respect to stopping Hitler. Had they done so or had they "played ball" with us when we suggested stopping the Jap in Manchuria, the world situation of today would not be what it is. I mention these matters only because in the debates to follow there will be a tendency to blame America because of the failure of the League.

Last night I sat at dinner, in his home, with a former Senator from my State. He told me a historical fact. He said it was President Wilson who defeated the League. He said that Viscount Grey, the then British Ambassador to the United States, had written a letter in which Britain agreed to the reservations, but nevertheless President Wilson told his Democratic associates in this chamber to vote against the resolution with the reservations. That is a historical fact.

In these early days of the Seventy-ninth Congress, the eyes of the world are upon our two great legislative chambers; the ears of the world are strained to hear our opening deliberations; the minds of the world are geared to note the direction in which this Congress is to move. Would it not be well that we announce to the world the spirit of this occasion? I believe in large measure that the speech of the senior Senator from Michigan was the very heart and essence of that spirit. May 1, therefore, as a humble Member of the United States Senate, venture my conception of that spirit?

This

It is my belief and my hope that the Seventy-ninth Congress is today embarking upon its course in the spirit of what may be called the American Charter. Con is written and written. It is afro thing. United Nations organization, the United States favors the immediate formation of a United Nations Council to supervise, when necessary, the life of liberated territories until stable governments can be set up by the free choice of the people involved, and to deal with other diplomatic and political issues that may arise and cannot wait until a permanent United Nations organization can be formally ratified.

Mr. President, the hope for an enduring peace will stand or fall, depending on whether the people of the peace-loving nations of the world can find a channel through which they can merge their desires and their efforts to prevent future wars. That channel must be an international organization. It must be an organization established and operating on a basis that is practical and realistic. It must also have its roots deep in the principles of justice and freedom and decency that motivate men of good will in all countries.

The United States of America must take the lead if we are not to run the grave risk that the hopes of preventing a third World War are to crumble away within our grasp. The United States must obviously have a foreign policy of its own, etched so clearly that no one-no one in this country and no one in any other country-can misunderstand it; a foreign policy which has as its aims, first, to win the war, and, second, to set up an enduring peace. To further these aims, our foreign policy should embody a program to set up, at the earliest possible moment, a United Nations organization, to pledge that we will, this time, accept and carry out our share of the responsibility for enforcing that peace, to do our utmost to bring about the application throughout the world of the principles of the Atlantic Charter, and to serve notice on other nations that those who are to receive the full post-war economic collaboration of the United States must live up to those principles to a reasonable degree.

Foreign policy is the joint responsibility of the President of the United States and the Senate. It is the responsibility of the President, so far as major treatymaking decisions are concerned, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

Those who drafted the Constitution of the United States did not limit the Senate's part in this picture to a veto power. They imposed on the Senate also the solemn

ordinary citizens of the past. No one need trouble himself about its effect. It can do naught but insure eternal vigilance for the preservation of the values which made this Nation great, and which will make it greater yet. A restatement thereof can do naught but reset aright our national compass. Where are we going? Where are we heading? When we get there, what are we to find? A restatement can do naught but stabilize us and end our political jitterbugging in every direction. No one need trouble himself that the American Charter conflicts with the Atlantic Charter, for it complements that Charter on the home front.

Mr. President, you may ask, What is this Charter? You interpret it for your children. You interpret it for yourself. I am giving my interpretation of it because, as in every other activity of human life, it is well to take a refresher course; it is well to be tuned up; it is well to get a shot in the arm.

We

Here, then, is the American Charter of today: First. Our heritage: We Americans proclaim our undying reverence for the ideals expressed in the great documents of the Republic-the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. proclaim our undiminished respect for the lessons learned and taught in the lives of our forefathers. We proclaim our unyielding faith in the eternal rcligious truths upon which our nation was founded. We proclaim our continued pride in the physical magnificence of our land and the cultural vandana

MR. FERGUSON. I yield.

MR. WILEY. The remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Michigan lead me to wonder if he does not think that from the standpoint of collaboration and obtaining results on the home front as well as the international front, it would be a very good thing for the President of the United States to select one or more members of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate to accompany him when he participates in conferences with representatives of other nations?

MR. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I think that would be wisdom. However, in the past on similar invitation Members of the Senate have declined to go. I think in a few cases there have been resignations of Members of Congress in order that they might fill positions to deal with foreign relations.

MR. WILEY. The Senator has in mind that Members of Congress have resigned so as to act as plenipotentiaries? MR. FERGUSON. Yes.

MR. WILEY. That was not my question, Mr. President. My question related to preliminary meetings, where preliminary understandings are had. In view of the fact that we have heard much talk about the lack of collaboration between the Senate and the President, it occurred to me that it would be a very wise thing if the Chief Executive should see fit to take as members of his delegation say, for instance, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and probably a Republican member of the committee.

MR. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I should like to answer that question by saying that, in my judgment, cooperation between the President and the Senate cannot be too close. Anything that will result in advising the Senate as to what is going on, and anything that will result in advising the President as to what the Senate believes should be done, should be effected at an early date, so that there may be unity back of our foreign policy. The people, as was said in the President's message to Congress on last Saturday, must get back of the war which we are now fighting and back of the peace which will come, and the people, speaking through not only the Senate but through the President, should have an opportunity to say what they desire the foreign policy of America to be.

Sixth. Our Government: We Americans proclaim our desire for courteous, efficient, and economical administration at and between all levels of government. We proclaim our belief in a government of checks and balances, with its mutual safeguards and mutual stimuli. We proclaim our desire for leaders, and, indeed, for citizens, of vision, courage, practicality, and independence.

We will not allow our Government to be our master, rather than our servant. We will not allow it to be a lawunto-itself with extravagance, arrogance, and inefficiency. We absolutely reject communism, fascism, and every other form of stateism which trades liberty for supposed security or power, and ultimately gives neither. Seventh. Our middle way: We proclaim our faith in our fundamental system of private enterprise. We endorse cooperative endeavor wherever it is desired by our citizens. We believe in Government participation as an operator in the economic field only when absolutely necessary, and then under conditions of fair and helpful dealings to private enterprise.

We refuse to allow public enterprise to swallow up private enterprise by crippling it with arbitrary restrictions, driving it to the wall by ruinous competition or through other devious measures.

Eighth. Our relations with one another: We Americans proclaim our recognition of our responsibilities as citizens, as partners, and as brothers. We will live up to standards of openness, fairness, and reasonableness in all our intercourse with othom citizens and other groups. Mr. President, history is repeating itself. Tne question raised by President Wilson has risen again in these dark hours of the Second World War to plague us: "Is the present war a struggle for a just and secure peace or only for a new balance of power?" Are people being handed about from potentate to potentate, from dictator to dictator?

Personally I am convinced that whether one has accepted in servile acquiescence the present ominous trend toward power politics and is now urging cooperation with the "inevitable" or whether one still refuses to surrender his self-respect and his struggle to salvage what he can of decency and justice from this mad war, it would be a criminal disservice to America, to our allies, to the world, to confuse, or to tolerate confusion, on these issues for one moment longer.

For long months on end, this confusion has been fostered in the minds of the American people by deliberate suppression of the truth about the international situation and through reams of propaganda which has identified the struggle of our allies to consolidate and extend their spheres of influence in a new balance of power in Europe, with the deep-rooted ideals and hopes for a just and lasting peace of the American people. These techniques in dealing with the truth have led to such confusion and cynicism among our people that they have begun to lose faith in their own Government leaders. As matters now stand, it is doubtful that even the most fervent global do-gooders, the most inflated internationalist impresarios, or the most ardent Anglo- and Russo-philes could continue to mask the brutal realities with which we are now confronted behind any distortion of the English language, no matter how ingeniously conceived.

Even the bloodiest bitter-enders, I am quite convinced, are going to find that any attempt to cover up the everwidening tracks of power policies in Europe by prating about "unity, beautiful unity" will be like trying to shackle three tornadoes to a palm tree.

Mr. President, I would have it understood at the outset that what I am saying, the dangers to which I refer, the charges I am making, and the proposition which I am going to offer are in no wise just an expression of personal idiosyncracy. They are not the fiction of an alleged "iso

be particularly visible through the long night of war and post-war to all the men and women in the Halls of Congress, in our homes, our fields, our factories, our farms, and in all our theaters of military training and combat. It is my firm belief that there is no problem which can arise in this land which cannot be solved quickly and satisfactorily if we apply the principles of the American charter and the great documents, deeds, and words which provided its origin.

It is my earnest conviction that, by applying these principles, we may be able to fulfill that great counsel, "Be ye adequate."

It is my sincere prayer that the revitalized American Charter may inspire every American here and elsewhere to say unto his fellow American:

"I am thy brother. I am thy keeper and thou art mine. Let us join our hands in proud labor and our hearts in proud faith and, under God, we shall make of this land the Eden it was intended to be."

Mr. President, this concludes my remarks on the subject of the American Charter. Now I should like to make a few personal comments which pertain to the field of international relations.

Last week I was honored by my Republican colleagues by being selected as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and that appointment was approved a few moments ago by the Senate. At this time I wish publicly to express my gratitude for this honor. Coming as it does at a time of great international crisis, this asespecially by Soviet Russia, a specific courses, and that these moves and the march of events may draw the United States into policies repugnant to our expressed principles or divide the great Allies on post-war establishments of peace.

Again in March 1944 the following warning appeared in a statement signed and issued by American Friends of Aid to Russia:

The apparent determination of the Soviet Government to insist on a unilateral settlement of the Polish problem, without mediation or consent either of Russia's allies or the Polish Government, has come as a shock to American opinion. . . If therefore Russia values America's friendship as we believe she does, she must not use her power to impose either an unjust frontier or a puppet government upon the Polish people. Russia must choose. She can impose her will but she cannot impose it without estranging millions of Americans whose opinions will be decisive in the development of our foreign policy. And Russia will estrange others besides Americans, for what will millions of citizens of the small conquered (and satellite) countries have to hope from an Allied victory, if this is how we discharge our obligations to Poland? . . Therefore, in the interest of all the United Nations we urge the British and American Governments to raise these questions with the Soviet Government, and we ourselves appeal to our Russian allies to take cognizance of the legitimate disquiet of the American people.

On March 22, 1944, more than 20 Republican Members of Congress, every one an ardent supporter of the Roosevelt foreign policy, signed and delivered a note to the State Department, from which I quote:

In Europe and in South America we are distressed to observe our foreign relations suffering serious impairment from a want of definition of American policy.

On April 12, 1944, our new. State Department appointee, Mr. Archibald MacLeish, was reported in the London Times as saying that:

Nothing had more disturbed him in the last few months at home, and in the last few days in which he had been here, than the collapse of morale among men of good will and of liberal mind in their hope for peace at the end of this war. He did not know one such man who truly believed that the war was going to end in the kind of peace hoped for. The conviction and determination that such a peace should be made were lacking.

On May 3, 1944, the apprehension to which I have been referring rose to great heights in over 100 speeches commemorating the anniversary of the Polish Constitution delivered in both Houses of Congress.

On May 24 Dorothy Thompson was in despair:

What deterioration has set in since Mr. Churchill's great speech of more than a year ago outlining the creation of a Council of Europe.

She exclaimed:

God help us if we leave the peoples of Europe without quick relief and without a vision of their own future.

On June 12, 1944, Anne O'Hare McCormick wrote:

In no phase of the war have political decisions kept pace with military decisions, but the lack of synchronization was never so apparent as now when the invasion brings all the unanswered questions to the foreground. *** In all these latest attempts to settle political questions what comes out clearly is that whereas last year it seemed they might be postponed until the end of the war, sweeping political obstacles out of the way of the armies becomes a primary military consideration as the last battle begins.

On July 21, 1944, Mr. Sumner Welles declared:

True statesmanship consists in avoiding the impasse. It is not shown by the adoption of policies which lead into one-way streets. The policy so far pursued by the State Department is destructive, not constructive. If persisted in, it will lead inevitably to the obliteration of the good-neighbor policy and of any lasting regional system of the Americas.

On July 25, 1944, the President's personal representative, William Phillips, wrote concerning India:

The peoples of Asia, and I am supported in this opinion by other diplomatic and military observers cynically regard this war as one between Fascist and imperialist powers. A generous British gesture to India would change this undesirable political atmosphere. . . . And the colonial peoples conquered by the Japanese might hopefully feel they had something better to look forward to than simply a return to their old masters. Such a gesture, Mr. President, will also be positive proof to all peoples . . . that this war is not a war of power politics, but a war for all we say.

Again, on September 1, 1944, Dorothy Thompson asked concerning our policies toward the tragic peoples of Europe:

Do we yet know what policy we shall seek assistance for? Or are we doing all we can to bring about the discouragement and liquidation of any group that might help us?

As this tide of bitter protest concerning the direction in which our diplomacy and political and psychological warfare were moving continued to rise, Walter Lippmann joined in the chorus. On October 3, 1944, he wrote:

At the secondary level in the political conduct of the war, a kind of second-rateness has caused trouble which can become immensely serious. It is as if Messrs. Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt had exhausted the best of their energies on the greatest issues of the war, and then had dealt with issues next in importance in Poland, France, and Italy-in their odd moments with the residue of their strength, and through lieutenants whose caliber has been much smaller than those who have done the great planning and directing of the war.

On December 13, 1944, Mr. Sumner Welles summed up the nature of the situation of which I speak in the following words:

There is nothing to be gained by holding out to American public opinion any ground for false optimism as to the immediate future in the foreign relations of this Nation. Recent developments in Europe, in the Far East, and in the Western Hemisphere offer no room for illusions as to the gravity of the problems which we confront.

Again, on December 27 last, Summer Welles wrote:

As the year 1945 dawns, the American people face a future which seems less certain than at any moment since the war began.

At the very time when our armed forces are making their greatest sacrifice to speed the final victory, the objectives for which they fight seem less assured than they did 3 years ago. There has become evident a wide and growing rift in the basic political understanding between the three major Allies. Unless that rift is repaired, unless unity of policy and unity of purpose between the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union can be restored, not only can no valid international organization be established, but no lasting peace settlements can be concluded.

Mr. President, this wide recognition of the failure of our diplomacy when the honor, integrity, and future security of our Nation are at stake strengthens my own conviction that to continue down the road we are traveling cannot lead to anything but disaster. Let us not only document the opinions of administration supporters; let us also document the historical setting in which the present conflicts of interests in international relations are rooted. In order truly to evaluate the present situation, let us recall to mind the long series of principles and proclamations which all three of the greatest of the United Nations have recorded as the minimum essentials for continued peaceful relations among themselves and the other nations of the world if the reign of decency and justice, of law and order, or of governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, were to survive. Let us begin with the United States.

The United States Government has time and again proclaimed its strict adherence to principles of noninterference in the affairs of nations, both inside and outside this Hemisphere. The most notable success which has rewarded our efforts to build a world with international relations based on these principles has been known as the good-neighbor policy. Very few Americans are aware of the fact that the South American countries refused to enter into any formal commitment to this policy until we had agreed to repudiate the use of force in the settlement of disputes with our sister republics to the south. On December 24, 1938, at the Eighth International Conference of American States, the following principles were incorporated in the Declaration of Lima as the foundation of the good-neighbor policy:

The Governments of the American republics resolve— To proclaim, support, and recommend once again the following principles as essential to the achievement of the aforesaid objectives:

1. The intervention of any state in the internal or external affairs of another is inadmissible.

How does that fit in with what is now taking place in Europe and with the actions of both Russia and England?

2. All differences of international character should be settled by peaceful means.

3. The use of force as an instrument of national or international policy is proscribed.

I emphasize

The use of force as an instrument of national or international policy is proscribed.

4. Relations between states should be governed by the precepts of international law.

5. Respect for and faithful observance of treaties constitute the indispensable rule for the development of peaceful relations between states, and treaties can only be revised by agreement of the contracting parties.

I wish Senators to bear these two declarations in mind when I call attention later to some of the things which are going on.

6. Peaceful collaboration between representatives of the various states and the development of intellectual interchange among their peoples is conducive to an understanding by each of the problems of the other as well as of problems common to all, and makes more readily possible the peaceful adjustment of international controversies.

7. Economic reconstruction contributes to national and international well-being, as well as to peace among nations. 8. International cooperation is a necessary condition to the maintenance of the aforementioned principles.

On October 21, 1944, the President took occasion to reaffirm these principles when he said:

In 1933 we took, as the basis for our foreign relations, the good-neighbor policy-the principles of a neighbor who, resolutely respecting himself, equally respects the rights of others. It is my conviction that this policy can be, and should be, made universal.

...

Again, even while we have made war an instrument of our national and international policy, this administration has been careful repeatedly to reaffirm the principles and ends toward which our war efforts have been directed. As late as January 4, 1939, the President reaffirmed our traditional foreign policy when he said:

We rightly decline to intervene with force of arms to prevent acts of aggression.

That did not mean that we had no concern for the state of the world in which peace was threatened. The ultimate purposes behind our eventual involvement in this war were summed up by the President in his anxious note to Adolf Hitler of April 14, 1939, in which he asked:

Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, the Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Iran?

Again he was asking Hitler to protect those countries. And when, on September 1, 1939, Hitler struck Poland, in concert with Mr. Stalin, the President asked for repeal of the arms embargo and a change of the Neutrality Act for the purpose, he said, of assuring aid, short of war, to the victims of aggression.

There followed from that point on, in rapid succession, pronouncements by this Government against every act of aggression, and promises of aid to nations who are its victims. On June 10, 1940, the President declared:

We will extend to the opponents of force the material resources of this nation.

On June 13 he sent the following word to the French Council of Ministers:

This Government is doing everything in its power to make available to the Allied Governments the material they so urgently require.

On December 5, 1940, this Government forwarded a note to the King of Greece, in which it stated:

It is the settled policy of the United States to extend aid to those governments and peoples who defend themselves against aggressions.

On January 6, 1941, the President said in his speech to Congress:

Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them.

On March 15, 1941, the President interpreted the passage of the Lend-Lease Act as a historical event. Said the President:

This decision is the end of any attempts at appeasement in our land; the end of urging us to get along with the dictators; the end of compromise with tyranny and of forces of oppression.

It was to be the end of urging us to get along with whom? With the dictators. The word was not used in the singular, but in the plural. It was to be the end of compromise with tyranny and of forces of oppressionnot one, but all. The record is filled with similar declarations to every victim of aggression: France, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Portugal, Poland, Finland, the Baltics, China, and every other nation caught in this maelstrom of madness, whether by Germany, Russia, Italy, or Japan. Behind each one of those declarations lay the same fundamental principle upon which such aid was premised.

Now let us consider the case of Britain. As far as Great Britain is concerned, much the same record of principles and purposes has already been written into the pages of history. On October 3, 1939, Churchill declared:

We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war for domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; . . . it is a war . . . to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.

On October 4, 1939, Lord Halifax said of France and Britain:

They do seek to reestablish for themselves and for others liberty under the reign of law, the right of peoples to decide their own destinies, to trade freely, and to live without fear. Surely then we are fighting for causes that are vital not only for ourselves, but also for all those everywhere who love liberty.

On October 25, 1939, Lord Lothian said:

There can be no basis for a lasting peace in Europe which does not give to all the nations of Europe

Not merely to one or two—

their right to autonomous freedom. The status of all nations, great and small, should be equal before the law. The strong and powerful nations have no greater rights than the small and weak.

Lord Halifax said, on November 7, 1939:

We are fighting to maintain the rule of law and the quality of mercy in dealings between man and man and in the great society of civilized states.

Again, on April 19, 1940, Lord Lothian said:

We believe we are fighting not only for our existence but to ensure that the basic institutions and ideals which have been guiding the stars of Western civilization for the last 150 years shall not be wiped off the face of Europe and Asia and Africa by the military victory of the totalitarian dictatorships.

Note the use of the word in the plural.

On November 9, 1940, Mr. Churchill declared:

We have affirmed or defined more precisely all the causes of all the countries with whom or for whom we drew the sword-Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, greatest of all France; latest of all Greece. For all of these we will toil and strive, and our victory will supply the liberation of them all.

On March 25, 1941, Lord Halifax precisely defined the nature of the principles for which Great Britain had entered this war, as follows:

The right to think, speak, and act freely within the law, and to have free access to the thoughts of others;

The right of free association, both national and international, with their fellow men;

The right to live without fear of aggression, injustice, or want;

The right to worship as the conscience dictates.

Viscount Cranborne, Secretary of State for Colonies, made the following statement of policy on May 21, 1942:

I can give the House an absolute assurance that there is no question of any departure by His Majesty's Government from the policy of the Atlantic Charter, which remains the fundamental basis for the policy of His Majesty's Government and of the United States and of the United Nations as a whole, who have adhered to that Charter.

Again on June 2, 1943, in the House of Lords, Viscount Cranborne said:

His Majesty's Government regard themselves as absolutely pledged to carry out the Atlantic Charter-all the articles of the Atlantic Charter.

On August 5, 1943, Viscount Simon, the Lord Chancelor, made a very significant speech to the House of Lords.

The excerpt is as follows:

Mr. Cordell Hull *** pointed out that the Atlantic Charter does not propose to substitute international authority for sovereign rights and self-government. The conception is that sovereign rights and self-government will be preserved and made, as far as self-government is concerned, more authoritative and complete. The conception is not that we should aim at forcing upon as many people as possible the dictates of some international organ, but rather that we should aim at getting agreement between as many sovereign communities as may be, each of them, we trust, enjoying rights of selfgovernment, so that as the result of consent, not as the result of externally applied force, this international authority is able to speak in the name of all well-disposed people. (Referring to Cordell Hull speech of July 23, 1942.)

Mr. President, I have another excerpt from a statement on colonial policy, made on December 3, 1942, by Viscount Cranborne during a debate in the House of Lords, as well as an excerpt from a statement made on July 21, 1940, by Field Marshal Smuts:

We, the citizens of the British Empire, whatever our race, religion, or color, have a mission to perform, and it is a mission that is essential to the welfare of the world. It is to insure the survival of the way of life for which the United Nations are fighting, a way of life based on freedom, tolerance, justice, and mutual understanding, in harmony with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. (Excerpt from statement by Viscount Cranborne, on December 3, 1942, in the House of Lords.)

Freedom still remains our sovereign remedy for the ills from which human society is suffering. We envisage a free Europe, free for the individual and for the nation, free in the sense of giving full scope for personal and national self-development and self-perfection, each according to his own individual lines. (Excerpt from statement by Field Marshal Smuts, on July 21, 1940.)

Mr. President, having looked at the statements made by the United States and Great Britain, now let us look at Russia's statements. What of our powerful associate in this war, Russia? Her record from 1917 up to 1939 is clearly that of an ardent advocate of noble principles of international law which she deemed essential, or said she deemed essential, to the formation of a peaceful society of nations.

"Peace" was made the watchword of the October Revolution of 1917 when, on November 8, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets voted unanimously a "peace decree." In that document the new government "invited all the belligerent peoples and their governments immediately to begin" negotiations to bring about an "equitable democratic peace," defined as "an immediate peace without annexations and without indemnities." Because the

Great Powers categorically refused to heed that request, the new government was compelled to enter into separate negotiations for peace with the Central Powers.

On the 16th of January 1920, the Allied Supreme Council finally raised the economic blockade.

From then on, Mr. President, the written record of Russia's statements of foreign policy, up until the partition of Poland in 1939, on its face, at least, is one of tireless efforts to bring about the abolition of practices and policies on the part of the Great Powers which have led to the century-long outbursts of war among the nations of Europe.

From 1921 to 1927 the Russian Government carried on a vigorous "disarmament offensive." On November 30, 1927, at the fourth session of the Preparatory Commission of the Disarmament Conference, Maxim Litvinov read the declaration of Russia's proposals which laid down the principle and "a plan of general and complete disarmament." The plan included "the complete abolition of all armed forces on land, on the sea, and in the air." It proposed the following:

Dismissal of all armed men, destruction of all means of combat, scrapping of all warships and military airplanes, prohibition of military instruction, abolition of military service, the dismantling of fortresses, demolition of factories for the supply of equipment, the suppression of military budgets, war ministries, the prohibition of military propaganda and giving patents for means of destruction.

It provided that disarmament should be carried through simultaneously by all states within a period of four years. These suggestions met with the stern disapproval of the Disarmament Commission.

Undaunted by this rebuff, the Russian Government continued its effort by suggesting a program for partial disarmament, which met with the same fate. Again the Russian Government rose to the challenge of its own announced ideal for a warless world by seeking to strengthen the draft on disarmament proposed by the League of Nations by the inclusion of prohibition of all preparation for the chemical warfare and of bombing from the air. Those proposals also met with the same fate. Yet, even as late as October 21, 1931, Litvinov declared to the Secretary General of the League that the Russian Government "is ready to assume, with the other governments and under equal conditions, the obligation to cease increasing its armaments during the Conference on Disarmament," as it was always "ready for complete disarmament or the maximum reduction of armaments."

Mr. President, not only is Russia's record as an opponent of armaments and military conscription outstanding among the nations of the world, but up to the time of her attack on Poland in 1939 her record of ceaseless advocacy of nonaggression pacts was without a rival.

On July 3, 1933, Russia signed in Moscow with the official representatives of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Rumania, Turkey, Persia, and Afghanistan a convention for the definition of aggression, which Russia sponsored and in which is found the clearest and most precise definition of what constitutes aggression that is to be found in the history of international relations. Article II of this remarkable treaty reads as follows:

ART. II. In accordance with the above, the aggressor in an international conflict, with due consideration to the agreements existing between the parties involved in the conflict, will be considered the state which will be the first to commit any of the following acts:

1. Declaration of war against another state;

2. Invasion by armed forces, even without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state;

3. An attack by armed land, naval, or air forces, even without a declaration of war, upon the territory, naval vessels, or aircraft of another state;