwealth and Russia, 20 percent each; and France and China, 10 percent each.

This creates a new kind of international cartel, where the scarcity created is the scarcity of the merchandise of death.

If any major state, such as Russia, refuses to participate in this world quota limitation, then the Security Council will decree an extra quota of production to be distributed among the member-states in proportion to their resources, and of such size that the nonparticipating state will be faced with the hopeless task of competing against the overwhelming productive capacity of the rest of the world.

But what if Soviet Russia remains outside and, refusing any inspection, starts piling up atomic weapons in defiance of the revised United Nations? In that event, there will come into effect a special clause of the revised Charter under which the remaining permanent Security Council members-the United States, the British Commonwealth, France and China-may declare Russia a threat to the peace of the world and an aggressor. Russia then will be given an ultimatum: either to stop atomic armament, by submitting to the reasonable international control and inspection prevailing for all other states, or to evacuate her industrial centers in expectation of immediate atomic coercion. At the same time, the door will be left wide open for Russia to rejoin the UN as a permanent member.

The ABC plan thus solves the second basic problem of international organization: how to disarm the world and yet preserve the unimpaired sovereignty of member-states and their capacity for armed self-defense.

C. A new kind of world police force

The UN does not now have, even on paper, what it needs to keep the peacea powerful world police force of its own, unaffected by selfish interests of its member-states, strong enough to suppress aggression by any state, yet so designed that it cannot become an instrument of world tyranny.

Revision C provides a special international contingent as the active force of the world police; the armed forces of the five major states, called the National Contingents, will serve as reserves when needed. The international contingent, under direct control of the Security Council, will consist of volunteers recruited exclusively from the citizens of the smaller member-states. It will be a highly paid, highly trained professional army, equipped with the heavy armament produced by the Security Council, and automatically limited to 20 percent of the world's effective armed strength-as strong as any major state. If the international contingent alone is not able to cope with an aggressor or combination of aggressors, the governments of major states are pledged, subject to their constitutional processes, to make their national armed forces available against the aggressor.

This new police force is powerful enough to stop aggression because the armed forces of the major states are also automatically limited in strength by their quotas of armament production. It is important to remember that the effective strength of modern armed forces is largely based on their amount of heavy armament rather than on the number of soldiers equipped with light weapons. It is this fundamental fact that makes revisions B and C possible.

In the event that a major state refuses to participate, the establishment of the international contingent shall proceed at once anyhow. And the memberstates will be pledged to collective defense with all their resources, in case of aggression upon a member by the outside state.

Thus revision C solves the third and most important problem of international organization: It creates a self-balancing system of national armed forces, with an international contingent as a balance wheel so designed that no aggressor can overcome the system; and yet each major state retains its own military capacity to defend itself. The sixty-odd smaller sovereign states seek to survive, not to conquer. Individually they are impotent, but collectively they become a new world power of 400,000,000 population-a perpetual ally of the United States and all other peace-seeking nations. In any attempted war of aggression, even the strongest state would automatically be facing a 4-to-1 superiority.

For the United States, a revised UN simplifies the problem of how to save western Europe from communism. Whether Russia joins or not, she will no longer be able to use the threat of military force to back up her Communist Parties abroad. There would then be no need for the United States to give a blank check to the western European bloc in the form of a military guaranty, for the revised UN in itself is a military guaranty for all member states-a mutual, reciprocal guaranty and not a one-sided affair. A United States of Europe, impossible in the present atmosphere of power politics, could then evolve.

Above all, the ABC formula will bring a showdown with Soviet Russia and, by firm action now, avert the third world war later. It is hard to believe that Russia would choose to stay out of the revised UN for the ABC plan is even more favorable to her than it is to the United States. To Russia the ABC plan offers complete immunity from atomic aggression; permanent military strength equal to that of the United States; the additional protection of the International Contingent; and, above all, a guaranty against future aggression by the capitalistic powers.

We Americans have no choice-we must either conquer the world or conquer war. We prefer to conquer war.

The ABC plan, the basic elements of which were formulated as far back as 1943, is a carefully thought-out product of the collective wisdom of hundreds of the best minds in the country. One Presidential candidate, Senator Taft, has declared himself in favor of the ABC plan; two others-Harold Stassen and Governor Warren-support revision of the UN. Dorothy Thompson, head of a world organization of women, is for the ABC plan. The American Legion has officially adopted a virtually identical plan. Norman Thomas supports the idea. (When Norman Thomas and the American Legion agree, it is a minor miracleand indisputable proof of the unifying power of the ABC formula.)

Reprints of this article are available postpaid at nominal cost:

10 reprints.

100 reprints_. 1,000 reprints_-.

$0.25

2.00 14.00

Address: Reprint Desk, the Reader's Digest, Pleasantville, N. Y. The demand from all parts of the country which resulted in the introduction in Congress of resolutions calling for implementation of the ABC plan was the result of a widespread grass-roots movement. I have delivered more than 500 lectures on this plan, in almost every State in the Union. In the reaction of my audiences, and in the thousands of letters I have received following radio broadcasts and published articles, a new note is dominant-a note of hope. Endorsements of the plan by various branches of the General Federation of Women's

See A System to Win This War-and the Peace to Come, by Ely Culbertson, the Reader's Digest, February 1943.

Clubs, member unions of the American Federation of Labor, and many church and educational organizations convince me that a large majority of the Americanpeople favor a solution which is not appeasement of Russia or war against her, but a revised UN to protect all members equally.

The time we have left in which to act is, however, tragically short. We have frittered away three precious years since Hiroshima. We have accomplished virtually nothing to disperse the atomic cloud now gathering over every Russian and American home. And if we continue drifting confusedly we shall reach eventually that fateful hour when no American will go to bed at night with the assurance that he will not be annihilated before morning by an atomic blast. We might win that atomic war; but victory would be tragic comfort to those who survived the holocaust, for they would have to answer this ominous question: What did you do to avoid atomic disaster during the years when the United States held the destiny of the world in the palm of her hand?

Yet if we act now, there is hope. We still can win the great peace. We still have the active friendship of most of the world. The power of the United States in relation to Russia is still overwhelming. Above all, we still have the monopoly of atomic energy. History, however, has imposed a fateful atomic time table upon us. The time limit of our unquestioned superiority and immunity is probably only a few years.

During these few years the decision must be made. I submit that the ABC plan is the one answer to the world emergency. It deserves the support of all men and women of good will.

Mr. CULBERTSON. In part 2, my spoken testimony, I will deal largely with some of the fundamental questions raised during these hearings, which I have followed with passionate interest and, I hope, some degree of objectivity.

I think it was Congressman Lodge who, when speaking about my dear friends and first cousins, the Federalists, said that they were the men of the future. Indeed they are men of a noble ideal, the ideal of a world government of men good and true-an ideal which we all share, even though some of us believe that it can best and quickest be reached by the way of more limited objectives. At these hearings we also listened to men of the past-distinguished men like Ambassador Austin and Secretary Marshall-men are apparently oblivious of the elementary fact that between the San Francisco Conference and today there are not 3 years, but 3,000 years-there is a vast gulf, created by the Hiroshima bomb. It is fantastic but true that in a total of over 6,000 words of their prepared testimony before this committee, I could find not a single reference by either Secretary Marshall or Ambassador Austin to history's most momentous issuenow before the world-the atomic bomb.

My testimony will deal with the present, and by the present, I mean not only today, but the few years immediately ahead of us, which belong to the stream of today.

In my opinion, the most important issue of today, the most important issue in this committee, in the Congress, in the Nation, in the world-the most important issue in history-is the issue of how to stop 14 Godless fanatics in control of an enslaved Russian giant from building atomic bombs.

At this very moment, while I am speaking to you, these Moscow rulers are feverishly engaged in the depths of Russia in building atomic plants out of which will come, if they have not come already, the atomic bombs. The question is, how soon.

According to the estimates of Mr. Churchill while still the PrimeMinister in August 1945 [reading]:

there are perhaps 3 or 4 years before the great progress of the United States can be overtaken.

This means that Soviet Russia will probably have some atomic bombs this year or next.

The United States, starting from scratch and groping in the dark, took only 3 years from August 1942 to 1945 to experiment, devise, test, and produce atomic bombs. It stands to reason that Soviet Russia, especially with the help of thousands of German scientists and in possession of the blueprints and know-how brought through their world-wide spy ring, will produce enough atomic bombs by 1950which is 5 years after Hiroshima-to threaten the destruction of scores of American cities, from skies or cellars.

In his Potsdam speech, Prime Minister Churchill also wrote: "There is not an hour to be wasted; there is not a day to be lost." Our President, our successive secretaries of State, virtually all of our leading physicists, reiterated this solemn admonition. Today, nearly 3 years have passed since Hiroshima. I ask Ambassador Austin: What has the present, impotent, veto-ridden United Nations accomplished to remove this atomic cloud now gathering over the homes of the world? It grieves me deeply to observe that in his testimony before this committee the Ambassador had no place for the atomic bomb, although he did find room for exalting the present United Nations in its achievement of "aiding Peru to establish refrigeration and storage facilities for its fishing industry."

As recently as September 17, 1947, Secretary Marshall stated at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly [reading]:

The control of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction has perhaps the highest priority if we are to remove the specter of war of annihilation.

I regret to say that at no place in his testimony last week was there a hint of a step, or even a half step, to remove the specter of annihilation.

Instead, Secretary Marshall announced [reading]:

A fundamental task of the United Nations and of our foreign policy is to dispel the misconceptions of the Soviet leaders and to bring about a more realistic view of what is possible and what is impossible in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the world at large.

And in order to discover realistically what is possible and what is impossible with the Soviet leaders, Ambassador Smith, the day before the Secretary's appearance here, was dispatched on a trip to Cannossa, Russia, only to discover that the Soviet leaders did not want to have their misconceptions dispelled.

In his testimony before your committee Secretary Marshall said, in opposition to the resolutions for the revision of the United Nations [reading]:

Under the auspices of the United Nations we are meeting with the U. S. S. R. in hundreds of meetings each year. It would be unfortunate to break off this relationship.

Unfortunate, indeed, and even tragic. Two days after Secretary Marshall spoke these words the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, established 2 years ago to save the world from the atomic threat, ceased to exist. It confessed to the world that after 240 meetings it could not control a single atom. These 2 years of tragic futility for the American and western world were of immense value to the 14 men of the Politburo.