industry. Since the industry is composed of about four major segments it would be well if the material presented were arranged, for example, to indicate what would be expected of the electronics industry, of the heavy industrial electrical equipment industry, of the facilities of the electrical appliance industry and so on. While naturally there are elements of security in this field, nevertheless, a good deal of information already appears in trade papers, and trade association publications on contracts on which the Government wants bids. It would, therefore, seem that a considerable amount of very concrete and specific infor mation could be given to this conference without violating security.

(b) Utilization of plants for defense

The Munitions Board should further indicate its policies and activities in securing the widest possible utilization of all plants in the industry and solicit the recommendations of the committee on how this might be made most effective. If difficulties are being encountered in securing bids from segments of the industry, the committee should be informed.

(c) Coordination of defense needs with civilian cut-backs

This part of the program should be handled by both the Munitions Board and the NPA. The aim should be to have the time chart of the growing defense needs discussed in terms of the cut-backs in civilian production due to limitation orders. In this connection also, and in line with point (b) the problem of temporary unemployment in the industry, the question of elimination of nonessential uses of scarce material and the matter of making firm allocations to essential civilian uses should be discussed.

(d) Supply of scarce materials

The NPA and the Interior Department should be called upon to indicate what is being done to increase the supply of scarce materials, the difficulties that are being encountered and what measures are being taken to overcome them. It would be most useful if a supply-demand balance chart for each of the major scarce materials were presented to the committee with an indication of how both the supply and demand are expected to change over a coming period. In this connection, the ESA should be called upon to indicate what it is doing in terms of price controls and other stabilization measures to insure that gra markets, speculation, etc., do not merely channel materials to those who will pay the most. The NSRB program on plant expansion both of scarce materials and of manufacturing facilities should be laid before the committee. (e) Manpower requirements

The Manpower Defense Agency should be called upon to indicate its estimate of the manpower requirements to meet the defense needs for this industry for the coming period, the difficulties that are likely to be encountered and what steps are being taken to overcome them, particularly it should indicate the measures being taken to draw into the labor force people not now in it. The question of training, upgrading, movement of workers from less essential to more essential industry, the effect upon industry of selective service demands the program for area labor-management committees. The manpower agency should indicate also what difficulties they may encounter in necessary recruitment based on pension problems and possible wage inequities as between workers in various industries.

(f) Internal security

The Munitions Board and/or representatives of the armed services should outline the present internal security policy which they pursue in defense plants, the problems raised by them and solicit the advice of the committee on how these measures could be made most effective,

4. CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

Since it is unlikely that the committee in the time allocated could come to detailed conclusions on each one of these topics, it is recommended that the committee attempt on each one to formulate a general position and then to leave to a small task committee in cooperation with the Government representa tives to formulate more detailed conclusions. It is recognized, of course, that these are advisory to the Government.

The task committee should be prepared to give whatever time is necessary immediately upon the adjourning of the main committee for formulating the

detailed recommendations. It would probably be advisable for the main committee to be recalled again within a reasonable period of time to review the progress made and to reassess the situation and to formulate further recommendations.

TEN YEARS OF COMMUNIST CONTROL OF UE

(International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (CIO), Washington, D. C.)

"The hold of the Communists on America's electrical industry is the hold of Soviet Russia. It is communism in action-now. It is not an historical danger; it is a present danger!"

"The Communist Party has gained a strong foothold in one of the Nation's most strategic industries: The electrical industry. It dominates the largest labor union in that industry-the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America. It has seized control of its national office, the executive board, the paid staff, the union newspapers, and a number of its district councils and locals" (from the report to Congress by a special subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, December 14, 1948).

1939

COMMUNIST PARTY LINE

Up to August 1939 the Comintern and its affiliated Communist parties attacked Hitler as a warmonger and Nazism as barbarism. The American Communist Party, among others, demanded international boycotts and blockades. President Roosevelt during this period was a great democratic leader who had singlehandedly won United States recognition for Russia.

But in August 1939 the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed, and Molotov on that occasion remarked that "Fascism, after all, is a matter of taste." World War II began just one week later with the Nazi invasion of Poland. The American Communist Party line quickly reversed itself along with the Communist Parties of all other countries. For the next year and a half-until June 22, 1941—

UE LINE

The UE's attitude toward Hitlerism up to August 1939 was the same as the Communist Party's. UE News in its first issue of 1939 praised the idea of an embargo on Germany and told readers to write their Congressmen about it. On January 14 the paper carried a critical story on forced labor in Germany, and on March 25 it reviewed Hitler's promises of nonaggression and deplored the rape of Czechoslovakia the week before. On May 13 it vigorously attacked the Japanese invasion of China.

The attitude of UE toward FDR was also identical with the Communist Party's. On January 21 the UE News praised him for rejecting Republican attempts to cut relief appropriations. On March 4, an editorial proclaimed him as "labor's friend" and as "one of the chief defenders of our democratic institutions."

The wholesale approval of FDR was climaxed on July 8 with a full-page editorial demanding a third term. The editorial declared that the President's foreign policy and national defense program "meets with the approval of the great majority of Americans."

UE

The UE line also flip-flopped following the August Hitler-Stalin Pact. UE quickly took the position that it is not our war, but a profiteers' war. News found that "Labor in America, watching the sorry sight, is watchful lest our own tories involve us in the conflict" (September 23). On September 30 the UE News in a full-page editorial, titled "Let's Do Our Fighting

1939-Continued

COMMUNIST PARTY LINE-Continued the Communist Press of all nations was filled with attacks on British and American leaders. The war was denounced as an "imperlialist war" and Roosevelt became a warmonger." Aid to Britain and the other allies was violently opposed, as were proposed amendments to the neutrality law which would permit England to purchase munitions.

1940

The Communist Party's antiwar and isolationist line was continued and intensified during 1940. The vilification of President Roosevelt as a warmonger and dupe of British imperialism reached new lows. Throughout the country the Communist Party held countless "peace rallies" and "keep America out of war" meetings. There were "Marches on Washington" and numerous petition campaigns. Lend-lease plans were denounced as were moves to modify the neutrality act. Aid to Britain of any kind was opposed. One piece of propaganda was particularly pushed by the Communist Party, a pamphlet titled "The Yanks Are Not Coming" written by Mike Quin, a west coast Communist.

UE LINE-Continued

Here," declared that "The war that is going on is no exception to the rule tha wars are fought for money. America: labor wants no part of this fishy wa The first war was phoney, too...." For the rest of the year the UE News praised the fight of the isolationists in Congress and on November 11 attacked Congress for making the U. S. "the ar senal of the world." The administra tion was condemned by UE News as "Bomb Peddlers" and an editorial on November 25 contended that it was sti a "phoney war."

All through 1940 the UE's line on the war and on aid to the Allies was a strict echo of the Communist Party position. This also led to attacks on President Roosevelt. For example, January 13 a 5-column editorial in UE News denounced "FDR's Budget as Blow to New Deal" and charged that "The forgotten man has yielded to the man in uniform as the chief object of concern on the national administra tion." On January 20, UE News said that "national defense" is a "gag." On January 20 UE officials in District signed a proclamation declaring that "The Yanks Are Positively Not Com ing." The only voice in the UE News raised against isolationism was James Carey's column which assailed appease ment. Throughout the year, in numer ous news stories and editorials UE News denounced U. S. foreign policy and aid to the Allies. The theme of this campaign can be found in an editorial on May 18 which discussed the war and decided, "All this talk about saving de mocracy is the bunk." Isolationists in Congress were praised by UE News even though they had antilabor records. On February 24 UE News devoted a full page to the Communist pamphlet, "The Yanks Are Not Coming" and praised it as a "history making" publication."

On May 25, a 3-column UE News edi torial noted that the Congressional program of aid to the Allies was called "a defense of democracy." The editorial concluded, "Except for its name there is nothing of democracy in it." Another editorial on June 8 called it "artificially induced war hysteria" and praised Senator Burton Wheeler for his opposition to the "war party."

1940-Continued

The most active Communist front during the first seven months of 1940 was the American League for Peace and Democracy. But with the signing of the solved they promptly switched to the

UE Officials were prominent in the American League for Peace and Democracy. When the League was dis

1940-Continued

COMMUNIST PARTY LINE-Continued Hitler-Stalin Pact in August, the League was quickly killed. To replace it in terms of the new Party line, the Communists created the American Peace Mobilization. Thereafter the White House was picketed with signs declaring "The Yanks Are Not Coming" and the American Peace Mobilization sent numerous delegations to Washington to exert pressure on congressmen who agreed with Roosevelt on aid to England and the Allies.

1941

Up to June 22, 1941, the Communist Party line on the war and on President Roosevelt was a continuation of its 1940 position. The national defense program was damned incessantly. FDR was denounced for leading the country into war, and aid to England was violently opposed. The Communist Party and all its front organizations lobbied against lend-lease, against the loan of arms to England, and every other move in or out of Congress designed to assist England and stop the Nazi world conquest.

The Communists, as might be expected, were heartily in favor of strikes in defense industries all during this pe

UE LINE-Continued

new Communist creation: American Peace Mobilization. Emspak, for ex ample, became a member of the na tional council of the American Peace Mobilization which was declared subversive by the U. S. Attorney General

The UE line carefully followed the Communist Party line up to June 1941, and when the Party line somersaulted on that date the UE line somersaulted with it.

On January 11, UE News attacked FDR's message to Congress asking for increased defense funds and aid to the Allies. On January 18 an editorial as sailed legislation giving the President authority to lend U. S. materials to England. On January 11 Emspak at tacked Sidney Hillman for serving as a member of the National Defense Advisory Committee.

On January 25, UE News devoted full page to the American Peace Mobilization, the Communist front which had Emspak on its national council. The American Peace Mobilization was picketing the White House up to the very day that Hitler attacked Russia-on which date the pickets were hurriedly called off.

On March 8 an editorial in UE News condemned Lend-Lease legislation. Ironically within four months this lendlease legislation was to prove the sal vation of Soviet Russia.

On May 17, UE News editorially criticied President Roosevelt for allegedly betraying his own pledges to the people. On June 17, just five days before Hitler's invasion of Russia, MeLeish attacked the Defense Mediation Board and assailed Carey for defending it.

On June 7, the UE District 6 Council declared, "It is becoming clearer every day that the heat is on to wind up a drive to push us into war, being con ducted by big business interests who stand to profit and by the Administra tion of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Republican and Democratic parties."

Despite the fact that Philip Murray instructed the strikers to return to work, the UE supported the North

་་