am mindful that this very afternoon 5 years ago Senator McMahon, the late Senator McMahon, made the speech that went round the world and challenged people everywhere to put their major emphasis not upon creating the weapons of death, but to let the energies of youth, the energy of we who are older, the natural resources of the world, and the various things that God has given us, not to destroy each other but to save life, be used. And it is to that we have dedicated ourselves and we believe that this is the time in a free America to go back to what has been our tradition in peacetime, not to conscript any young person.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

(The balance of the statement is as follows:)

Next to war itself, the biggest threat to the real American way of life today is militarism. The citizens and legislators who have been inclined to give American military men everything they ask, need very soon to examine carefully just what kind of monster they are creating and whether it may not turn and destroy them one of these days. It was no whim that led our country's Founding Fathers to restrict the powers of the military so severely, and to seek ways to keep military leaders always subject to civilian control. Tyrants then as now wielded their power with a military flourish. Is America till free of that tyranny? Increasing numbers of young Americans are exposed, through the draft, to military indoctrination, during their formative years. Military indoctrination is essentially authoritarian, intolerant, and contemptuous of the slow processes of persuasion and reason that underlie democracy. Military appropriations tend to put the squeeze on all such programs as education, health, and welfare.

This is not to suggest that America is now a perfect illustration of the garrison state. It has not yet reached that point, though it may be moving in that direction. Dean Louis Smith has defined a garrison state as a "state on a permanent war footing, with the population in genuine fear of imminent conflict, so unlimited in its outcome as to necessitate the subordination of every consideration of democracy, of welfare, to 'military necessity' ***. It is a state in which vast numbers of men and women are called into required military service under such extensive indoctrination that the distinction between citizen and soldier becomes blurred in the general tendency to view everything from a military frame of reference." Smith added that the economy in a garrison state is "dominated by the military and having as its sole objective the attainment of maximum military power. Force either as a threat or in actuality, becomes the naked and unique basis for conducting diplomatic negotiations and the settlement of international differences."

In summarizing briefly the encroachment of militarism upon American civil democracy, it can be said that: (a) within the past few years military men have played a larger role in politics than ever before in American history; (b) military influence in foreign policy has steadily increased so that a key member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative A. A. Ribicoff, said on May 25, 1952: "In my opinion, in the last year or two, more foreign policy has been made in the Pentagon than in the State Department"; (c) today one-third of the Nation's total business activity springs from the defense buildup and the Air Force has become the biggest business in the world; (d) many universities today carry on the bulk of their research on military funds; (e) about one-fourth of the male college population are now in some ROTC unit of the armed services, which serves to introduce military control into educational institutions through control of the ROTC student curricula and even extracurricula activities; (f) and to make the public like all this, the Pentagon includes in its budget millions of dollars each year for a military public-relations program which employs a host of skilled publicity personnel to sell their ideas to the people.

Throughout its 40 years of efforts to help create the foundations of peace and freedom, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has worked to lift the burden of arms from the whole world and to secure international abolition of conscription so that young people everywhere could use their energies in raising standards of living.

We believe that universal disarmament under international law with adequate safeguards and inspection is necessary means toward the security of all nations and peoples. We believe also in the use of the world's resources for the benefit of its people. We therefore support an international program of mutual assistance, courageous in magnitude, and free from military commitments.

We would urge all nations to join in greater efforts to advance the work already done by the subcommittee of the United Nations Disarmament Commission. In a letter sent to each Member of Congress on January 24, our organization expresses the view that unanimous adoption by the U. N. General Assembly of a resolution directing its Disarmament Commission to continue "to seek an acceptable solution of the disarmament problem" was the highlight of the Ninth Session of the General Assembly. We believe this resolution is more than procedural and represents an advance in substance since concessions on the disarmament issue have now been made by both the U. S. S. R. and the Western powers, the most significant of which was the U. S. S. R.'s acceptance of the Western disarmament plan as a basis for further negotiation. A new climate has thus been created in which real progress toward disarmament can be made. Therefore, we have urged Congress to consider the enactment of a new resolution which would express the American people's desire for an end to the armaments race and would afford concrete support to the United States representative at the coming meeting of the subcommittee of the U. N. Disarmament Commission.

We are glad that President Eisenhower proposed an atoms-for-peace plan which would use atomic energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the development of agriculture, medicine, and electric power. While we recognize that this plan is not meant to be part of the disarmament negotiations, it does offer a start on the constructive side by bringing nations together in cooperation for creative purposes. Surely these are positive efforts toward meeting the world's major problems in a way that could challenge the youth of America and all nations to use their lives not conscripted under a military system but voluntarily working together to break the bonds of fear, distrust, and hate that threaten to engulf the world.

The CHAIRMAN. Now the next witness is Mr. John H. Eberly, director, Brethren Service Commission for the Church of the Brethren. Mr. SMELTZER. Mr. Chairman, I am Ralph Smeltzer. Mr. Eberly couldn't be here.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Smeltzer.

Now, Mr. Smeltzer, you file your report in the record, and then the committee will be glad to hear what you have to say. We will give you 10 minutes and then we will have to stop and let the balance be inserted. We will insert it all.

Mr. SMELTZER. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Armed Services Committee, my name is Ralph Smeltzer and my address is 22 South State Street, Elgin, Ill. I am appearing before your committee at the request of W. Harold Row, executive secretary of the Brethren Service Commission on behalf of the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren.

I. The right of individual conscience: I am asked to convey to you an expression of appreciation from our church for the statutory provision recognizing the right of conscience for religious objectors, under the present draft law. We believe this recognition by the Congress of the United States is in keeping with the religious background and founding of our Nation, and strengthens its moral fiber. The church itself respects the right of the individual conscience within its membership and has never set up an authoritative creed. Instead, it accepts the entire New Testament as its rule of faith and practice and seeks to lead its members to comprehend and accept for themselves the mind of Christ as the guide for their conviction. and conduct.

We seek no special privilege from our Government. What we seek for ourselves, we seek for all-the right of individual conscience, which no government authority can abrogate. As the Apostle Peter said, "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).

II. Opposition to extension of universal military conscription: The Church of the Brethren, since its beginning in 1708, has repeatedly declared its position against war, armaments, and military conscrip

tion. Consequently, the Church of the Brethren views with deep concern the current proposal to extend universal military conscription for another 4 years through the enactment of H. R. 3005. Fearing that this continued emphasis on preparation for war and the reliance on armaments and military conscription for security, will hasten the coming of actual war, the church finds it necessary again to state its convictions about these matters. Our church opposes the extension of universal military conscription on the basis of its own tradition, on the basis of New Testament Scripture, on the basis of theological conviction, and on the basis of practicality.

III. The church and war: Our understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament led our annual conference in 1934 to resolve: "All war is sin. We, therefore, cannot encourage, engage in, or willingly profit from armed conflict at home or abroad. We cannot, in the event of war, accept military service or support the military machine in any capacity." This conviction, which we reaffirmed in 1948, grew out of such teachings of Christ as the following: "But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you" (Matt. 5:44). Attached to this copy is a more complete statement on the position and practices of the Church of the Brethren.

IV. The church and God's will: It is the conviction of Brethren that God is the Creator and Father of all men regardless of race, creed, or nationality; and that the killing of masses of God's children in war is a sin against God as well as against man.

It is the conviction of brethren that above all God is a God of love as revealed in the person, life, and ministry of Jesus Christ. It is our conviction that God through Jesus Christ calls each of us to a life of love for God and for fellowman, and that this love is to be expressed through a ministry of relief and rehabilitation to the suffering, of technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas, and to patience, understanding and good will toward enemies. It is the Brethren conviction that the Kingdom of God may be at least partially realized in human life and in human relationships here and now upon the earth as well as in the life hereafter. Our desire therefore to be loyal citizens both to the Kingdom of God and to the United States impels us to work for international good will and mutual aid, and against war, armanents, and military conscription.

V. Military conscription is not the way to peace: Military conscription is not the way to peace and security in our kind of world. Europe would be the most peaceful area on earth, since it has had more conscription over a larger period of time than any other continent. Yet Europe has been drenched with blood twice in this century. Those who were the first to take the sword have perished by it. Nazi German and Imperial Japan were not saved by military conscription. Their very domination by the military way of life. evoked a false sense of security and a disregard for spiritual values. The Church is concerned with our survival as a democracy sustained by Christian values. Militarism as a way of life is opposed to democracy, and our forefathers fled to these shores to escape it.

VI. Armed force will not prevent war: National armed force gives not security, but a gambler's hope of victory. In a hydrogen era, however, no victory is possible. Security requires more; it requires

the prevention of war. War cannot be prevented by armed force, because each step a nation takes to increase its own security thereby decreases the security of its neighbors. A system in which each step to increase ones own security threatens that of his neighbor, is a system which makes security impossible and war in the long run inevitable. Genuine security cannot be attained through national military power including military conscription; it can be attained only in world order. Conscription as a continued United States policy is hostile to a peaceful world order.

In his January 26 speech in Los Angeles, General McArthur himself said that

War has become a Frankenstein monster to destroy both sides,

and that

the constant acceleration of preparation may well, without specific intent, ultimately produce spontaneous combustion.

VII. Conscription will not prevent sudden attacks: Military conscription will not prevent sudden attacks. Poland, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Greece, Russia, Yugoslavia all had conscription and all were attacked without warning. With "blitzkrieg" methods, the only sure way to prevent that sort of attack is to prevent war. Strong military preparations are an excitement to sudden attack rather than a safeguard against it, because sudden surprise attack offers the only hope of success in such a case.

VIII. Armed force will not defeat communism: Revolutionary communism as the threat around the world can only be met by better ideas, by a sacrificial program of sharing our experience, resources, ideals, and lives with the underprivileged two-thirds of the human race. People can't be weaned away from communism in the Orient and Africa and Latin American with bayonets backed by military conscription, but only by brotherhood and better ideas, and the demonstration that democracy has a better answer for their needs than totalitarianism.

But even economic aid and technical assistance, imperative as they are in helping achieve peace in a revolutionary world, are not fundamental answers to the central problem of security. That must come through the development of the United Nations, the rise of moral and political authority for the resolving of international disputes, and by far-reaching steps toward universal disarmament.

IX. Conscription is a threat to freedom: Military conscription is a significant limitation to freedom in itself as well as a dangerous threat to the further limitation of freedom. The "nation-in-arms" theory which holds that every physically able young man must undergo some military service or military training, puts the military in final control of at least a sizable portion of every young man's life. The British military writer, Capt. B. H. Liddell Hart says the following in his book, Why Don't We Learn From History (1944):

But the deeper I have gone into the study of war and the history of the past century, the further I have come toward the conclusion that the development of conscription has damaged the growth of the idea of freedom in the continental countries, and thereby damaged their efficiency, also, by undermining the sense of personal responsibility. There is only too much evidence that our temporary adoption of conscription in the last war had a permanent effect harmful to the development of freedom and democracy here.

He says:

We ought to realize that it is easier to adopt the compulsory principle of national life than to shake it off. Once compulsion for personal service is adopted in peacetime, it will be hard to resist the extension of the principle to all other aspects of the Nation's life, including freedom of thought, speech, and writing. We ought to think carefully, and to think ahead, before taking a decisive step toward totalitarianism.

X. Conscription-not even the military answer. Even if it were conceded that military power is the way to security today, there exists considerable doubt in the minds of some of our eminent military leaders, and of many other people as to whether in an atomic war 2-year draftees would provide an effective fighting force. On January 14, 1955, the highly recognized magazine, U. S. News & World Report, said on page 30:

The Armed Forces have decided they cannot fight modern wars, using radar, atomic bombs, supersonic planes, and 60-mile-an-hour tanks, with 24-month soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

The desire to shift toward an all-volunteer force, for the active defense of the Nation, is another important key to new manpower plans.

XI. We propose the following alternatives:

Complete renunciation of war.

The use of nonviolence in settling international disputes.

AU. N. to which all nations belong, and to which all serious disputes can be brought and settled under law.

Complete and universal disarmament.

(Universal disarmament must include the universal abolition of military conscription. Discontinuation of the draft here, and a return to the traditional American voluntary military system, should be followed by American efforts for the international abolition of conscription, made morally much more powerful by example as well as precept.)

Use of the world's resources for the benefit and development of all mankind.

Building of a spirit of world understanding and brotherhood.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I want to say this, that I know the committee is glad to know that the church approved the language that we used with reference to conscientious objectors, that is in the bill. We worked very hard on it and had many conferences, Mr. Short and I with your leaders, and we are glad our efforts are satisfactory to you. Thank you very much, sir.

Now, the next witness is Doctor-who?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Hostetter.

The CHAIRMAN. Hostetter.

Dr. Hostetter, the chairman of the Mennonite Central Committee. Doctor?

Dr. HOSTETTER. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. I may say we worked with his group,too, when we were phrasing up the language.

Now, Doctor, it would be a pleasure to hear you.

Dr. HOSTETTER. I am C. M. Hostetter, Jr., president of the Messiah College, Grantham, Pa., moderator of the brethern in Christ School, chairman of the Mennonite Central Committee, a relief and service agency representing the Mennonite and Brethern Christ Churches. And Mr. Chairman, may I say briefly that our presentation is very brief. We are confining ourselves solely to the conscription act