Turning to the other side of the picture, it would be rash to estimate how many billions we would spend every year for armaments in seeking to maintain security for ourselves in a power politics world. It is not rash, however, to suggest that they might amount to considerably more than our exports.

The indirect costs of seeking security alone might amount to much more than the direct cost of armaments and military establishments. Now that war between Great Powers has come to mean total war, we could not afford to go back to a real peace economy. We would have to gear our economy to war and put up with all the inefficiency and regimentation which that implies so that we could be ready next time when the first shot was fired. And we should have to build effective defenses on a Hemisphere scale, since South America is exceedingly weak and exceedingly vulnerable.

In the days when rocket bombs will be able to fly across oceans and when their destructive power may be expanded into a new dimension by an atomic explosive, preparations for isolated defense would require economic costs unimaginable now. It might be necessary, for example, to construct many key war industries underground and to disperse others widely in areas far from their natural markets.

These are only a few of the logical economic consequences for America of a negative Senate vote. The direct and indirect costs for the next generationsof Americans would be a burden beyond anything we can now imagine.

If the Senate votes "Yes"

3. FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Our America has two characteristics which stem from far back in our history and which form a central pattern in our thoughts.

One of these is our democratic institutions. We were pioneers in liberty, and we believe that liberty and democratic ways represent the path of progress, not only for Americans but for all men. We don't want a world in which our American liberty, freedom, and democracy wither away.

The other is our standard of living. This stems from our vast resources, but also from our energy and inventive genius. We want a world in which it will grow, not one in which it will be whittled away.

The creation of the United Nations Organization will affect every American in these two fields. More international security means more freedom from fear for all men. As governments can turn their energies from the threat of war and preparations for war, they have less need to control the political and economic life of their people. This opens the way for the growth of liberty and democratic institutions.

The General Assembly will be a practical application of the principle of democracy between states. The manifold activities which will develop under it, particularly in the economic and social fields and in the promotion of human rights, will reach people of all lands. The conduct of international life in this way will tend to promote and expand on a world-wide scale both individual liberty and democratic ways.

If it is true, as most people believe, that depressions weaken democratic institutions, it is also true that prosperity strengthens them. Acting through the Economic and Social Council and developing international trade on a worldwide basis, the United States and the other Great Powers have the best visible means of creating general prosperity. If to this result is addded increased freedom from fear of war, the whole world can move into an era favorable to the spread and increase of liberty and democracy.

These trends are of immediate concern to the United States and to every American because we live in a shrinking world. Our prosperity and our living standards at home are closely linked with prosperity and living standards abroad. And our own democracy is intimately affected by what happens to democracy beyond our borders. Our own liberties could not be preserved for many decades if our country were the sole island of democracy in an authoritarian world.

For these reasons the United Nations Organization will be a direct means for the preservation and promotion of our American way of life.

To the individual American the Senate's decision this summer may be actually the most important event in his life. The shape of the rest of his life and of the society in which he lives will be determined by that decision. Take the serviceman returning from overseas and consider some of the things it will mean for him:

1. The safety and perhaps the lives of his children--for there can be no assurance that the United States would have fewer casualties in a Third World War, and there can be little hope that it could be kept away from America.

2. His standard of living-whether it will soon begin to follow a rising curve, or whether it will be kept low by depressions, unemployment, and costs of preparing for war.

3. His job-for his prospects of a job will be intimately affected by international action to increase prosperity abroad and increase world trade.

4. His taxes-whether they will soon decrease sharply, or whether they must ́be maintained at a high level to prepare for the next war and take care of millions of unemployed,

5. Finally, his liberty and that of his children, since the future of our American institutions will be largely influenced by the shape of the world in which we live. If the Senate votes "No"

The extent to which the Senate's decision will affect the average man becomes clearer when we consider the consequences for American institutions of a negative vote.

As we have seen above, such a vote would mean a power politics world in which the United States would have to seek security by itself. This objective would override any other in our national life, just as it has done during the war, because when they are pushed to it, a people will sacrifice anything for security.

As long as we maintain our democratic institutions and our present form of government, we will be at a great disadvantage in power politics. Authoritarian governments would be able to outmaneuver us all around the world, to follow polices which our people would not allow, and to use the threat of war to gain their ends where we could not.

In that kind of struggle for survival, there would be a mounting pressure to change our form of government, to reduce the control of Congress over national policy, and to give the President permanent authoritarian powers. As the next world war loomed nearer and the danger from overseas power blocs grew, this pressure could sweep all obstacles away.

Furthermore, the economic consequences of a negative Senate decision, such as depressions, reduced trade, unemployment and pyramiding costs of preparations for war, would undermine our democratic institutions at their roots.

Altogether there are convincing reasons to believe that not only our future safety and economic welfare but also our American way of life, our liberty and our freedom, are at stake in the decision of the Senate.

CONCLUSION

So, it's up to the Senate. But it's up to the American people, too. It is up to us to show on this crucial issue that our democracy does work and that the will of the American people to live in a peaceful, better world shall be decisive.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt told Congress on March 1, "There will soon be presented to the Senate of the United States and to the American people a great decision which will determine the fate of the United States-and of the world-for generations to come.

"There can be no middle ground here. We shall have to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict."

Let's not fool ourselves on this issue and let's not let any other people fool us as they did 25 years ago. Let's insist that those who urge a negative vote show us exactly how the consequences outlined here could be avoided.

This issue is bigger even than whether or not we have to fight a third world war. It is the future of our country, whether our America is to go forward and upward as the leader of a decent world, or whether it is to turn away again, to fail again, and to begin to go backward and downward toward a possible ultimate defeat in a final world war against most of the world.

Those of us who have served overseas feel we have the right to ask that those at home do not fail again-that instead, they follow through and ensure the future of our country for which we fought this war.

Senator JOHNSON of California. How are you going to apportion the sending of the number of boys that we will send for any breach of the Covenants of the Charter?

Mr. HARTLEY. Personally, Senator, I think we would have to send very few.

Senator JOHNSON of California. What is that?

Mr. HARTLEY. Personally, Senator, I think we would have to send very few, particularly to Europe, because the other powers on the Security Council have a lot of men in Europe already. I think what would be needed of us primarily would be our naval assistance on the high seas and some air power.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You say that it will be problematical how many boys we will have to send to add to the million that we have now lost, in case there be any breach of this charter?

Mr. HARTLEY. I think a breach of the charter could be dealt with with very few people in the way of an armed force. It is not like this war where everybody had a chance to mobilize and build up great armies of millions. If you stop the thing in the early stages and if you have the great powers together

Senator JOHNSON of California. Will you speak into the microphone before you?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes; thank you.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Have you thought at all about the number of lads we would have to send in case of a breach?

Mr. HARTLEY. Sir, I believe it would be just guesswork at this time, but I think it would be very small.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You think it would be very small? Mr. HARTLEY. To prevent a war; yes, sir. I think when the powers do not get together to prevent it, then they have to send a great many

men.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I understand you to say that the casualties now in those we have lost is something like a million, isn't it?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California Do you contemplate that that million, if there were another war, the greater portion of it would come from America?

Mr. HARTLEY. No, sir; I don't think so. I think it depends in what part of the world there was an outbreak of aggression. I think in South America it is possible that the United States might have to play the greater part, but that in Europe we would not. I think we would assist primarily with air power and with naval power.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And you estimate the number to be sent as what?

Mr. HARTLEY. I cannot estimate it, but I think a police force is a very small force.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You think it would be very small? Mr. HARTLEY. If we would have had the Security Council and Charter before this war, we would never have had this war, or if it had been started, it would have taken relatively few of our men.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I hope that the number we will have to send will be infinitestimally small and that it would not equal anything like the 1,000,000 that now we have expended.

Mr. HARTLEY. I should think it would be a case of a few thousand for police action.

Senator JOHNSON of California. A few thousand might be how many?

Mr. HARTLEY. Sir, I don't know. I cannot estimate about a thing that is going to happen perhaps in the future.

Senator JOHNSON of California. That is an important element in the Charter, is it not?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You must have thought of that in your nightly studies of the provisions of this Charter, have you not? Mr. HARTLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And you consider that the number would be not more than a few thousand?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes, sir; I think this is the way to avoid sending millions of men overseas again.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Where would you get the number required?

Mr. HARTLEY. I don't think there is any need of great numbers of troops if you are stopping a dispute in the early stages. In the parts of the world where an explosion is likely, where there are big powers, the other powers there represented on the Security Council have armies which can be used, and there would be no sense in sending an American Army from the United States where there are other armies available from other countries on the spot.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You think the air power would be sufficient?

Mr. HARTLEY. I should think it would be our primary contribution in Europe, but I do not think so in South America.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Can you estimate the number that would be sent?

Mr. HARTLEY. I was just saying I think a few thousand.
Senator JOHNSON of California. Sir?

Mr. HARTLEY. A few thousand instead of millions, that is what I think.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Our experience thus far is it has cost us a million young lives, isn't it?

Mr. HARTLEY. Yes, sir; because we did not do anything about preventing a war starting and until it had gotten well under way, and we had to prevent it from being lost.

Senator JOHNSON of California. There is something the matter with those phones in front of you and I do not catch half of what you say, and I would not want to miss any part of what you say.

The CHAIRMAN. He just said that he thought if it had been stopped in the beginning we would not have had to send millions of men. Mr. HARTLEY. In each case in the two World Wars, we have come into them when the side we came in on had almost lost and we have had to send a great many men to redress the balance and to win. If we had stopped them in the early stages, it would have taken very few men. If we had stopped Hitler on the Rhineland, a show of force would have stopped him and this war could not have happened.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Very few men, you say. You make that estimate upon what?

Mr. HARTLEY. Upon history and the provisions of the Charter. Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you know what nation would send those few men?

Mr. HARTLEY. I think it depends upon where the outbreak is and what the time element is. If something has to be done quickly in Europe they don't want to wait for American troops to come from the United States.

Senator JOHNSON of California. They would not want the American troops, is that correct?

Mr. HARTLEY. I think very few-relatively few-nothing like today. Senator JOHNSON of California. If you can give me no better estimate than "a relatively few," I will cease questioning you.

Mr. HARTLEY. I think it is a question of a few thousand.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You say relatively a few thousand Americans would be required to be sent to stop this breach of the Charter?

Mr. HARTLEY. If there is a breach.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Of course you would not send them if there were no breach, would you?

Mr: HARTLEY. No, sir.

Senator JOHNSON of California. All right. Then if there is a breach you would send a few thousand; is that correct?

Mr. HARTLEY. It is my judgment that would be the answer.
Senator JOHNSON of California. What is that?

Mr. HARTLEY. I think so.

Senator JOHNSON of California. If that did not suffice to put down. the trouble, would you send a few thousand more?

Mr. HARTLEY. Sir, I think under the provisions of the Charter, the amount of force at the disposal of the Security Council is so great that the measures taken by the Security Council would suffice, and I think more and more in modern war it is not a question of sending a lot of infantry to stop an outbreak. It is a question of mobilizing the machinery of war, the bombing planes and the mechanized weapons. Senator JOHNSON of California. Excuse me for suggesting this, but there is some difference between what you convey through these telephone instruments and what you speak. Perhaps it is the fault of hearing of mine, but I am unable to follow you wholly in that regard.

Mr. HARTLEY. Sir, I think with joining the Charter it would be a limited contribution that we would have to make to stop another war. If we do not join the Charter we will have to go all out into another world war, and that is what I want to prevent. It would be millions instead of thousands.

Senator JOHNSON of California. There is a meeting being held at the present time, that will determine all those facts?

Mr. HARTLEY. I don't know of any meeting that can determine the future to that extent.

Senator JOHNSON of California. What is that?

Mr. HARTLEY. I don't think any one meeting can determine the future to that extent.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Is not this meeting that is being held at the present time a meeting to determine all of the weak problems of the Charter and to take means to correct those things?