Mr. MUNDT. You stated in Philadelphia, according to what I believe you said was a correct interpretation of your speech, that you warned Philadelphians that if England fell you were afraid Hitler will walk into Independence Hall.

The CHAIRMAN. It is necessary to proceed in order, and the Chair is going to give notice the witnesses are going to be timed and no questions can be answered from the end of the table. There are Miss Dorothy Thompson, General O'Ryan, and Mrs. Harriman yet to be heard from. The chairman holds a lot of these questions are out of order. Please proceed in order.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, I hope this question will be held in order. The war aims of England were given as "Beat Hitler." Is it not true we have to do more than beat Hitler-we have got to beat the institutions, the system of philosophy Hitler represents? When Churchill said we must beat Hitler, would that be sufficient? Suppose Hitler would die tomorrow?

The CHAIRMAN. "Yes" or "No," Mr. Ambassador? [Laughter.] Mr. BULLITT. By using Hitler in that sense I believe Mr. Churchill meant the Nazi regime.

Mr. MUNDT. Has England enough trained pilots, or will she have, to man all the ships, flying ships, airplanes, we can send her from this country, or is likely there will be a demand for American pilots? Mr. BULLITT. I believe England has sufficient.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is a military question.

The CHAIRMAN. You may answer, Mr. Bullitt.

Mr. BULLITT. I simply said I believe England has sufficient. Mr. MUNDT. You based one of your hopes for British victory on an internal collapse in Germany?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection sustained. Ask another question.

Mr. MUNDT. Directly to the point, Mr. Ambassador, of your statement that invasion of the Western Hemisphere would be almost certain if England were to fall-is it not highly probable that following such a collapse, if it should unhappily come, there would be so many jealousies between Italy, Russia, England, and Japan, so many-and Germany-so many rebellious, partly conquered people, so much discontent at home, that Hitler would not dare to send a large army on another conquest across the seas and leave his home flank unprotected? Mr. BULLITT. I do not believe so. I believe the control of Germany over Italy is becoming greater and greater so the Italians cannot follow any independent policy, and I believe in the event of such victory as that Hitler would be able to do exactly what he pleases. Mr. MUNDT. You do not believe this possibility of revolt would break out as soon as victory seems to run the tide?

Mr. BULLITT. That is right.

Mr. MUNDT. At the time of the first dangerous reverse there might be danger on the home flank?

Mr. BULLITT. That is right.

Mr. MUNDT. If America makes that kind of defense, which I think America would make, if America were to repel those hordes of invaders, then anarchy may break out on the continent?

Mr. BULLITT. If we can repel invasion;but if we are to be in position to repel, we need to be prepared and that means several years. The question is one of time and speed.

Mr. MUNDT. Have you read Report 1615 of the Senate Military Affairs Committee published on May 15, 1940?

Mr. BULLITT. I have not, sir.

Mr. MUNDT. It was a unanimous report made by the Senate Naval Affairs Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Ask the question. Never mind what they made. Ask the question.

Mr. MUNDT. I want to identify it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have already identified it. That is all right. We have got to get on. Go ahead. Make your statement.

Mr. MUNDT. The unanimous report made by the Senate Naval Affairs Committee on that date, Mr. Bullitt-I read you the statement as follows:

Should Germany's submarines and aircraft succeed in overcoming the greatly superior fleet of Great Britain and France and destroying British seapower, there is every reason to infer that they would probably also overcome the United States Fleet if we entered the war and sent our fleet and our craft to operate in European waters within hitting range of aircraft and numerous small submarines, if it is assumed British seapower will be destroyed or the British and French Navy cannot retain control of the sea in and around the British Isles and close to France, the inference must be the United States Fleet operating from bases in this hemisphere could not meet the sea approaches in France and supply American Expeditionary Force with food, supplies, and equipment.

On the other hand, should German submarines and aircraft succeed in overcoming the Navy of France and neighboring nations and Great Britain only separated from Germany by the North Sea and this was in easy reach of aircraft and numerous small submarines it would by no means follow that German submarines and aircraft could overcome the United States Navy in a similar fashion provided the United States Navy operated from its home bases to keep hostile forces from our shores.

Is there not some assurance in that unanimous report of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee that Hitler is not going to walk into Independence Hall?

Mr. BULLITT. Mr. Congressman, that is an admirable statement but it leaves out the possibility of Japan being joined to the totalitarian nations. Japan was not at that time tied to Germany and Italy by the agreement of September 27 last. Further that takes into consideration the French Navy which was on the side of Great Britain at that time, which exists no more, and I believe the gentlemen who wrote that then would look at it perhaps differently now.

Mr. MUNDT. Let me, if I may, quote the gentleman's testimony who substantiated that report.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I object to going into that in detail.

The CHAIRMAN. The question has been asked and answered. He is not a military expert or a naval man.

Mr. MUNDT. I am about to quote some naval experts.

The CHAIRMAN. But you quote them to a man who has given his life to the Diplomatic Service. He does not know anything about military and naval matters. Objection sustained. Proceed in order. Mr. MUNDT. But his entire report is based on the possibility of military or naval invasion. Now you say he does not know what he is talking about?

The CHAIRMAN. He knows what he is talking about. That is one thing I am sure of. [Laughter.]

Proceed in order, please.

Mr. MUNDT. I would not criticize the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not criticizing the witness and I am not criticizing you. I am criticizing the question.

Mr. MUNDT. Now, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ambassador, the point

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I object to reading. He said it was a unanimous report of the Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate. If the witness answered as they said, we can assume that everybody signed it and it is an unnecessary consumption of time to go into reading a unanimous report.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed in order. Objection sustained.

The

We are not trying to use

Mr. MUNDT. The witness is appearing before this committeeMr. JOHNSON of Texas (interposing). We object to reading. report speaks for itself. Put it in the record if you wish. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Ambassador, I want to readMr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, is this a filibuster? The CHAIRMAN. I would not say that. the gag rule. It is not a filibuster but it is very unfair to the witness. This witness has been on the stand since 10 o'clock this morning. He has been very kind to answer all our questions. It is useless to ask him about something he knows nothing about. We have these witnesses here that must leave, and please remember this-we will have 1 hour and a half for two or three witnesses.

Now, the questions of the witnesses, the other witnesses, can only be asked up to the time the members and the witnesses must leave, so you are just foreclosing other witnesses who may be able to give you some very, very valuable information.

Mr. MUNDT. May I say a word in defense?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may say all you want.

Mr. MUNDT. The witness appeared before us with a paper which in its essence purports to show that this country is in grave danger of invasion. That is the purpose of his report, and that was to give such aid to Great Britain as she might get under H. R. 1776. The purpose of my questions is to point out that this country is not in grave danger of invasion, as the witness claims. If that be true, then the essence of his report is insignificant.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; you have the privilege of disagreeing with the witness or asking any questions on the testimony, but when it comes to expert testimony or asking what he knows about it, the Chair has ruled this out of order, so the gentleman will kindly proceed. in order.

Mr. MUNDT. Do you feel, Mr. Ambassador, the United States has the power and means to police the world?

Mr. BULLITT. No.

Mr. MUNDT. You did not mean to imply this morning, did you, or in your paper by referring to Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia that the United States is in anything like an analogous position to the totalitarian powers as they appear, unfortunately?

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I object. The witness did not refer to those this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection sustained.

Mr. MUNDT. I think, to visualize this question

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The question has not been asked and has not been answered. If you want to ask the question, ask the witness now.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. You used the words "this morning."
The CHAIRMAN. Please ask the question.

Mr. MUNDT. You do not care to give America the impression, Mr. Ambassador, this morning, tomorrow morning, or any other morning, do you, that the United States is in an analogous position with Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and some of those other unfortunate countries?

Mr. BULLITT. I certainly do not. The question of Belgium and Holland was mentioned in connection with the question, if I remember rightly, as to whether by doing everything you could to be pleasant to the Nazi government you reduced their chances of attacking you. if they decide they want to attack you, they will. That was the statement.

Mr. MUNDT. You do not contend there is any similarity between our ability to defend ourselves against totalitarian states?

Mr. BULLITT. No, sir.

Mr. MUNDT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Burgin?

Mr. BURGIN. It occurs to me the subject has been fully and widely covered. I therefore have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jonkman?

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Bullitt, there are some who speak of an impending crisis or emergency within 60 or 90 days. Do you share that view? Mr. BULLITT. I think there may be or may not be. I do not believe anyone except the leaders of the Nazi government know where they are going to strike next or what they are going to do. There are a number of indications they are contemplating an "all out" attack on England between now and the 1st of May, and that I take it is the crisis to which you are referring.

Mr. JONKMAN. And that situation has been the same ever since June of last year with the exception of the winter storm period on the channel during the winter?

Mr. BULLITT. It is a question of preparation. Obviously it appears the preparations which are now being made are much more colossal than any that have hitherto been made.

Mr. JONKMAN. You stated this morning it was your opinion that England, with the help of this bill, might conquer Germany. Did I understand you correctly?

Mr. BULLITT. I did not say "with the help of this bill," but I said I believed Great Britain can win if the United States delivers to Great Britain implements of defense and war in sufficient quantities. I do not believe we are now producing those instruments of defense and war in sufficient quantity. Therefore, I do not think the passage of this bill, of itself, will attain that end.

Mr. JONKMAN. I understood you to say England needed planes, if she had planes she could attack Germany or destroy, probably, German morale.

Mr. BULLITT. What I think I said was I believed the war could be won by Great Britain if Great Britain was able to dominate the air; yes. Mr. JONKMAN. By that did you mean it would also be a military invasion in addition to the plane invasion, tanks, infantry, artillery? Mr. BULLITT. I believe that if the air arm could operate with sufficient force an actual military invasion would probably not be

necessary. You would probably have Germany suing for peace without military invasion. I may be quite wrong. I do not know.

Mr. JONKMAN. The question I am driving at is whether or not that would be a matter of retaliation against Germany, German cities and civilians.

Mr. BULLITT. I believe the bombing that has been done by Great Britain in Germany has been, insofar as it has been possible to do so, directed against military objectives. I do not believe for one moment when people are bombing at night they will hit only military objectives. Mr. JONKMAN. In that case, if your only interest was planes, and necessary munitions of course for planes, would that only be a question of production on our part?

Mr. BULLITT. It is a question of production, and there is also the question of getting it to the British. I suppose there are several more questions that come in there. There is the question of cargo boats. There are vast numbers of cargo boats being sunk by the submarines. We have to provide an enormous number of merchant ships in order to carry the supplies.

Mr. JONKMAN. But it is your belief that they should be delivered to England?

Mr. BULLITT. Emphatically.

Mr. JONKMAN. So the question of distribution would not be a material question, would it?

Mr. BULLITT. I don't understand what you mean by distribution. Mr. JONKMAN. Various parts of Europe or the world. In other words, that is where the blow must be struck.

Mr. BULLITT. It is perfectly obvious that the most vital spot is Great Britain. The most vital interest for us is the continued existence of the British Navy holding the Atlantic, but there is a further element of importance in the whole situation which is the resistance that the Chinese have been putting up against the Japanese which has, to a very considerable extent, bogged down the Japanese in China. It reduces, certainly, any inclination they may have had to go fight us. Mr. JONKMAN. That is not an important part of the crisis or emergency, is it? The crisis is right on the English Channel?

Mr. BULLITT. If you are talking about the crisis certain people believe is going to take place this spring, obviously China doesn't affect that, but it is extremely important China further maintain resistance against Japan. That is extremely important.

Mr. JONKMAN. That may be true, that if a decisive blow can be struck at Germany that may settle the question, or do you mean our aims are far beyond those of Churchill?

Mr. BULLITT. I agree with your previous statement.

Mr. JONKMAN. Then it comes back to the matter of production?
Mr. BULLITT. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. Has not the President those powers right now?
Mr. BULLITT. The President has certain powers.

Mr. JONKMAN. That does not answer my question.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the witness answer. Answer it, Mr. Bullitt, in your own way.

Mr. JONKMAN. Has not the President all those powers right now? Mr. BULLITT. No. If I am required to answer in one word I will say "No."

The CHAIRMAN. Take all the words you want.

answer.

Continue your