« PreviousContinue »
Business Week, a McGraw-Hill publication, and you will notice that all of the papers or magazines I cite are not printed in Moscow, there is an article entitled, "America's New Deal for Britain."
The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, Mr. Marsh; will you just suspend a moment?
Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir.
Mr. FISH. Would you just as soon testify now and carry it on to 7 o'clock, or wait until later?
Mr. Class. Whatever the wish of the committee is is agreeable to me.
Mr. MARSH. I think it would be better if you would make your statement, because we must continue on and get through, or, just hand your statement to the reporter.
Mr. FISH. I want to make one unanimous-consent request. Mr. Amos Pinchot, who was to testify has just had to go back to New York. He has released his statement to the press, and I would like to have that read by someone here before we adjourn.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we just put it in and accept it as his statement.
Mr. Fish. I do not think it would take very long, and I want to do the fair thing.
The CHAIRMAN. So do I. We will either read it or put it in the record and accept it.
Mr. FISH. I agree with you.
Mr. EBERHARTER. Is it the purpose of the chairman to continue right on through and not take a recess?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. EBERHARTER. Some of the members have already left and will be back at 8 o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN. We will let the members know right away by phone that there will be no meeting this evening. I think it would be preferable to conclude now instead of coming back, and if you gentlemen do not mind we will let them know. There will be no business transacted. We will let them know that when we get through here we will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning:
The committee will accept your statement there for the record, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. MARSH. Then there are several similar statements I would like to read.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the witness should assume that the members read the newspapers sometimes, and I think it would be in the interest of economy of time not to read the various statements from so many people. Let the witness state what he has to say without any reading, because it takes too much time.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. MARSH. Then, if it is your wish, to save time, I would like to ask permission to file these other quotations for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be done.
Mr. MARSH. With one exception, I would like to read a statement of Dr. Virgil Jordan, president of the National Industrial Conference Board, to the Investment Bankers' Association last December.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. MARSH. Which states that many of them had not begun to comprehend and face the task that lies ahead for American industry, and whatever the outcome of the war, America has embarked upon a career of imperialism, and "England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources, and the military and naval strength of the United States will be the center of gravity,” and “southward in our hemisphere and westward in the Pacific, the path of empire takes its way, and in modern terms of economic power, as well as political prestige, the scepter passes to the United States."
I respectfully submit that before America embarks upon a career that has wrecked Britain and every other imperialist nation the people, and at least the Congress of the United States, should have a chance to decide whether they want to do it or not.
(The remainder of the quotations submitted by Mr. Marsh are as follows:)
DOES THE PRESIDENT WANT ANGLO-AMERICAN DOMINATION? Current events, current comment, and the conservative press, raise the question whether the President seeks an Anglo-American alliance for world domination, using of course the slogans of democracy, through which the three great democracies—the United States, Britain, and France-built up their world empires, which Hitler's war machine and economic policies, and Russia's economy, challenge.
Dr. Scott Nearing, highly competent student of world affairs, in a Federated Press story, January 16, 1941, Britain and United States Move Toward Totalitarian Controls, says:
"Within a week the British and United States Government have both announced plans for the concentration of economic power in the hands of small government boards selected by the Executive. Both Governments are unifying their economies, not by legislative act, but by executive degree.
"Prime Minister Winston Churchill has created in the British cabinet an import executive and a production executive. The import executive has control of supplies. The production executive will allocate available resources and raw materials, production capacities and labor, and will fix priorities.
“Under this broad authorization the production executive, headed by Ernest Bevin, a Laborite, will be able to conscript materials, machinery, and labor. The new production executive has much broader powers than its predecessor, the Production Council.
"President Roosevelt has created an Office of Production Management as part of the emergency management of the Executive Office of the President.
"Office of Production Management is authorized to 'formulate and execute in the public interest all measures necessary and appropriate in order to increase, accelerate, and regulate the production and supply of materials, articles, and equipment and the provision of emergency plant facilities and services required for the national defense', and to coordinate the agencies engaged in defense work."
Dr. Nearing concludes:
“British and United States economies are being pushed rapidly into the mold of General Goering's 5-year plan. By executive decrees both countries have unified economic control and direction under a Government board.
“In both countries the board consists chiefly of former business executives. No 'democracy' label on these proposals will detract one iota from their totalitarian and dictatorial character."
The President's reference to establishing a "moral order” throughout the world is highly significant.
Such pronouncements and America's economic system go far to justify some of the charges made by Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan about the real objectives of America and of Britain.
Dávid Lawrence, in his confidential Report for the Business Executives, states: “The United States holds the balance of world power, * * * and is in line if cards are played right to become the world's dominant power."
This is not the position of the British Labor Party.
At its annual meeting in May 1940, it held:
Areas which are natural and efficient units should not be broken up into small minorities or to entrench pre-war controls of any nation.
International control must be extended to include
(a) Natural resources and other raw materials, so they may be available at fair prices to all nonagressor nations.
(6) Ocean-borne commerce. (c) All war equipment which can be used outside the areas of any nation, (d) Markets, by gradual stages. (e) Currencies.
All present mandated areas and colonies must be put under international control, pending the uncoerced selection by the people thereof, of the nation with which they wish to be affiliated, or establishment of conditions which justify equal status with other limited sovereignty nations.
Creation of an association or commonwealth of states, the collective authority of which must transcend, in the economic sphere, the rights of separate pations. This authority must be vested with such power as is necessary to enable it to achieve the essential international controls.
Until such a program for post-war organization is accepted by Britain and the United States, as major powers, and by smaller nations with which we shall be asked to cooperate, is the United States in a position to claim it seeks to establish a new moral order in the world?
Mr. MARSH. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have a concluding topic, which is just what is this war about
The CHAIRMAN. What war?
Mr. MARSH. This war that is being fought over there. I am glad that the chairman is in doubt as to which war I refer to, but it is one into which, apparently, Congress is trying to get the United States. I am not willing to say that it is partly to cover up on the collapse of our own economic system, but it is well to realize that if it does come we would have chaos throughout the world. If the war continues for 3 or 4 years, we will have collapse and chaos, as Mr. Castle pointed out.
Now, may I make this suggestion to this committee before you report this bill out: As I have stated, I have conferred year after year with the British Labor Party. In May of last year, in the midst of war, the British Labor Party adopted a program for post-war action, peace terms, if you please, which I would like to incorporate in the hearings of this committee. It is not a quotation, but it is summarized. If you would like the original, I have the report of that conference, and I will submit it.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
PRINCIPLES OF A PRACTICAL PEACE Fury in fighting, efficiency in preparation for conflict, and emphasis upon the superiority of democratic procedures over those of totalitarian regimes do not ensure a post-war organization of the world upon the basis of a durable peace.
America must now determine what its post-war policies shall be and what essential principles it will press for in a post-war pact.
We believe the following principles are essential to the success of any peace:
1. Areas which are natural and efficient units should not be broken up into small political units to save the faces of small minorities or to entrench pre-war controls of any nation.
2. International control must be extended to include
(a) Natural resources and other raw materials, so they may be available at fair prices to all nonaggressor nations.
(6) Ocean-borne commerce.
3. All present mandated areas and colonies must be put under international control, pending the uncoerced selection by the people thereof, of the nation with
which they wish to be affiliated, or establishment of conditions which justify equal status with other limited sovereignty nations.
4. Creation of an association or commonwealth of states, the collective authority of which must transcend, in the economic sphere, the rights of separate nations. This authority must be vested with such power as is necessary to enable it to achieve the essential international controls.
To maintain peace, national and hemispheric sovereignty must be subordinated to world institutions and obligations.
We believe that all nations, whatever the outcome of the present conflict, should participate in the peace conference to work out the ending of the major economic causes of war, through a large degree of international organization.
We hope the knowledge that America will approve only such a post-war organization will have a greater influence in securing an early ending of hostilities than any military aid we could send.
Mr. MARSH. Now, I would like to suggest to the committee that we already have the draft; the young men have been drafted. We have not dared to tax the wealth of America yet as we did in the World War, but we have gotten the young men, including my son, in the draft. I would like to have the members of the committee directly address a communication to the British Government or request the President of the United States to ask Mr. Churchill and the British Government why that government does not dare to state whether it stands for the international organization which the Labor Party demands. Why is their government and why is our Government afraid to suggest the objectives of this war in terms of a new organization?
If this committee will do that, if this Congress will do that-and I believe it would on the recommendation of these two committeesthen I think that there would not be very much chance for Hitler to continue his appeal to his people. I hope I am not wrong. I may be in error in assuming that the members of this committee would like to prevent all the bloodshed they can; and although we have several million extra people in America, we do not want to get rid of them in that way. I suggest that it is time now for a little intelligent discussion throughout the world of what this war is about, what sort of an organization we propose to have after this war. It will not make profits for Americans to end the war today. I admit that that does not worry me, and I am sure that it does not this committee, but I respectfully submit to this committee that we have a chance to do something now much more important than the appropriating of $17,000,000,000 if we find out what we hope to accomplish by the expenditure of those billions, and it is only a starter, and accomplish by an appeal over Hitler's head, and over Mussolini's head, to the workers of Germany and Italy. That is not as dramatic as having airplanes in the demonstration in our coronation services in the National Capital, but it is a step in which I know the people of this world are interested. I am as gray-haired, but not quite as bald, as some of the members of this committee, but I venture to suggest that the young people of today will not likely feel kindly toward an economic system nor toward the governments which cannot find a substitute for plunging nations into war. Our governments are defunct, and our economic systems are defunct, and before we start down this road to dictatorship in America I appeal to this committee to make an appeal to find out what this war is about. I think you should accept these very practical nonpolitical suggestions.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The committee will take
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burke will read the statement which was to be read by Mr. Amos Pinchot for the record.
Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF AMOS PINCHOT REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
DEFENSE SOCIETY, NEW YORK CITY The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Burke.
Mr. BURKE. Mr. Pinchot came here to appear before you gentlemen of the committee. He left a sickbed to do so, and was taken with a chill. He has been most unwell for some time.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee so understands.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, may I preface my statement, which will be brief, by saying, as other witnesses before your committee have said, that the situation that confronts the country is too serious to admit of any partisanship. And I would like to add that it is also so serious that no witness before this committee, or American citizen speaking his mind anywhere, should refrain from expressing what he believes to be the truth, because of any fear or apprehension that he will be charged with partisanship. After all, on whichever side a man stands in this controversy, aroused by the bill you are considering, the best and most we can expect from him is that he shall say, without reservation, what he believes to be for the best good of the country.
Like a vast majority of Americans, I am deeply moved by the struggle the English people are waging against Adolf Hitler. “And I want to see all possible aid, consistent with maintaining peace and our own defense, given to Britain-and given fast.
My fundamental objection to this bill, and it would be the same whether it had been drawn at the instigation of Mr. Willkie instead of President Roosevelt, is that it is a measure to promote not so much all-out help to Britain, as all-out help to flip the American Republic, overnight, into war and dictatorship. No one who has studied this bill
, and heard the arguments up to date on both sides, should kid himself into the belief that Mr. Roosevelt, an overtaxed unpredictable man with an itch for power, or anyone else, for that matter, should be clothed with complete discretionary power to liquidate, give away, or permanently scatter to the ends of the earth America's defenses, to the last ship, gun, or plane, plus every resource needful in war. I cannot see how anyone can entertain such an idea unless he honestly believes that the President is literally an omniscient superman-a chief executive in whom are summed up and concentrated all the qualities and abilities, moral, mental, and physical, that made Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and General Grant or General Lee great in their own lines.
That any of you gentlemen in this committee, or in Congress, should entertain such a thought seems proof of how far American common sense and self-confidence can drift in a time of fear and hysteria, produced, and I think induced, during the last few months—but mainly since election day.
The President reassuringly says he would sooner stand on his head in public that use some of the more arbitrary of these powers. However, my observation of Mr. Roosevelt's inclinations since 1936 leads me to suspect that he would rather stand on his head than not use them.
Mr. Chairman, what do you think would happen to Churchill, even now, with England so hard-pressed and battered night and day from Hitler's airports 20 miles distant were he to go before parliament and say: "Mr. Speaker, in view of the present emergency, which I can testify is on hand rather than on order, I'd like to have you give me power to present Britain's submarines to Stalin, her cruisers to Franco, her air fleets to Chiang Kai-shek, and her battleships, the pride of the British Navy, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt."
And Mr. Churchill might continue: "of course, Mr. Speaker, you understand that, when you give me these powers, which I must have at once, I am not going to use them. Indeed, I would rather walk through Dowing Street on my hands than employ any of them. But I want and ought to have them, if for no other reason, because leaders all over the world are making collections of powers. And, when the war is over, I shall put mine in a little museum I'm going to build on my country estate, just like President Roosevelt's documentary museum on the Hudson."