« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
I can assure you, once she faces this organized world collective front, she would have to join, because she will be better off if she joins.
Mr. JONKMAN. I have enjoyed your statement very much, sir. I would like to see just a little bit terminal facilities.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Judd. Mr. Culbertson, it has been repeatedly said during these hearings that if the United States tried to get a revision of the United Nations Charter along the lines you have discussed and Russia vetoed it, and then under article 51 we went ahead to organize for collective self-defense all the nations who agree to come into what you speak of as a mutual defense pact, it would wreck the United Nations; it would drive Russia out.
What is your comment on that hypothesis?
Mr. CULBERTSON. In the first place, I do not think anything would drive Russia out of the United Nations. She has such a marvelous means of free propaganda. Think of it, every time Molotoy or Vishinsky talks, every newspaper in America, every radio presents it all.
You could not drive Russia out with anything, not even with the atomic bomb, from the United Nations.
As for the wrecking of the United Nations, we still remain. We belong to two clubs. We made commitments with the United Nations; we will fulfill them.
At the same time, we have our own club within a club.
About the wrecking of the United Nations, I want to show a remarkable thing
Of course, I do not accuse Ambassador Austin of being a Communist but it is truly remarkable that the statement of Ambassador Austin is identical with the statement made before that by the Daily Worker.
Here is Ambassador Austin's statement:
Here is the Daily Worker's statement, April 13, 1948:
three of the Daily Worker, from special correspondent, the Daily Worker Washington Bureau, April 12, and I quote:
Under the guise of strengthening the United Nations 17 Senators today launched a campaign to junk the international agency in favor of an anti-Soviet military alliance.
That is the best answer to your question. I mean, how come should we defend the fundamental party line of the Moscow rulers to whose fundamental advantage it is to keep the world divided and keep it divided by the means of a divided and incompetent United Nations? Why should we fear the reproach of wrecking the United Nations when all we wish is peace in the world?
Mr. JUD. I agree with you that Russia would not pull out, or at least that the chances of her pulling out are remote. But do you think it might precipitate an invasion by her of western Europe? Should
she say, "If these countries really mean business and are going to get together, we had better take them over before they become any stronger.
Do you think that might happen?
Mr. CULBERTSON. I do not have the slightest doubt that Russia is not going to invade Europe, is not going to undertake any warlike actions until she gets enough atomic bombs to retaliate.
Had Russia wished to invade Europe she could have invaded Europe at any time since the end of hostilities.
She should have invaded Europe logically last week. Yesterday, last year, last month. The Russian rulers are not idiots. They know that the power of the United States is irresistible. They know that if they started invasion of Europe that the Americans, after ordering the evacuation of 20 industrial centers in Russia, are able to drop enough atomic bombs to destroy these 20 industrial centers and paralyze Russia for 20 years to come.
Any talk of invasion of Europe by Russia is childish, silly, terrible talk, until a few years later when she has atomic bombs. Then she will invade Europe. Then she will move her hundreds of division everywhere; but until such time there will be no invasion.
Mr. Judd. Supposing the assumption is valid that for us to form a club within a club would cause an invasion of western Europe, and you have effectively refused it, would that argument not also applý, and perhaps with greater force, if we formed just a western union with five nations? If Russia is going to invade, would she not rather invade against five than against 30 or 40 bound together, including the United States?
Mr. CULBERTSON. Indeed it would, Congressman, and furthermore, if we Americans are unable to do anything without the permission of the Moscow rulers today for fear of the invasion of Europe, then what are we going to do 5 years from now, and finally what are we going to do 10 years from now! If Russia could invade Europe now, then we should immediately take steps for the salvation of our Nation.
Should she choose insanely to invade Europe, then it is far better to have a show-down with Russia now, while we still have the overwhelming superiority, than 5 years from now, when they become much stronger.
Mr. VoRYS (presiding). Mr. Merrow.
Mr. FULTON. Now let us look at the atomic-bomb question for a minute, Mr. Culbertson.
Mr. CULBERTSON. You look at it; I am afraid.
Mr. FULTON. You proposed an atomic-development authority. In that I suppose you would include the representatives of all nations, or such members of the United Nations who would agree to go into it; would you not?
Mr. COLBERTSON. Yes, indeed.
Mr. FULTON. The United States now has the atomic bomb, and the chemical secret of its process as well as the industrial know-how for the production, does it not?
Mr. CULBERTSON. Well, the secrets, I respectfully deny. The knowhow, we might have or we might not. We do not know what the Russian know-how is.
Mr. FULTON. Well, we have those three things.
Now, Russia, when she starts in, may or may not have the secret but she certainly does not have the industrial know-how, for 18 months or 2 years yet.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Why are you so certain, Congressman, if I may respectfully ask you? She has thousands of German scientists. She is appropriating billions of gold rubles to the production of the atomic bomb. She has a spy ring all over the world. She has 25,000,000 faithful spies all over the world.
Mr. FULTON. It took us some time to produce one bomb, so you know the Army will not be afraid of one bomb in Russia or in America. One bomb is expended and you still have the whole country left.
If you do have this time lag of 18 months to 2 years, and bring Russia in on your atomic development authority will we be giving her all our industrial know-how? Suppose that she does go along for 2 years and then says, "Now I am through, I am stepping out. What do you think about that?
Mr. CULBERTSON. As for the question of giving her the know-how or revealing our secrets, as you know we have a schedule and a system of atomic inspection in the world in accordance with our official proposal of the 14th of June 1946. That is acceptable to our Government, because it is our official policy.
Mr. FULTON. May I say there that we are now reinspecting these policies to see whether we might not be the foolish virgin?
Mr. CULBERTSON. We have been a very, very foolish virgin ever since the Hiroshima day. I quite agree with you. I wish we would reinspect it very fast and use all the speed we can.
Let us accept your assumption: Russia comes in and 2 years later she withdraws and starts building her own atomic bomb—that is your assumption ?
Mr. FULTON. Could we say this, then: If there is any lag in Russia's development, your Atomic Development Authority would be thoroughly throwing away the advantage that we have if you immediately establish it. You cannot guarantee that Russia would then go ahead and follow through and be later bound by these agreements she enters.
Mr. CULBERTSON. We make her bound. I will explain how she is bound.
Mr. FULTON. I would like to go further on that element of it.
You say if Russia goes ahead or any nation goes ahead without coming into your Atomic Development Authority, and subjecting herself to the world police force, you would then start in an atomic war, start bombing towns and cities?
Mr. CULBERTSON. I do not say that, Congressman, never. I am awful sorry. I never say that. I am not even remotely connected with it.
Mr. FULTON. May I read this article from the Reader's Digest where your views are outlined ? [Reading:]
Russia then will be given an ultimatumthat is if she refuses inspection and starts stock piling atomic weapons.
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.
Do you say that?
Mr. CULBERTSON. If Russia stays out, if she defies the world, if she defies the properly organized world court, the properly organized nations, then I say if she threatens the destruction of cities of the world, then indeed the authority will probably take that line of action for their own survival.
Mr. FULTON. You say, "either consent with the way the other nations think, or we will bomb you out”!
Mr. CULBERTSON. No, Congressman; pardon me. I am saying that in every particular, in everything you wish to do-heavy armaments, tanks, planes—stay out and do what you like; we are not going to do any harm. But when it comes to atomic bombs, if you do not submit to the equal and reasonable proposals
Mr. FULTON. Which we want you to.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Which we and the rest of the world want you to, on the proper higher authority, then I say we will move against you with atomic coercion; yes.
Mr. FULTON. Is that new atomic coercion a peculiar approach to democratic consent and voting?
Mr. COLBERTSON. It is an old and fundamental approach to the problem of survival.
Mr. FULTON. It is hardly one for getting votes in the United States.
Mr. CULBERTSON. It is the only approach in any opinion, to preserve the cities of England, France, or America from being destroyed by 14 fanatics who are building these bombs now.
Remember, please, that had Stalin been in the same position we are now, had he possessed the absolute weapon, which is the atomic bomb, and we had not, there would never have been any "Baruchsky proposal.” They would have handled the matter more differently than we have.
Mr. VORYS (presiding). Mr. Javits.
Mr. Javits. Not to renew now our debate on the air but to clarify your testimony, I refer only to your own statement on page 9, where you say the following [reading]:
The American people do not understand the logic of power politics— and you addThe overwhelming majority of American people are equally opposed to preventative war against Russia. Do
you desire us to take it that if we made this demand on Russia to be guaranteed by coercion, are we bluffing or do we intend to go through with it? In other words, if Russia does not come through will we drop atomic bombs on her industrial centers according to your plan or will we then quit and say, “This is just a bluff”?
Mr. CULBERTSON. Indeed, we will not drop any atomic bombs nor will we wage any war against Russia, except if Russia continues to produce the atomic bombs in defiance of the will of the rest of the world, as explained by higher authority.
Mr. Javits. Let us understand your proposition. Do you intend that we should proceed with this action now, or at some other time,
some time in the future, of making the demand on Russia that she now submit herself to the Atomic Development Authority? Is this going to be now, or in the future? When do you want to do this?'
Mr. CULBERTSON. This will be when we organize with the higher authority, a proper world court and proper judicial procedure. We are a nation of deputy sheriffs. If there is a gang in this community, we could not get another gang to shoot that gang up.
However, if there is a proper authority when a nation threatens the destruction of the cities of the world, with atomic bombs-if Russia defies the proper judicial authority, if she refuses to join and builds atomic bombs for the destruction of the world, then if the court orders protective measures, then we should obey it.
Mr. Javits. Then you are for a world government, with that world government to have jurisdiction over us; are you not?' You are not for your plan at all but for the Federalist plan?
Mr. CULBERTSON. I am for a world government to have jurisdiction over the atomic gangsters, whether they be in Russia or in America or in Sweden or anywhere else.
Mr. Javits. You say, “Indeed not.” And then you go on to add that you agree with me; you are for a world government and not for your own reorganization of the United Nations plan.
Mr. CULBERTSON. Excuse me, Congressman. You said previously I was for the world government of having jurisdiction over Russia. I say, “No”; not over Russia, but simply to have jurisdiction over the atomic gangsters to whatever nations they may belong.
That is a distinction there.
Mr. Javits. You want control of atomic weapons development in Russia ; do you not? Is that not a fact?
Mr. COLBERTSON. I do not want nor do any of us want any nation to control atomic weapons, including the United States. We want proper international authority under proper judicial procedure to control the atomic energy—not the nations.
Mr. Javits. Mr. Culbertson, before my time is up I would like to say one thing in response to your statement. You say that Senator Vandenberg's resolution was obviously a creature of the State Department and was rushed in as reenforcements for the weakened defense for the State Department against the rising tide of public opinion.
I must respectfully differ with you completely. I think the rising tide of public opinion is catching up with the superficiality of these demands to reorganize the United Nations immediately at the point of the atomic gun, and is recognizing what I thinkyour testimony and your whole thesis implies: that we are going to be prepared to back it up with an immediate preventive war if Russia does not give in. I only say, let us lay it out on the table and look at it.
Mr. ČULBERTSON. May I also disagree with you, Mr. Congressman, as to the public opinion. All I can say is, I am a pretty good man at the odds, and outside of this testimony, I would like to meet you somewhere, and arrange a little bet for your benefit as to what the public opinion will be a year from now.
Mr. Javits. Mr. Chairman, may I just make one observation? Congressman Lodge and I have compared notes. The witness says on the first page of this statement [reading]:
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.