NOMINATION OF COL. WILLIAM FRANKLIN KNOX FOR SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1940 UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a. m., in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator David I. Walsh (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Walsh (chairman), Tydings, Bone, Byrd, Gerry, Holt, Ellender, Lucas, Hale, and Johnson. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, gentlemen. At the request of several members of the committee and also at the request of Colonel Knox himself, he having expressed a desire to have an open meeting, the committee decided to hold the meeting open. Colonel Knox, will you come forward, please? STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM FRANKLIN KNOX The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, will you give your full name, please? Colonel KNOX. William Franklin Knox. The CHAIRMAN. Your residence? Colonel KNOX. Chicago, Ill. The CHAIRMAN. Your occupation? The CHAIRMAN. Your age? Colonel KNOX. Sixty-six. The CHAIRMAN. You used to live in New Hampshire? The CHAIRMAN. When did you leave New Hampshire? Colonel KNOX. 1931. The CHAIRMAN. You have been in Chicago since that time? Colonel KNOX. Since that time; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Colonel, is there any statement you desire to make to the committee before we ask you any questions? Colonel KNOX. Senator, if you will be so good, I naturally want to offer my public statements and editorials, and a chance to define a speech I made in Cleveland, Ohio, on October 24, 1939, last fall, shortly after the outbreak of the war, and then define my views on the war threat briefly. I will ask you to indulge me to read 1 some excerpts from that speech, and then buttress that with a few editorials which elaborate and enlarge on this speech in Cleveland. This is only an excerpt of the speech on the subject Our Economic System in Peace and War. The invitation to address the chamber of commerce came before the war was declared. The speech had to be rewritten after the first attempt to include war conditions, and this, as I say, is an excerpt from it: I am one of those who refuse to believe we will actively participate in this new war-certainly not to the extent of sending an army overseas. And if we do not do that, all these trumped up fears of a wartime dictatorship and the destruction of both our democratic institutions and our free enterprise economy are fantastically unreal. I think we are, all of us, too much disposed to compare conditions in the United States now at the outbreak of the second World War with conditions as they were in the United States 25 years ago. They are totally different. The most striking difference lies in the fact that, as a nation, we know much more about war in Europe and our relations to it now than we did then. First of all we are infinitely more wise and disillusioned in 1939 than we were at the outbreak of the other Great War. We have lost something of the rather naive idealism which possessed us then. We are not so susceptible to slogans designed to build up a war spirit. We are far more familiar with the international practices of other nations. We are more realistic. We know now that we actually went to war in 1917 because Germany was killing our people and treating our rights on the high seas with contempt. With the wisdom that comes from experience, we know that the phrases, "a war to preserve democracy," or "a war to end all wars" were afterthoughts-rhetorical incitements to our war spirit. We will not fall for this form of incitement so readily again. We are far more in the mood to heed the wise words of Washington who, in his Farewell Address, adjured us in disputes with other nations to think of our own country first. So much for the contrast of our state of mind in 1917 and in 1939. On the material side, we know that war, even a victorious war, does not contribute to national well-being. We know now what happens to war profits. We are thoroughly aware of the economic consequences, even of victory. We know to a certainty that we are better off if we remain at peace than if we go to war. So much for the contrast of our economic thinking between those days in 1917 and the days we are living through now. One would be lacking completely in candor and frankness to fail to say at this point that despite the change which has come over our attitude toward active participation in war in Europe, enlightened opinion throughout the country, in overwhelming proportions, opposes and detests both the philosophy and practices of Hitler and his Nazis in Germany. We may, or we may not, support the pending proposal for the repeal of the arms embargo, but whatever our posture on that question, the American people as a whole do not fear the effects upon ourselves or our institutions of a British-French victory. And we do gravely fear the effects upon us of a German victory. But despite these pro-British and pro-French sympathies, we must, if we are wise and intelligent Americans, think first of the interests of the United States, and what policy best serves those interests. To that we should give our undivided, united support. That is exactly what every other country in the world is doing. Now, thinking of our own country first, surely entails, primarily, putting ourselves in such a state of readiness for whatever danger may be threatened that we can successfully protect and defend our rights. In a world upset and demoralized as this one unfortunately is, to do less than this is to be false to our first obligation under the trust imposed upon us as the guardians of American liberty and American institutions. How can we do this? Let us first give thought to our unusual geographic position in the world. We have the priceless possession of an insular position. Our insular position is not like that of England, dependent upon a narrow strip of water, easily bridged by air. It is provided by two wide oceans. Air transport, no matter what developments the future may bring, will never have sufficient carrying capacity to be a real menace to our security, provided we control the seas upon which warships might, conceivably, bring great air armadas within striking distance of our shores. If, by our sea power we can control the sea lanes, both Atlantic and Pacific, no enemy, no matter how powerful, in the air or on the land can ever successfully invade the Western World. It is of the very essence of our self-protection that we develop our sea power until we possess, incomparably, the strongest Navy in the world. We now have a fleet second to none, and with the imminent additions to its striking power, we will soon have the greatest Navy on any ocean the world around. But we must continue to build until none can doubt our defense is sure. We have dug the Panama Canal, enabling us to employ our full might on either ocean, and we are now establishing adequate defenses in the Canal Zone against successful attack there. But we must not be satisfied with a fleet dominant in only one ocean at a time. We must build-and as quickly as possible-a fleet in both oceans the equal of any that could be brought against us in that particular sea. Such a two-ocean Navy, with the Panama Canal available to us, would make us safe. If we do this, we can live our lives secure from clashing ambitions, struggles for balance of power, and contests for economic dominance among peoples overseas. We have been committed for generations to the Monroe Doctrine. The preservation of that Doctrine is more vital to our national security now, than when it was enunciated. We cannot be safe here in the United States, unless we are secure in the entire western world against the communication hither of the disease which now sweeps both Europe and Asia-the madness that drives people to seek dominance over other peoples through force, and which imposes on the victim of their arms, a regimentation of their lives destructive of all freedom and liberty. What has all this to do with a discussion of the free enterprise system? Because behind the shelter of sea power we can dismiss from our minds the fear of land war on a huge scale. If we have made approach by sea impossible, neither Europe, nor Asia, can bring hither an army that would even remotely threaten our security. With security guaranteed by sea power, we will never be called upon to wage war on a scale which subordinates the enjoyment of our liberties, and the pursuit of our free enterprise system to the needs of a national defense. With such a Navy as I have described, we would never need more than a moderate sized Regular Army of 300,000 men this was said, you must remember, last October supplemented with a well-trained, well-equipped National Guard. This would give us a first line defense on land of 600,000 men, all that we require to supplement our naval forces. Such a Navy would require a personnel of not more than 200,000 men. Thus, we would have to withdraw from our civil pursuits, not more than a half million men, in both Army and Navy, in order to be safe. This would be no draft whatever on our possible manpower. It would provide no reason whatever for a dictatorial, totalitarian control of industry and business. We could live behind the shelter of that sea power, as free men, and enjoy to the full, the advantage of a free enterprise system under which we have made the most amazing progress of any nation in the world. The CHAIRMAN. Does that complete your statement? Colonel KNOx. There are several items that I might elaborate by editorials in the course of the intervening time. The first one was printed on September 7, 1939, entitled "Keeping Us Out of War." Senator TYDINGS. Colonel, are these personally written editorials? Colonel KNOX. These are editorials written personally by myself. This editorial is entitled "Keeping Us Out of War." Franklin Delano Roosevelt once met a grave national crisis magnificently. Senator LUCAS. What is the date of that editorial? Colonel KNOX. September 7, 1939, shortly after the outbreak of the war.. In March 1933 the people of the United States faced what seemed to many a total collapse of our economic system. The very pillars of the temple of American welfare appeared to be crumbling. No one felt safe. Fear was rampant. And out of the dark clouds of paralyzing doubt came a clear, brave voice, rallying the people from their despair, exorcising their fears, and uniting some excerpts from that speech, and then buttress that with a few editorials which elaborate and enlarge on this speech in Cleveland. This is only an excerpt of the speech on the subject Our Economic System in Peace and War. The invitation to address the chamber of commerce came before the war was declared. The speech had to be rewritten after the first attempt to include war conditions, and this, as I say, is an excerpt from it: I am one of those who refuse to believe we will actively participate in this new war-certainly not to the extent of sending an army overseas. And if we do not do that, all these trumped up fears of a wartime dictatorship and the destruction of both our democratic institutions and our free enterprise economy are fantastically unreal. I think we are, all of us, too much disposed to compare conditions in the United States now at the outbreak of the second World War with conditions as they were in the United States 25 years ago. They are totally different. The most striking difference lies in the fact that, as a nation, we know much more about war in Europe and our relations to it now than we did then. First of all we are infinitely more wise and disillusioned in 1939 than we were at the outbreak of the other Great War. We have lost something of the rather naive idealism which possessed us then. We are not so susceptible to slogans designed to build up a war spirit. We are far more familiar with the international practices of other nations. We are more realistic. We know now that we actually went to war in 1917 because Germany was killing our people and treating our rights on the high seas with contempt. With the wisdom that comes from experience, we know that the phrases, "a war to preserve democracy," or "a war to end all wars" were afterthoughts-rhetorical incitements to our war spirit. We will not fall for this form of incitement so readily again. We are far more in the mood to heed the wise words of Washington who, in his Farewell Address, adjured us in disputes with other nations to think of our own country first. So much for the contrast of our state of mind in 1917 and in 1939. On the material side, we know that war, even a victorious war, does not contribute to national well-being. We know now what happens to war profits. We are thoroughly aware of the economic consequences, even of victory. We know to a certainty that we are better off if we remain at peace than if we go to war. So much for the contrast of our economic thinking between those days in 1917 and the days we are living through now. One would be lacking completely in candor and frankness to fail to say at this point that despite the change which has come over our attitude toward active participation in war in Europe, enlightened opinion throughout the country, in overwhelming proportions, opposes and detests both the philosophy and practices of Hitler and his Nazis in Germany. We may, or we may not, support the pending proposal for the repeal of the arms embargo, but whatever our posture on that question, the American people as a whole do not fear the effects upon ourselves or our institutions of a British-French victory. And we do gravely fear the effects upon us of a German victory. But despite these pro-British and pro-French sympathies, we must, if we are wise and intelligent Americans, think first of the interests of the United States, and what policy best serves those interests. To that we should give our undivided, united support. That is exactly what every other country in the world is doing. Now, thinking of our own country first, surely entails, primarily, putting ourselves in such a state of readiness for whatever danger may be threatened that we can successfully protect and defend our rights. In a world upset and demoralized as this one unfortunately is, to do less than this is to be false to our first obligation under the trust imposed upon us as the guardians of American liberty and American institutions. How can we do this? Let us first give thought to our unusual geographic position in the world. We have the priceless possession of an insular position. Our insular position is not like that of England, dependent upon a narrow strip of water, easily bridged by air. It is provided by two wide oceans. Air transport, no matter what developments the future may bring, will never have sufficient carrying capacity to be a real menace to our security, provided we control the seas upon which warships might, conceivably, bring great air armadas within striking distance of our shores. If, by our sea power we can control the sea lanes, both Atlantic and Pacific, no enemy, no matter how powerful, in the air or on the land can ever successfully invade the Western World. It is of the very essence of our self-protection that we develop our sea power until we possess, incomparably, the strongest Navy in the world. We now have a fleet second to none, and with the imminent additions to its striking power, we will soon have the greatest Navy on any ocean the world around. But we must continue to build until none can doubt our defense is sure. We have dug the Panama Canal, enabling us to employ our full might on either ocean, and we are now establishing adequate defenses in the Canal Zone against successful attack there. But we must not be satisfied with a fleet dominant in only one ocean at a time. We must build-and as quickly as possible-a fleet in both oceans the equal of any that could be brought against us in that particular sea. Such a two-ocean Navy, with the Panama Canal available to us, would make us safe. If we do this, we can live our lives secure from clashing ambitions, struggles for balance of power, and contests for economic dominance among peoples overseas. We have been committed for generations to the Monroe Doctrine. The preservation of that Doctrine is more vital to our national security now, than when it was enunciated. We cannot be safe here in the United States, unless we are secure in the entire western world against the communication hither of the disease which now sweeps both Europe and Asia-the madness that drives people to seek dominance over other peoples through force, and which imposes on the victim of their arms, a regimentation of their lives destructive of all freedom and liberty. What has all this to do with a discussion of the free enterprise system? Because behind the shelter of sea power we can dismiss from our minds the fear of land war on a huge scale. If we have made approach by sea impossible, neither Europe, nor Asia, can bring hither an army that would even remotely threaten our security. With security guaranteed by sea power, we will never be called upon to wage war on a scale which subordinates the enjoyment of our liberties, and the pursuit of our free enterprise system to the needs of a national defense. With such a Navy as I have described, we would never need more than a moderate sized Regular Army of 300,000 men— this was said, you must remember, last October supplemented with a well-trained, well-equipped National Guard. This would give us a first line defense on land of 600,000 men, all that we require to supplement our naval forces. Such a Navy would require a personnel of not more than 200,000 men. Thus, we would have to withdraw from our civil pursuits, not more than a half million men, in both Army and Navy, in order to be safe. This would be no draft whatever on our possible manpower. It would provide no reason whatever for a dictatorial, totalitarian control of industry and business. We could live behind the shelter of that sea power, as free men, and enjoy to the full, the advantage of a free enterprise system under which we have made the most amazing progress of any nation in the world. The CHAIRMAN. Does that complete your statement? Colonel KNOX. There are several items that I might elaborate by editorials in the course of the intervening time. The first one was printed on September 7, 1939, entitled "Keeping Us Out of War." Senator TYDINGS. Colonel, are these personally written editorials? Colonel KNOX. These are editorials written personally by myself. This editorial is entitled "Keeping Us Out of War." Franklin Delano Roosevelt once met a grave national crisis magnificently. Senator LUCAS. What is the date of that editorial? Colonel KNOX. September 7, 1939, shortly after the outbreak of the war. In March 1933 the people of the United States faced what seemed to many a total collapse of our economic system. The very pillars of the temple of American welfare appeared to be crumbling. No one felt safe. Fear was rampant. And out of the dark clouds of paralyzing doubt came a clear, brave voice, rallying the people from their despair, exorcising their fears, and uniting |