is asking for additional powers to back him up in his constitutional position; not additional powers so much as a definition of how he wishes to use the powers that he has as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

There are times when unified authority and command are absolutely essential to swiftness and efficiency of political and military action. Something that is effective tomorrow may not be at all effective next week. And there never was a moment in our history more acute than this one. If Britain falls, this amount of centralized authority will not do for the situation we shall have on our hands in this country. We shall then be right up against the life or death of the American Republic, in my opinion.

That is all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to say that it is against the rules of the committee to show any demonstration or approval on one side or the other. Of course I know it is very nice. I have felt like applauding myself.

Mr. FISH. Miss Thompson, I listened with much interest to your very able statement. I would like to know if you are in favor of our participation in the war?

Miss THOMPSON. Mr. Fish, I am in favor of preserving the freedom and independence of the United States of America, without war if possible, with war if necessary.

May I answer a question that you asked the gentleman, which he did not answer?

Mr. FISH. I would rather have you answer my questions.
The CHAIRMAN. You may do that.

Miss THOMPSON. If you wish me to go into it further I think we still have a chance of winning this war without fighting with actual belligerence in Europe, and I am counting on that chance, but not 100 percent; that is personal opinion. It is not the opinion of others. Mr. FISH. Would you be in favor of our going to war to prevent the invasion of Ireland?

Miss THOMPSON. Mr. Fish, you ask rhetorical questions which are difficult to answer. I would be in favor of our going to war under certain circumstances. I am not in favor of our going to war tomorrow morning. I think that if we mobilized our industrial, economic, and political resources, that we can win this war without going to war. I think we have gone to war, in one sense of the word, already. I don't think that we are neutral, if you call that going to war. This is a very weird world. There is not any war in China, you know, as far as that is concerned. I would like to answer the question that you asked of the gentleman, because I think it is

Mr. FISH. I am perfectly willing if the committee is.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Miss Thompson will be permitted to answer the question.

Miss THOMPSON. The question that Mr. Fish asked was whether any act of agression has been committed against this country by Germany. I think it is a very interesting question. I answer the question.

If you think in terms of the modern revolutionary tactics of warfare; yes, sir. The Germans have organized in this country uniformed military groups for the purpose of changing the Government of the United States. I call that an act of aggression.

We haven't got anything in our law against it-
Mr. FISH. You favor going to war, then?

Miss THOMPSON. No; I am not in favor of going to war, Mr. Fish, if we can save our freedom and independence by not going to war. Mr. FISH. Do you make any difference between acts of aggression between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany?

Miss THOMPSON. I am not afraid of Soviet Russia and I am of Nazi Germany, that is the difference.

Mr. FISH. The reason I asked you, Miss Thompson, the question about Ireland, was because you referred to Ireland.

Miss THOMPSON. I think the occupation, the German occupation, and the use of the British Fleet from the west coast of Ireland would be very serious for us, that is why I referred to it. They will bottle up the Channel ports, and they will occupy the west coast of Ireland and take bases there. That happens to be the nearest place facing us. That is why I think it is important, not because I have any particular love or hate toward the Irish.

Mr. FISH. My question was, therefore, if they did this thing, which you referred to, would you be in favor of going to war?

Miss THOMPSON. That would depend upon the political-you cannot answer a question like that. It would depend upon-no, Mr. Fish, you can let me give you an illustration. I sat in the office of the Prime Minister of Hungary, 6 months ago, and I said, "What are you going to do, Mr. Teleki, if the Germans send you an ultimatum tomorrow morning?" And he said, "I will answer you honestly. I do not know. It will depend upon the exact military and strategical and political position of the moment."

Now, that is the only way one can answer that question.

Mr. FISH. Do you believe in underwriting the war policy of Great Britain without knowing what it is?

Miss THOMPSON. I don't believe in underwriting anybody's policy. I believe in our making a policy of our own, which Great Britain, 1 am quite sure, will be willing to underwrite, since she is just as dependent on us as we are upon her.

Mr. FISH. Just one more question, Miss Thompson. You were quoted in the Washington Post, of the 20th of last month, as saying this:

I would not lift a finger to save the British Empire as presently constituted, nor restore a Balkanized Europe in order to destroy Germany.

Miss THOMPSON. Correct. I do not believe the British Empire as at present constituted can survive the next 20 years. I don't believe that that Balkanized Europe ever was desirable, although we helped to make it.

What was the other thing that I said?

I think we have got to make a new order in this world, and I do not want to see Germany divided and destroyed.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you in favor of this bill?

Miss THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. You think it is necessary that it should be passed speedily?

Miss THOMPSON. Very.

Mr. JOHNSON. You think that aid to England is necessary for our own self-defense?

Miss THOMPSON. Absolutely.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all.

Mr. EATON. I have no questions. I will allow Mr. Tinkham to conduct the examination. He understands the situation better than I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You are very modest, Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tinkham.

Mr. TINKHAM. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shanley?

Mr. SHANLEY. I am very much interested in your idea of a Balkanized Europe because from what I gather, you think the economic logic of Europe is free trade from the Baltic to the Black Sea through the Danube, and you are against anything that has been done under the Versailles Treaty, but how much can we allow those things to interfere with our prompt, speedy, and effective aid to England?

Miss THOMPSON. Well, gentlemen, I only think that if this country would get clear in its mind a policy for Europe, that that would in itself be an immensely effective instrument. I don't blame the British for not publishing peace terms. They are fighting absolutely for their lives, and they don't know what they are going to have, but I believe that some concept of what might emerge in Europe and in North America would be an enormous political instrument in helping to win this war, because we have hundreds of millions of allies with us in Europe itself. They are looking to us.

Mr. SHANLEY. Are we, however and it would please me if you would sit down, because you are going to force me to stand too, and I do not want to stand-are we delaying in any way our aid to Britain by attempting to discuss these things?

Now, you know that when Mr.. Balfour came over in 1917 it was suggested that he discuss with Mr. Wilson, and he was promptly brushed aside, how much are we interfering with that?

Miss THOMPSON. I do not think that we should delay our aid at all, because if Britain falls then there is no good in even talking about peace. It will be dictated to us as well as to everybody else. Mr. SHANLEY. Thank you.

Miss THOMPSON. By that I mean our economic life will be dictated to us insofar as it is not entirely self-sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. Miss Thompson, I agree with you that it is the overwhelming sentiment of the country to aid Great Britain. I think that you can see our position in wanting to get the facts and not the theories as to what should be done and why we should do these things. I wonder if you could give us some of the names of some of the authorities of which you spoke, who have given you information from foreign countries?

Miss THOMPSON. Mrs. Rogers

Mrs. ROGERS. Or send it to us for our private consumption, if you do not want to give them publicly?

Miss THOMPSON. If you will read the works of Mr. Rosenberg, or Mr. Goebbels, or Mr. Darre, if you will read the military and economic journals of Germany, you will see what sort of notions and plans exist.

That I could send you-I could send you enormous excerpts from German writings, to prove my point, and it would take me some days to get them together, in form. I have also personal information which I cannot very well divulge.

Mrs. ROGERS. That is the information that I hoped perhaps you could give us. I have read your writings, Miss Thompson, of course, as do a number of people. I have enjoyed your very brilliant writing, and I have enjoyed your statement today, and in that statement you said that, I think, you could not prophesy, did you not say?

Miss THOMPSON. I did prophesy.

Mrs. ROGERS. In your book, I Saw Hitler, published in 1932, you write of having seen Hitler in 1931.

Miss THOMPSON. I know, Mrs. Rogers, and you are going to say I said Hitler would not come to power in Germany. I did, and I made a colossal error, very largely because people just like you told me it was impossible. All of the best authorities said so. It is a long time. ago, Mrs. Rogers. I have not made any serious mistakes about Hitler since then.

Mrs. ROGERS. And you said when you saw this man, Hitler, as an equal, between Hindenburg and Bruening, involuntarily you smiled and said, "Adolf, Adolf, you will be out of luck."

Miss THOMPSON. Nobody has ever read that whole article. Hand it to me and I will read you the end of it. It is really not apropos, but in that article I was describing my own reaction. I certainly thought Mr. Hitler was one of the most unprepossessing little men that I had ever seen, and I ended it-I said

The CHAIRMAN. We want to be fair to the witness. We can give the book to the witness, where the witness has been asked a part of the question, and Miss Thompson, especially, she should have the book.

Miss THOMPSON. Mrs. Rogers is casting doubts upon my reliability as a witness, and this little book which was an article republished is really a description of my personal reactions to Mr. Adolph Hitler, which are not historically of any particular importance, but in it I said what passed through my mind. I said, when I went into the room, I was sure he was going to be dictator of Germany, and when I looked at him 50 seconds later I changed my mind. It was my mistake, a great mistake, but this book ends by saying, by summing it up, it has a lot of pictures which interfere with the text:

Once in power, will he risk another French invasion? promises to a revolutionary working class-

What will become of his

and then it goes on, so forth, and so forth; and then I have said:

Perhaps the drummer boy has set loose forces stronger than he knows. If so, what will come after it?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to comment on that?

Miss THOMPSON. I only wish to say that I was very wrong in this article in 1931.

Mrs. ROGERS. We all want to seek the light.

Miss THOMPSON. But not quite as wrong as I am quoted as being. Mr. ARNOLD. Miss Thompson, you said that France was ineffective because she could not make up her mind whether to make a deal with Hitler or not. Well, she finally made a deal with Hitler, did she not? Miss THOMPSON. She was defeated and accepted an armisticethat's one sort of deal.

Mr. ARNOLD. And your concern is that this country should not have to make a deal under like circumstances, I assume?

Miss THOMPSON. My concern is that this country should not lose its power in the world, and get into a position where it will have to appease- "appease" incidentally is a good old word found in Mr. John Jay's third paper of the Federalist Papers; he used the word "appease" exactly as we use it today, in giving a reason why the States of America should unite and, therefore, become strong enough together to resist having to appease.

He uses exactly those words, and gives an illustration, that in a certain year, I have forgotten the year, the Doge of Venice had to go to the Court of Louis the XIV to appease him because he was not strong enough to resist him.

If a country gets into a position where it is absolutely incapable of taking any offensive action, well then the whole power is in the hands of the offensive. If we have learned anything from this war, we have learned that, I should hope.

Mr. ARNOLD. That is all.

Mr. BURGIN. Miss Thompson, do you see any hopes for a just peace in Europe at this time?

Miss THOMPSON. Not now, but eventually certainly; and even perhaps before an outright British victory. I do not see any hope for a just peace in Europe alone, Mr. Burgin, I see only a hope for a just peace in a reconstruction of Europe and our relations with Europe, which have been unsettled since the beginning, which have led to this constant intervention and retreat. We have got to settle the relations of North America and Europe These are the two most highly developed industrial continents of the world; about 90 percent of all of the technology and industry of the whole world is in western Europe and North America. They are part of one civilization, and we have got to work something out between us that will hold water. The fact that we have another war in less than one generation is a terrific indictment of our own policy, because we emerged from the last war stronger than any other single nation. We had the whole power in our hands, but we have just done nothing with it, and this war is a proof that we have not, or it would not have occurred.

We should have stayed together with Britain then or stood together with the League of Nations, but if we had stood together with at least the Atlantic States and England this war could not have happened.

Certainly we have got to reconstruct something very much better, but I do think it can be done; the whole of Europe is dying for it to happen.

Mr. BURGIN. You do not mean to say, though, that Hitler would agree to a just peace with Britian at this time?

Miss THOMPSON. No, never, but it is not written in the cards that Mr. Hitler has got to stay there forever. I mean if you get a situation whereby there is even a stalemate, whereby the others can intimidate Mr. Hitler instead of Mr. Hitler constantly doing all the intimidating, then you can talk turkey. You cannot talk turkey when all of the poker chips are on one side of the table.

Mr. BURGIN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Miss Thompson, there is no peace offensive such as you describe going on now, is there?

Miss THOMPSON. There is none openly. There is a great deal of discussion going on, for instance in the British press, and particularly