The takeover by the Communist cliques, backed by the might of the Soviet Army, during the late stages of the war and in the immediate postwar years, changed these free peoples into a chaingang of captive nations fettered by their Communist rulers to the great monolith of the Soviet Union. Almost 20 years of peace have been misused to remold the political and economic systems of these once free nations in the bleak image of the Soviet Union, and the expense has been great.

The main characteristics of the new economic system in the captive nations is the socialized planned economy. Although many enterprises in the prewar Eastern Europe were publicly owned, the extent of such ownership was by no means so all pervading as it is today. The fact that, with minimal exceptions, the economy is owned euphemistically by the people but in reality by the Communist-run state, gives the Communist rulers also the complete power to operate it at will. The purpose of the economy, therefore, has been subverted from one serving the needs of the consumer, to one subservient to the arbitrariness of the state. The framers of the by now familiar 5- or 7-year economic plans, all Communist true believers, show little regard for a balanced organic growth of their respective economies; they seem to be inspired only by a compulsive drive toward industralization at all costs, the heavier the industry the better. In those few captive countries where a moderate industrial base had already existed and perhaps weathered the ravages of war with some success, intensive industrialization might not have caused much economic displacement. Most of the captive nations have been, however, traditionally agricultural and at times lack a sufficient domestic natural resources base for the wholesale establishment of some heavy industries for which the Communist mind seems to exhibit particular predilection.

The shortsighted policy of a crash program of forced industrialization has resulted in severe economic strains which manifest themselves in various ways in the several captive nations. Again and again the Communist planners in their annual reports on the results of their economic plans are forced to admit that the production of consumer goods, often the most basic ones, such as meat, milk, bread, clothing and footwear had fallen far short of the goals set only a year earlier with such boasting grandeur.

Especially critical and universally widespread is the low agricultural production, this even in countries that were once net exporters of agricultural products. Although agricultural shortages are consistently noted in annual reports, they are also consistently blamed on scapegoat causes. Droughts have most often borne the brunt of Communist criticism for lack of cooperation with the plans; at times, however, the human element involved has been blamed. It has never been suggested, however, that the reason might be in the resentment of farmers against collectivization, the incompetence of agricultural managers who are true believers and bureaucrats but have no experience in farming, and the unrealistically high production goals to start with. The emphasis on industrial production has not only placed agriculture in a step-child's place in the allocation of productive resources, but also has drawn away from the land and into factories a great deal of sorely needed young labor. In Czechoslovakia, for example, only older people, a majority of them women, are still tilling the soil. There are also other farm labor problems. In Latvia, under appropriate guidance by the authorities, youth and farmworkers are in the interest of "solidarity among Soviet peoples" "volunteering" for harvest work in northern Kazakhstan while there is critical shortage of hands in Latvian fields.

The failure of communized agriculture becomes glaringly obvious if its resuits are compared with those obtained by the still existing and tolerated, although extremely limited private plots. The latter have a much higher productivity than the huge collective or state farms, doubtless because a farmer cultivates his own land with much more care than he would a farm on which he is merely a wage earner, and an underpaid one at that. It is, therefore, no wonder that these private plots, despite their small size in relation to total agricultural land, provide a considerable part of the total food supply of the captive nations. As an example, when last year in highly collectivized Estonia the production of communized farms dropped off decidedly, the production of private plots was so high that the overall agricultural production went up slightly.

If the agricultural policies of the Communist rulers of the captive nations are a decided failure, their industrial policies are somewhat more successful. One reason for this partial success is that industrialization and industrial production are planned in a somewhat more realistic manner than agriculture, another, that they are considered the highest form of economic production and are, therefore, supported by generous allocations of resources and labor. The emphasis is, of course, on heavy and basic industries, while light industries, especially those of consumer goods, are still treated as underprivileged children, with the result that the planned high targets in heavy industries are usually reached or very nearly so, while the underemphasized consumer goods industries consistently fall short of their already modest targets. Such policies, of course, are not giving any great boosts to the standard of living of the captive populations, although some improvement can be noted.

The causes for the shortcomings in industrial production, again, are not sought in overambitious planning and regimentation, but in a host of other factors. Labor productivity is obviously low and the remedies applied to enhance it are sometimes futile. In Poland, for example, it was recently decided that labor productivity should be increased by setting technological norms and at the same time cutting wages by 25 percent. While in terms of simple arithmetic such a solution could result in increased productivity on paper, in practice it resulted only in greater absenteeism among the dissatisfied workers.

In order to find plausible scapegoats and to whitewash the obvious inherent failures of their own system, the ruling Communists from time to time mount drives against absenteeism, "shirkers," and such "parasitic elements" as owners of private business enterprise, minute as they may be, private car owners, house owners, and "exploiters of other people's labor" in general.

The all-pervading hand of the Communist Party does not control only the internal economies of the captive nations, it also manipulates their economic ties with one another. As far as foreign trade is concerned, the hub of all traffic for the captive nations is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the main source of their imports as well as the principal market for their exports. It must be emphasized, however, that in view of the Communist habit of trading through the means of bilateral agreements, the trade of captive nations with their captor is stacked heavily in favor of the latter. Bilateral agreements in vogue in the Soviet Union provide for the annual exchange of goods valued at a certain amount. No money changes hands until the end of the year when only a clearing balance resulting from the accounting entries of trade is paid. In such bilateral agreements the Soviet Union has been notoriously and shamelessly exploiting the captive nations by demanding for her exports higher prices from them than from the rest of the world, and, conversely, paying for comparable imported items lower prices to the captive nations than to the free world. It does not take much to realize that this type of trading is colonialism at its worst and international economic exploitation of the rankest kind.

As if the exploitation through foreign trade weren't enough, a pronounced trend toward integration-and complete subservience of the economies of the captive nations with that of the Soviet Union has in recent years become more and more obvious. The integration process has been taking place within the framework of the Comecon (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance). Established in 1949 as a Communist counterpart of the Marshall plan after the Soviet Union virtually forbade the participation of her captives in the latter scheme, Comecon's activities, if there were any worthwhile activities at all, were mostly kept secret until recent years. Now concrete plans are in execution which are making the captive nations economically more interdependent and at the same time tieing them closer and closer to the economy of the Soviet Union. What the outcome of this policy will be can for now only be guessed; but the guess that the Soviet Union is driving toward a complete economic integration of the captive nations into the Soviet economy does not appear to fall wide of the mark. And once the economic integration is accomplished, how far behind can political integration be?

Under the Soviet economic system, the captive nations of Europe which could be, under a free sky, shining examples of sound economic progress, are gasping for breath. Burdened by irrational, self-centered and exploiting ruling cliques in the service of foreign interests, they are unlike the proverbial turnip from which blood cannot be squeezed-forced to undergo a radical economic change taxing their resources and wreaking untold, and unnecessary, privations and sufferings upon their populations. The lack of consumers' goods, even some of the most basic ones, the regimentation and exploitation of the human beings, the drabness of life and abrogation of personal freedoms cannot be compensated for by grandiose slogans and promises for a shining future which seems no closer today than it was 15 years ago.

It is for these gallant peoples who have, through no fault of their own, become victims of the Muscovite Moloch that our concern grows day by day. Their chains grow heavier and their fetters cut deeper into their bones. Their eyes and hopes are turned westward, for, for them the sun no longer rises in the east, the east is whence darkness came.

Mr. FRANK SCHUPP,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 2, 1962.

Staff Consultant, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SCHUPP: Please enclose in the record of the executive hearings on the European captive nations the following statement:

The captive nations and their people who desire freedom from Communist oppression are our greatest untapped resources in maintaining our own freedom and that of the free world.

We must place Communist Russia and Communist China on the defense by continually advocating the complete freedom of captive nations from Russian and Chinese dictatorship and Red colonialism. This is our greatest secret weapon. Coexistence is doomed to failure.

We must keep alive the hope of freedom-loving people for victory over oppression.

Sincerely,

W. J. Bryan Dorn,
WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN,
Member of Congress.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 1, 1962

CAPTIVE EUROPEAN NATIONS

In a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower in April 1960 before the Summit Conference in May, the Executive Council of the American Friends of the AntiBolshevik Bloc of Nations offered a plea which should reflect the attitude of all the peoples of the United States of America:

"We particularly would be grateful to you, Mr. President, if you make it known to all that the United States will not settle for any compromise at the expense of the captive and enslaved non-Russian nations. Of vital importance would be your informing Khrushchev and all concerned that the U.S. foreign policy objective is to secure peace with justice and freedom for all peoples, and that unless the principles of genuine self-determination are applied to the restive and enslaved peoples languishing under Communist tyranny, there can be no peace and no security in the world."

We are a moral, law-abiding Nation, founded on the principles of truth, honesty, and sincerity, and imbued with a sense of freedom and justice for all. Therefore, it inconceivable that we could tolerate the enslavement of people anywhere in the world; this practice is alien to and incompatible with our way of life. Communist coerced control of the European captive nations violates every rule of our standards of right and wrong; it makes a mockery of human decency and human values.

We believe that certain inherent rights and liberties accrue to all persons and are deserved by all persons. The insidious forces of communism have usurped these liberties and denied these rights to the people of the captive European nations. Thus it is our moral obligation as a nation who respects as well as enjoys the precious gift of freedom to demand the liberation of these enslaved nations, in turn terminate Communist tyranny and aggression, and prevent ultimate rule of our own country by a totalitarian state.

We must be positive. We must get on the offense. We must champion the cause of the captive nations, letting our demand for their freedom serve as the point of pivot around which all the objectives and practices of our foreign policy revolve. We must refuse to accept the political status quo of today, an action which would not only recognize but also endorse all the conquests of Communist Russia.

The captive nations are the "Achilles' heel" of the Soviet empire, the weakest spot in the Communist structure, and the greatest threat for the Kremlin rule. The adoption of the cause of the captive nations, total and complete, could and must be our Rubicon. Affinity with the captive nations is our strongest weapon against the evil power of communism; we must utilize it.

The United States must not drink of the waters of the River Lethe. We must accept no excuses, we must agree to no compromises with regard to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and all the other nations behind the Iron Curtain. We must earnestly sympathize with the plight of these peoples, bitterly denounce their subjugation, and vehemently demand their freedom. In this way only can we triumph over the forces of atheism, despotism, and communism, and insure peace and security for all peoples throughout the world.

STATEMENT BY HON. T. J. DULSKI, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present a statement for inclusion in your hearings on captive nations.

For 2 years now, one of the major themes of the Captive Nations Week observances has been the establishment of a Special House Committee on Captive Nations. During the 1961 observance, Americans in all sections of this country have voiced their support in favor of such a congressional committee. They recognize, if some of us do not, the necessity for a serious concentrated study of all the captive nations in Europe, Asia, and the one in Latin America.

The fate of captive European nations is something new in modern history. It is one of the saddest, most shocking, and tragic results of the last war. It was brought about by the coldly calculating and treacherous policy of the Soviet Union. As the result of that policy-the policy of Soviet colonialism and exploitation of peoples in other lands-about one-third of Europe's land area and more than one-fourth of its inhabitants have become enslaved in northern, central, and southeastern Europe, behind the Soviet-imposed Iron Curtain. These peoples constitute today's captive nations of Europe.

As indicated in the Captive Nations Week resolution passed by Congress in 1959, there are over 22 captive nations in Europe and Asia. Poland with its 30 million population is one of the most important among them. These sturdy and stouthearted Poles are not reconciled with their lot, and are unalterably opposed to the Communist regime which rules in Poland. Short of open rebellion against their Moscow-directed oppressors, they have been struggling ceaselessly for their freedom from Communist tyranny. They have openly resented Communist collectivization of their farms, Communist exploitation of their industrial plants, and rigid restrictions imposed upon the church by the Communist regime. Both churchmen and workers have defied the Government there, and fortunately in such defiance they have had the mass of the people behind them. The courageous stand taken by Cardinal Wyszynski in defense of church, schools, and other institutions compelled the Government to modify its policy of oppression of the clergy. The peaceful but purposeful demonstrations of organized labor for a better share in wages were also successful in producing at least part of the desired result. Because of such stands taken by Polish leaders against their Communist-led government, today Poles are the least oppressed captive Europeans behind the Iron Curtain, and perhaps most "free" captive nation in Europe. The fate of other captive nations of Europe is less clear. They all have struggled, and are still struggling to shatter the chains that hold them bound to the Soviet Union, but their efforts have not been successful. The fate of Hungary in the uprising in 1956 still shocks those who recall its sad and tragic ending. The Baltic peoples, Czechoslovaks, the Bulgarians and Rumanians in the Balkans know that they are exploited by the Soviet Union, and their countries form a large Soviet colony, but they also know that they themselves alone cannot alter this situation. Instead they look forward to the working of peaceful means, to diplomatic negotiations between the West and the Soviet leaders, by which they hope for the lessening of tensions, the improvement of international relations, and the eventual betterment of their lot under free and democratic governments. How this is to be worked out, and how soon, it is anyone's guess, but unfortunately for the time being. that is the only alternative which the free world has in its effort to help the captive European nations. Meanwhile, it is our sacred duty to provide them with moral encouragement with every legitimate means at our command.

The original measure to create a Special House Committee on the Captive Nations was submitted as early as March 1961 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Honorable Daniel J. Flood. His proposal, House Resolution 211, was soon followed by three dozen similar resolutions. All of these have been bottled up in the House Rules Committee, primarily because of the fear of several parties that such a committee might do too effective a job. Popular demand for action on this vital project has, nevertheless, continued to express itself with undiminished fervor.

We, in this Congress, still have the opportunity to make a major contribution in this respect by forming a Special Committee on the Captive Nations. I join with many other Members in this body to call for immediate action on House Resolution 211 and the other resolutions by our Rules Committee. Let us put this to the test of a House vote, and let us be counted accordingly. I have no doubt of the outcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. FLORENCE P. DWYER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CAPTIVE EUROPEAN NATIONS, AUGUST 21, 1962

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views to the subcommittee on the subject of the captive nations, and I want to add a word of gratitude to the members for undertaking a study which I believe is of the most compelling and continuing importance and doing it in such a constructive fashion.

It has always seemed to me that one of the difficulties involved in dealing with the subject of the captive nations is the fact that while a great many people find it most appealing to talk about they apparently do not believe there is much if anything we can do about it in a practical or realistic way. For reasons I shall indicate in this statement, I cannot agree with this outlook, and I am encouraged that the subcommittee, too, obviously believes that the search for effective and responsible courses of action is a worthwhile and necessary one.

At no other time in history, Mr. Chairman, has individual freedom and national independence been threatened by so powerful an opponent-international communism. As an idea, it has a deceptive appeal which has infected individuals throughout the world. As an organized system of force, it has mobilized hundreds of millions of people, overthrown legitimate governments, terrorized innocent victims, and sought to intimidate the rest of the world by the exhibition of formidable military power.

While it is undoubtedly true that world communism, both at its Soviet Russian headquarters and in the relations between Communist bloc countries, has undergone significant developments, especially since the death of Stalin, it is equally true that the means and objectives of communism have remained fundamentally the same. Today, as in the beginning, world domination remains its goal, and its means include anything that will work: Military force, propaganda threats, economic infiltration, subversion.

Free people must oppose communism both as an idea and as a system of power, both here at home and wherever it seeks to pull down free institutions and enslave freemen. This is an obligation that arises from the right of selfdefense and from the very logic of freedom.

How, in any specific way, the free world goes about the work of opposing communism is, of course, a matter of policy, of debate, of controversy. There is no single right way, valid for all times and places and circumstances. The strategy of freedom must be flexible, ready to confront the changing tactics of communism in various parts of the world and ready, too, to utilize every opportunity to strengthen freedom and present its case forthrightly and persuasively.

The important thing is not that we may differ among ourselves about the ways and means of fighting communism. We con trust in the good judgment. the wisdom, the sense of responsibility of people who make these decisions freely and democratically. What is most important is the fact that we are united in seeing the threat of communism and united in our devotion to the objectives and procedures of freedom.