Mr. TINKHAM. Now, if you object to my asking the witness concerning a statement which is only three lines long

The CHAIRMAN. Objection sustained. It has no reference to this bill under consideration.

Proceed in order, Mr. Tinkham, please.

Mr. TINKHAM. Well, as there is an apparent desire on the part of the committee to hamper me in relation to these questions I shall certainly ask no more questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Mr. Tinkham may insert in the record at this point the questions he has prepared, and which the witness will not be requested to answer.

(Questions propounded by Mr. Tinkham:)

1. Do you think British troops can land on the European shore and defeat Germany in battle?

2. Do you think that British and American troops can land in Europe, be maintained there, and defeat Germany in the field?

3. Did you not say that it was not our war?

4. Did you not say that we should keep out of it?

5. Have you copies of your reports to the State Department? And to the President?

6. Would you object to surrendering them to the committee?

7. Do you think that the American people should know what they contain?

RADIO ADDRESS

1. You are reported to have said that England was no longer a democracy. What do you mean?

Is this speech of Mr. Bevin, who is first lieutenant in the cabinet of Mr. Churchill, an indication?

Is England going communistic, in your opinion?

2. In your radio address you stated: "However, because in addition to wanting to aid Britain the American people want to stay out of war, this aid should not and must not go to the point where war becomes inevitable. * * * Under our policy we can give them guns, we can give them ammunition, we can give them airplanes, we can give them everything that doesn't make war inevitable.

In your opinion, do American boats in combat zones and/or American convoys make war inevitable?

3. In your radio address you stated: "Unless we are attacked, the American people do not have to go to war." Might not our Government, having secretly committed the country to war, do things that would provoke war, over and beyond what has already been done?

4. In your radio address you stated: "There are those who say, 'Ah, but we can go to war and yet not use our manpower.' This sounds feasible today. Would it be feasible 6 months hence? I do not believe it. To me we are either all the way in the war or all the way out of it."

Was not the repeal of the arms embargo after hostilities had begun in itself an act of war? Did we not enter the war then? Was not the transfer of the over-age cruisers another act of war?

5. In your radio address you stated: "Only yesterday Mr. Churchill said, 'We do not require in 1941 large armies from overseas.' Does that mean our boys are expected over there in 1942?"

What is your judgment on this?

6. In your radio address you ask: "What would be our war aims? We have not had any debate on that score. We certainly are not going into the war just to underwrite the war aims of another country without knowing what they are."

Is that not apparently the present intention of this country?

7. You added: "Are we to sign a blank check?" Is not that exactly what is proposed in this bill?

8. You also asked: "Why should anyone think that our getting into a war would preserve our ideals, a war which would then practically leave Russia alone outside the war area, getting stronger while the rest of the world approached exhaustion ?"

Would not Russia or communism, or both, sweep western Europe after 1 or 2 years of warfare? How can England reorganize Europe?

9. You added: "Yet, to keep defeated Germany and the other countries from going completely communistic we will have to reorganize them as well as ourselves, probably standing guard while this reorganization is taking place. I shudder to contemplate it."

What do you think would be happening in the United States in the meantime? Does not this bill propose a dictatorship here; does it not provide for the establishment of a totalitarian government here to fight totalitarian governments elsewhere?

1. Does the British Foreign Office inform the American Embassy freely and fully of military, economic, political, and diplomatic conditions and developments?

2. Did your Government inform you adequately of the mission of Colonel Donovan and naval officers to London some months ago?

3. Did the first request for the transfer of destroyers come from Mr. Churchill to President Roosevelt, as reported at the time?

4. Did Mr. Roosevelt, in response to this appeal, send word that he would provide the destroyers and find some way to do it?

5. Some months ago the United States Fleet left Hawaiian waters on an unannounced mission of several days. Great mystery was thrown about it by the White House and the State and Navy Departments. Was that mission undertaken for some diplomatic or other purpose at the request or suggestion of the British?

Did you retain the original message? If not, why not?

6. Did you resist British efforts to have American ships evacuate British children to this hemisphere? Why?

7. Did Beaverbrook, or any other high British official, ever tell you that Britain first directed propaganda at the United States on the basis that all was well, that finding that this was not effective, reversed it, saying that matters were very bad, each course being aimed at having us enter the war?

8. Did you ever report, "God Almighty cannot give Britain what she wants," and that "the truth is they (the British) pray daily for some incident that will drag us in"?

QUESTIONS ON LOAN-LEASE BILL, H. R. 1776

Q. Mr. Kennedy, did Mr. Chamberlain ever talk to you about the situation arising out of the Munich Pact?

(a) Did he ever give you his personal estimate of Mr. Hitler as a statesman or soldier?

(b) Did he ever tell you what Hitler's demands were at that time, or what he thought of them?

(c) Did he ever tell you that his Government was willing to cooperate with Hitler in maintaining the peace of Europe?

(d) Did he discuss with you Hitler's position with respect to the return to Germany of the German colonies? What was his opinion as to Hitler's position with respect to the German colonies?

(e) Since Mr. Chamberlain concluded the Munich agreement, it is supposed, of course, that the terms thereof were satisfactory to the British Government. Can you tell the committee what the difference was between Hitler's demands at Munich and what was actually agreed to?

(f) Did Mr. Chamberlain ever give you the impression that his Government would be agreeable to have the Germans expand in central Europe?

(g) Do you know whether Hitler told Mr. Chamberlain the alternate of the German Government if his demands at Munich were not agreed to in substance? (h) Did Mr. Chamberlain give you any impression that it was Hitler's aim to: (1) Dismember the British Empire;

(2) Establish a new world order;

(3) Establish a new order for continental Europe, which new order and the British Empire would be the dominant forces for European peace.

(i) Was it your impression that Mr. Chamberlain was of the opinion that the Munich agreement was a sound basis for European peace for some years to come? (j) Did Mr. Chamberlain give you the impression that, based on the Munich Pact, it would be the policy of his Government to take a passive attitude on the expected expansion of Germany in central Europe?

(k) Did Mr. Chamberlain give you the impression that he agreed to the Munich Pact because his own country, militarily speaking, was not able at that time or in the near future to meet Hitler on the battlefield, and did he ever give you the explanation of why the world powers permitted Hitler to arm, knowing full well what that would mean in the way of German expansion, and at the same time failure of their own countries to meet this menace by arming?

Q. As you know, Mr. Chamberlain quite naturally extolled the accomplishments at Munich; have you any idea as to what group or groups in England forced him to reverse his position with respect to German activities on the Continent?

Q. Assuming the fact that England was not prepared for war at the time of the Munich Pact (and, in fact, Churchill even now tells the British people England is not fully armed), was not Mr. Chamberlain's policy the only sane course for Britain to pursue, and does not subsequent events vindicate his policy?

Q. On the basis of the Chamberlain policy as we all understand it, would not the worst that could happen be the economic penetration or perhaps economic domination of the Low Countries, but leaving the British Empire intact as a world power to compete with Germany in world trade, during which time all countries might work for disarmament?

Q. Do you know whether there was any change in the military situation in Britain subsequent to the Munich Pact which caused a reversal of policy; do you know whether any promises were given by the United States for military aid subsequent to Munich?

Q. Have you any figures as to the plane production in Britain and Germany at the time of the signing of the Munich Pact?

Q. Is it your opinion that the British Government under Chamberlain and Churchill have conducted this war efficiently-or is it another case of "muddling through" as Lloyd George said about the last World War? Or, again, is it a case of "let George do it" (meaning Uncle Sam)?

Q. Are the British people, from your observation, united in the prosecution of this war?

Q. Mr. Kennedy, I am reading from the Congressional Record for June 19, 1940. There it is stated that the writings and speeches of the late Lord Lothian, prior, of course, to his elevation to the Ambassadorship, reveal that he believed

"That Germany was badly treated at Versailles; that French efforts to keep Germany in vassalage were cruel and unwise; that Britain and the United States share the guilt of France in this respect; that these three are responsible for the triumph of national socialism;

"That national socialism has been good for Germany;

"That Germany was justified in rearming;

"That there were too many small nations in post-Versailles and Europe and that hegemony in southeastern Europe naturally belongs to Germany;

"That the German demands for reunion with Austria, the Sudetenland, and Meml, and for possession of Danzig were justified;

"That Britain belongs in a 'world system,' not in the 'European system'; that, accordingly, Britain should not make commitments in Europe, should not try to dominate Europe, should not go to war over any European issue; and "That one of the prime causes of the war danger which then overhung Europe and has since taken such tragic reality-was British meddling in eastern Europe."

Did you ever get the impression that Mr. Chamberlain also held such views, or any other responsible member of the British Government?

Q. Mr. Kennedy, as you know, it is Hitler's contention that the inequalities of the Versailles Treaty is the root of the present war-Lord Lothian also held this view; and if I remember rightly, our own Under Secretary of State in sweeping terms holds that the effect of the Versailles and kindred treaties paved the way for this conflict. What, in your judgment, caused Mr. Roosevelt in his speech on the state of the Union, which, of course, was nothing but a warmongering provocative speech, to state that we should not overemphasize the evils of the Treaty of Versailles?

Q. If Hitler's contention is correct, and both Britain and the United States recognize the applicability of such contention, why were not these treaties reformed as provided for in article XIX of the Treaty of Versailles (Covenant of the League of Nations)?

Q. I am reading from an excerpt taken from the London Times, January 31 and February 1, 1935, entitled "Germany and France," in which Lothian stated:

"War comes far more frequently from inability to change out-of-date political arrangements in time than from direct aggression. Unless article XIX of the Covenant can be made effective the Covenant itself will disappear.

"Take again national socialism itself. National socialism is the outcome of 4 years' war, the Ruhr, inflation, and two revolutions in 20 years.

"It has been strong enough to give Germany unity where it was terribly divided, to produce a stable government in place of weak and unstable governments, and to restore to Germany national self-respect and international standing. One thing, too, about it, it is not generally understood. It is not imperialist in the old sense of the word."

If failure to reform the treaties under article XIX is the cause of the present world conflict, what in your judgment can be done now to effect such reformation? In other words, can you think of anything more unmoral than to continue this bath of blood for no other reason than to maintain the status quo of the 1919 treaties, which are the root of the present tragedy?

Q. Mr. Kennedy, I take it from your recent radio speech that you do not consider yourself an isolationist. Did you speak then as an interventionist or an internationalist in order that you might know my definition of these terms? I might say roughly, that to me an isolationist is an American citizen who feels the interests of the United States lie in following the precepts of George Washington of no entanglements or alliances in Europe or elsewhere, and who regards the periodical outbursts in Europe as the result of Old World power politics, with their roots in economic and racial clashes, to which we can have no part; and an interventionist is an American citizen who feels that the interests of the United States is bound up, through economic forces, with the world trade, and therefore wherever an outburst occurs we naturally are dragged into it; while an internationalist is a large group, not necessarily American citizens, who believe in breaking down national barriers, leveling off the world under one superstate, such as, for example, communism.

Q. I take it that you are not an internationalist. Did you speak then as an interventionist?

Q. You stated in your radio address that Britain was not fighting our war but was fighting one of self-defense for her own preservation. If that is true, why should the United States extend her aid?

Q. In your radio address you said the statement that you predicted the defeat of Britain was not true; but, on the other hand, you failed to predict her victory, assuming, which seems to be the fact, that Britain, militarily speaking, cannot win against Hitler; what in your judgment would be required from the United States to make victory assured for Britain, and what is your definition of a British victory?

Q. Can you estimate roughly what it would require from the United States in dollars and men to insure the defeat of Hitler-meaning by defeat a dictated peace by Britain, which might or might not mean crushing Germany again as was done in 1919?

Q. Hitler's powers were given to him, as you know, to protect the German people from communism, and admittedly he did stamp out communism in Germany (we all understand that his present marriage to Stalin is a military expediency). Isn't it true that if Britain crushes Germany that communism will be rampant throughout Europe and the world? Isn't it true that Britain cannot afford to have dead Germany in Central Europe if her policy of meddling in European affairs continues?

Q. As I understand your radio address-your thesis is: Britain is not fighting for the United States or any world concept of liberalism, but is fighting for her life; that the United States should give her all-possible aid in order that we might have time to arm. How can we give her the aid needed if at the same time we are to arm? In other words, do I understand that if the experts determine that the United States will have to fight a successful axis combination and will require 50,000 planes we should hurry up and manufacture them and then, after the 50,000 planes are completed, we should give the surplus to Britain; or should we fill Britain's needs first and then our own? Taking a realist's view, I cannot see how we can give effective aid to Britain and at the same time arm ourselves, since, as you point out, time is of the essence for Britain.

Q. What do you understand by the term "all aid short of war"? Does that mean to you that in aiding Britain we should do nothing which could be construed as an act of war; or do you mean that in aiding Britain, even if such aid requires acts of war, we should commit them and trust to luck to get away with it? 288128-41-17

Q. President Roosevelt has stated that he believes the axis will lose-I take it he means in a military sense. Your radio speech leaves me decidedly under the impression that you are not so sanguine. Now, if you cannot predict a British victory, and I don't think anyone can, how do you justify your stand to render all aid to Britain (even to the extent of committing acts of war), thereby dragging us down to possible defeat with her?

Q. I think you will agree with me that the United States cannot afford to be tied up with a defeated Britain. From your knowledge of the efforts of the British Government in trying to effect a victory (other than just preaching about it), the morale of the British people, the damage done to the British Isles, the loss in shipping, etc., would you say that the British have a better than 50-50 chance for victory without the United States help? What I am trying to get at, Mr. Kennedy, is this: If we can roughly estimate what Britain's efforts can produce, then find out what we can do, add these two together and balance them or from our knowledge of the axis strength, we can approximate-and only approximate-what the result might be and the time required to effect the result. This estimate, of course, does not take into account a possible civil war or revolution in England or a revolution in Germany.

Q. In considering this whole problem, Mr. Kennedy, there is one fundamental question which we should be awfully sure about, and that is this: Are the efforts of the British to drag us into this war for the sole purpose of helping to defeat Hitler, or is it to have us change our status from a neutral to a declared belligerent and thereby force us to underwrite all or a part of the peace?

Q. In your speech, having reference to the appellation of "appeaser," you state that if "it is charged that I advocate a deal with the dictators contrary to the British desire, or that I advocate placing any trust or confidence in their promises, the charge is false and malicious"-would you say the record of the British in failing to honorably live up to their commitments under the debt-funding agreements inspires any confidence in the American people; or again, their part in effecting the so-called secret treaties which were kept from the American people during the 1914-18 war calls for any particular trust from our people?

Q. After all, Mr. Kennedy, wasn't Thomas Jefferson correct when he said: "For us to attempt to reform all Europe and bring them back to principles of morality and a respect for the equal rights of nations would show us to be only maniacs of another character"?

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Kennedy, my good friend Mr. Tinkham is rather adroit in trying to put words in a man's mouth.

Mr. TINKHAM. I object to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RICHARDS. I have read some excerpts of your speech, and I just want to ask about three or four sentences and have this testimony show whether they correctly state your position.

Did you say in your speech

I favor now, as I did in my talk for the President, that we give the utmost aid to England. By so doing we will be assisting a nation which the American people want to see win. But more than that, we are helping ourselves, and we will be securing for ourselves the most precious commodity we need-time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. I said time.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is, time to arm?

There are just two other sentences I want to question you about. Did you say this:

Because aid to England is part of constructive American policy to safeguard America, we should go to the very limit in our assistance, but not to a point which would endanger our own protection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, there is one other sentence.

I quite agree that if England should win this war we would be a great deal better off than we would be if England lost.