The Russian military strategists, unlike some of our own military experts, realize thoroughly that the primary obstacle that stands between their hundreds of divisions and the conquest of Europe and Asia is the American atomic bomb. And while they relentlessly seek to remedy this deficiency, our State Department, with equal fervor seeks peace in our time.

I must confess to an overwhelming feeling of fantastic unreality that envelops our foreign policy. For here are leaders who are among the most respected and, in their fields, the most intelligent Americans. The whole world owes a profound debt of gratitude to General Marshall, one of the two great organizers of victory. And yet these leaders, and many others, are not only permitting the Moscow dictators to build their atomic bombs with impunity, but are also defending an impotent United Nations so that these men in the Kremlin may attack a divided world with chances of success.

Soon, in a year or two-a little more or less matters not-50,000,000 Americans living in our larger cities will discover that they can no longer go to bed at night with the assurance that they and their dear ones will not be annihilated by atomic blasts. Then the people of America will turn to their leaders their local leaders and the national leaders-they will ask of all of us, in Congress and outside, this fateful question: What did you do to avert this terrible atomic threat during these all-precious years, from 1945, on, when the United States held the destiny of the world in the palm of her hand?

As I consider this momentous question, as I think that every month we lose to the Soviet rulers may be paid by generations of American tears, all others questions raised by the antirevisionists in defense of the veto, in justification for the absence of a world law and an international police force, not to speak of the many and sundry lagal technicalities advanced-all such objections become not only irrelevant but irreverent. For, are we and our children to perish from atomic blasts because of the legalistic scrupulosities of the architects of the veto whose pride of authorship is greater than their fear of the onrushing catastrophe?

Yesterday, the committee heard one authority who is one of the authors of the San Francisco Charter, Mr. John Foster Dulles. But, pride of authorship did not blind him to the reality of the atomic and Communist bombs. He did not cling stubbornly to the absolute defense of the Charter as it is a defense which is no longer tenable in view of the profoundly changed conditions. As a result, without losing his old friends, he has gained many new ones.

It is to be hoped that another and most distinguished foreign policy leader, Senator Vandenberg, will not only follow the road of openmindedness taken by Mr. Dulles, but will overcome some of Mr. Dulles' needless reservations. Certainly Senator Vandenberg could not be accused of excessive pride of authorship. His defect is the defect of his virtue excessive collaboration with the State Department.

As evidence of this I cite a remarkable resolution introduced day before yesterday by Senator Vandenberg in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It not only bore the stamp of approval by the State Department, but to me had all the earmarks of its handiwork, and few, if any, of the deft and brilliant touches of Senator Vandenberg. It was called a "working paper," but it could better be called a walk

75921-48- -25

ing paper, leading exactly nowhere. It was not a concurrent resolution, although there has never been a greater need for unity within Congress and outside, than today. It was obviously rushed as reinforcements for the weakening defense of the State Department against the rising tide of public opinion, and was released at the exactly inopportune time of this committee's hearings.

The basic article 1 of this resolution is so written that it seems to promise vast reforms of the United Nations; but only a Philadelphia lawyer, an international expert, or perhaps a bridge expert, could unravel its real meaning, or lack of meaning. I quote:

voluntary agreement to remove the veto from all questions involving pacific settlements of international disputes and situations, and from the admission of new members.

The words "voluntary agreement" mean of course, that if Russia refuses "to remove the veto," America passes as usual. The grandiloquent phrase, "pacific settlement of international disputes, and so forth," does not refer to the fundamental problem of aggression or any other substantive matter, but principally to matters of etiquette, grouped in chapter VI of the Charter.

This more or less tells the members how to eat with a knife and fork but if they begin to use the knife to cut each others' throats they can do nothing about it.

The State Department advertises 31 such picayune proposals for the "modification" of the veto, with the intent of conveying to the public the impression of a bold and valiant struggle against the curse of the veto.

In reality, these 31 proposals, even if adopted, would not postpone the third world war by 1 day. They are concerned with such piffling matters as, I quote the last but not the least, No. 31:

Determination of the date of election of judges of the International Court of Justice.

The only paragraph in this resolution that contains good meat is No. 4, which proposes to make clear the Senate's

determination to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defense under article 51, should any armed attack occur affecting its national security.

The purpose of the State Department here is to commit the Senate to an eventual military alliance of the United States with military blocs in Europe, directed against Soviet Russia. How could the State Department attack the revision of the United Nations on the grounds that it might wreck the United Nations by reason of Russia's opposition, and at the same time advocate a military defensive alliance obviously directed against Russia? The American people will reason that if article 51 is good enough for a military alliance that can only result in world war III, it is certainly infinitely better suited for a mutual defense pact of all the peaceful nations of the world, directed not against Russia but against any aggressor; and managed not by power politicians, but by a world judge and a world policeman, in the name of a world law against aggression.

I am sure that Senator Vandenberg, in whom so many Americans have such confidence-and justly so-will not permit this resolution to go beyond the stage of a trial balloon without remolding it and

even drastically revising it, as he has done so brilliantly in the past with so many of the proposals of the State Department.

In the debate now going on in the Nation and in Congress between the revisionists and the antirevisionists, I am sure that the revisionists will win, and the specific methods embodied in Resolution 163 will become the basis of a revised United Nations. Our only hope of averting the third world war is through a revised United Nations. And the only formula which is both effective and acceptable for such a revision is a formula which provides specific methods for the elimination of three basic defects in the present structure of the United Nations-the elimination of the veto in matters of aggression, the elimination of the atomic and armament race, and the establishment of a tyranny-proof but powerful international police force.

The overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to appeasement of Soviet Russia. They learned from bitter experience that appeasement, open or disguised, only breeds a much bigger war a little later.

An appeaser is in effect a warmonger. The overwhelming majority of American people are equally opposed to preventive war against Russia. Such a war in our democracy is a psychological impossibility, and anyone who advocated such a war would be sure to be voted out of office. The American people do not understand the logic of power politics. They understand only the logic of Christianity, plus the elemental fact that no mother wants her boy to go to war.

You cannot thrust the gun into the hands of American mothers and fathers for a war of aggression or an alliance of power politics. But if, either through or within the United Nations, we establish a really effective international organization directed not against Russia but against any aggressor-if we thus put the gun into the hands of a lawful authority then the American people will support it, and support it to the hilt. For we are a nation of deputy sheriffs.

Sure of the support of the American people and of most of the nations of the world, we would then create an instrument for peacean instrument of such overwhelming power that the Russian rulers would be insane to challenge or combat it. The men in the Kremlin would find themselves all dressed up with no place to go. These men in the Kremlin respect and understand only the language of force. Through the language of overwhelming counterforce they will be quickly convinced that there is no chance of conquering the world, and much risk of defying it. They will find it to their advantage to join the rest of the world, and the rest of the world will find it to its advantage to have them join.

I too believe that the hope of the world lies in the United Nations. But I seek to preserve the United Nations by reforming it. A toothless League of Nations inevitably brought in its wake Hitlers and Tojos. A paralyzed United Nations, whose solemn covenant is already riddled with bullets, is bringing forth Stalins and Titos who are setting the stage for world war III. It is high time that we get ready to set the stage for real world peace.

Mr. VORYS (presiding). Mr. Richards

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Culbertson, I want to congratulate you' on a very fine statement. I am in accord with nine-tenths of what you say.

Now you propose to do three things, by amending the Charter of the United Nations [reading]:

elimination of the veto in matters of aggression, elimination of the atomic and armament race, and the establishment of a tyranny-proof but powerful international police force.

I heartily agree with those three objectives. However, as a practical proposition, when you go before the United Nations, you must first get two-thirds vote of the Assembly, before any of these things can be done.

Yesterday, Mr. Dulles said that it is doubtful that we can get a twothirds vote of the Assembly and if we failed, or if any appreciable bloc of nations opposed us in that move, more harm than good would be done. What have you to say about that?

Mr. CULBERTSON. It depends on what kind of a deal you propose to the nations.

You will remember that Ambassador Austin also said that he called into conference the four nations and tried to propose the elimination of the veto in chapter VI and that only one agreed and that was the United States.

Obviously, the nations are not interested in such a proposal, but I can assure you, Congressman, that any time you can guarantee on the dotted line, by the might of the United States, in a defense pact, the permament survival of any nation in this world-except for Russia and her satellites, they will not only join us, they will swim across the Atlantic to join us.

That applies to Britain, whose only desire is to avert any third world war. More than to any other nation that applies to China, who is now caught between the hammer of the Communists and the western nations. It applies to every free small nation in the world, except the satellite nations, for the simple reason that there is a group of these small nations, about 60 of them. Let us say, at least 50 nations are so far free. Every one of these nations will be guaranteed, by the full might of the United States, Britain, France, China, and other nations, against any aggression.

Not only that, but they collectively create a tremendous force, an international contingent, which is equal in power to any great power. Thus they join as perpetual allies of every peaceful nation. I believe if a sincere proposal is made by the American Government of a mutual defense pact, offered not to five nations in Europe, including Luxemburg-frankly I do not know why Luxemburg and not China-I believe if that mutual defense pact is extended to all the nations on the basis of mutual defense, mutual cooperation, economically and other ways, they would not have the slightest difficulty in getting them not only to agree but to work with us side by side.

Mr. RICHARDS. I am inclined to agree with you about that. The reason I am asking you about the Assembly vote is because I am more concerned about that than I am about the veto power of Russia being used against any of our proposals.

If we are going to propose these things we have to have the support of a substantial bloc of the nations of the world, and I believe we can get it.

Now, suppose in the Assembly Russia was able to get together, in opposition, outside of her satellites, say 9 or 10 nations. What would you then do?

Mr. CULBERTSON. I would say then if she would get 8 or 10 nations, let the 8 or 10 nations who opposed it join Russia. I would then say that the United States will never defend them against aggression by Russia, and still then I would say, we would go ahead with the remaining nations in a mutual defense pact.

This is very vital to European nations. You take the case of Sweden. Sweden is afraid to move, because if Russia invades Sweden there is no guaranty, there is no certainty that the United States, let alone France or Britain, will come to the help of Sweden. If we come to Sweden and say, "Join our club, and while you are joining our club, or even while you are applying for membership, we will guarantee you protection against any bully in the world," Sweden will immediately joint us, in my opinion. What they seek is freedom from aggression, and protection. The greatest protection in history today is the United States.

Mr. RICHARDS. Do you think if we proposed this thing and Russia decided to do as was done in the Marshall plan, and send notice to Sweden, "If you take this move we will consider it an act of animosity against the Soviet Union"? If that happens, what card should we play next?

Mr. CULBERTSON. And if we in answer to Russia would send a note to Moscow and say, "If you threaten Sweden while she is considering to join us, you are going to deal with the United States.” Do you think Moscow is going to send that note, or that Sweden will listen to it?

Mr. RICHARDS. I agree with that idea, but we should not take the first step unless we are going to put some iron in our blood and go right on through with it.

Mr. CULBERTSON. It is best to ask Russia to marry us and if she does not want to marry us, let her marry anybody else who wants to marry her.

Mr. RICHARDS. This thing is not working right now and as you say, the atomic bomb and the threat of world destruction is on us, and the United Nations as now constituted seems not to offer a prescription for that kind of illness. We must do something else about it or just give up in a spirit of futility.

Mr. CULBERTSON. That is correct, Mr. Congressman. We Americans have no choice. We must either conquer the world or we must conquer war.

We prefer to conquer war. We are going to conquer war with Russia if necessary.

You know Congressman, I happen to be a native American brought up in Russia. In fact, I think I am the only member of the Sons of the American Revolution who speaks Russian without an accent and English with an accent. I know Communists.

Mr. Eastman gave testimony here, one of the most brilliant statements on this subject I have ever heard. You will never get together with the Politburo of Russia, unless you organize the language of force, based on the language of peace and that alone. And unless they realize you mean business. They are going to deal with you, too.