Mr. LIBBY. Senator Tydings speaks of that very well.

Mr. RICHARDS. Are you in favor of disarmament whether Russia does or not?

Mr. LIBBY. No.

Here is your speech, Mr. Chairman:

Some say the Russians would never agree to the proposals we would outline. I think that is a defeatist attitude. I do not think we know what the answer will be until the Russians act upon such an invitation. But I assume that the people of Russia, very much like the the people of the United States, are anxious to survive, to stay alive, to try to make an end to warfare. I assume they would rather have the resources of Russia not turned into tanks, ships, guns, and bombs, but into those things attached to the home which raises the living standards of the people of Russia.

Now that theory that Russia wants to survive is the basis of these two speeches of General Marshall and General Eisenhower, and it is the basis of the three speeches of Senator Tydings. They want to survive just as much as we do. And if they do, then there must be an agreement to disarm universally instead of rearm, with inspection. With inspection. Senator Tydings is very specific about that: "Inspection before, during and after disarmament," which I believe to be thoroughly sound. Now I am ready to answer questions.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Richards, have you any further questions? Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Libby, I want to make it as short as I can. I just have 5 minutes here. I hope your answers will be brief. Mr. LIBBY. I will try to be brief.

Mr. RICHARDS. You say you are not in favor of our disarming unless Russia does the same?

Mr. LIBBY. That is right.

Mr. RICHARDS. You have no formula to get Russia to do that, have you?

Mr. LIBBY. None other than the proposals in the speeches I read. Senator Tydings spoke on it again a week ago Sunday. We want to have a fresh approach to Russia. Tydings said:

We must keep discussing at the United Nations until we reach an agreement. Mr. RICHARDS. Are you in favor of the economic assistance we are giving Europe now?

Mr. LIBBY. Definitely. That is the hope of recovery.

Mr. RICHARDS. You want to continue that?

Mr. LIBBY. Lift living standards. That is the true attack on communism. Not military aid which depresses living standards. Mr. RICHARDS. Your organization is the Council for the Prevention of War?

Mr. LIBBY. That is right.

Mr. RICHARDS. Your formula for preventing war is disarmament? Mr. LIBBY. No. That is only one part of General Eisenhower's program, but it is one part of our program.

Mr. RICHARDS. But you have not any formula for obtaining disarmament?

us.

Mr. LIBBY. Sit down at the table. The United Nations.
Mr. RICHARDS. Suppose Russia will not sit down at the table with

Mr. LIBBY. Keep trying. Our Government tried on the basis of the Baruch plan which was not fair. The Baruch plan was very onesided. We had a monopoly of the atom bomb and, therefore, could dictate.

Mr. RICHARDS. You are not in favor of scrapping the atomic bomb unless they scrap their armaments?

Mr. LIBBY. All do it together, of course. the American people want.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman KEE. Dr. Eaton-

That is the only thing

Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, I have the profoundest respect and regard for the gentleman's ideals and point of view and I think he has presented his case as best it could be here. Without any disrespect whatever, in my view and knowledge of the Russian situation, I think that all of this is merely spitting in the face of a hurricane and a waste of time. No matter what we do or say the fact is that Russia's program is the conquest of the world and it proposes to do that by traitorous infiltration where possible, by arms if necessary. We have that to face. All these are very noble sentiments with which as noble sentiments I am in full accord.

Mr. LIBBY. But you do not want to take any practical step toward them.

Mr. EATON. I might take a practical step but I want someone to take steps along with me. The fact is that Russia has abandoned the

United Nations.

Mr. LIBBY. For a very obvious reason.

Mr. EATON. Our situation, apart from armaments and all material considerations, is simply this: That we are governed by certain fundamental moral concepts that have lain at the basis of our civilization for a thousand years, and we cannot abandon them without turning our back on our own history and our own life. Russia has no morals whatever, no more than a tiger. That is what we are facing. only way to face a tiger is with a gun that will kill him. Mr. LIBBY. Do you expect war?

The

Mr. EATON. I do not want to expect it but if you will tell me how we are going to escape it, sometime, I would appreciate it. It will depend entirely upon Russia.

Mr. LIBBY. Do you think Eisenhower is correct in saying that we cannot win it and nobody else can.

Mr. EATON. I have no way of judging the correctness of Eisenhower's conclusions on military matters.

We have one great nation with fabulous resources in the hands of one dictator. He has announced his policy is world conquest, using those great Russian people to accomplish that end. He will do it peacefully if he can, and by arms if it is necessary. The only way to meet that situation is to be prepared to meet it peacefully, insofar as we can, and under arms if it is necessary.

Mr. LIBBY. What do you think of universal disarmament as a way of meeting it?

Mr. EATON. I would be greatly in favor of it, but actually we would all disarm while Russia would stay armed.

Mr. LIBBY. That is not what we are advocating.

Mr. EATON. I know what we are advocating but you might just as well call a convention of tigers and have them agree that they will not kill any deer and then you will furnish the deer and the tigers will be tigers still.

Mr. LIBBY. I hope you will not run for reelection on that platform. Mr. EATON. I hope your hopes will not be realized because that is my platform and I represent a very intelligent people.

Mr. LIBBY. Yes, I know you do.

Mr. EATON. No; we might just as well face the facts. All these beautiful sentiments are wonderful but we are facing a situation of reality that there is no escaping from.

Mr. LIBBY. I feel you are too pessimistic.

Mr. EATON. I have always had great respect for a tiger.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Mansfield-
Mr. MANSFIELD. No questions.
Chairman KEE. Mr. Vorys-

Mr. VORYS. You are familiar with the fact that Senator Tydings' resolution for disarmament has three exceptions; for occupying forces, United Nations forces, and law and order forces in each country, so it boils down to just exactly what is in the purpose clause of this bill, "Regulation and reduction of armament."

Mr. LIBBY. If that is what you mean by it, I wish you would be more specific about it as he is.

Mr. VORYS. I am being specific right now.

Mr. LIBBY. I meant in your resolution or statement. I regard his three exceptions as practical.

Mr. VORYS. Yes; practical, but it is not disarmament, it is reduction of armament and regulation of armament, is that not right?

Mr. LIBBY. His proposal would wipe out all preparations for war on this planet in all countries, except the manufacture of rifles for the three purposes mentioned, and that is more sweeping than your proposal.

Mr. VORYS. He does not say "rifles" in his formal resolution so it adds up to about the same thing, does it not?

Mr. LIBBY. Small arms.

Mr. VORYS. His resolution does not say "small arms." Now, did you know that the United Nations under the leadership of the United States has been trying to carry out this policy which I have stated, to secure disarmament not only of atomic weapons but of what they call conventional armaments, and have been blocked by the Soviets? They cannot get anywhere on it. Did you know that? I went up last November to the United Nations to check for myself.

Mr. LIBBY. I know. I have been following it very closely, Mr. Vorys, as you would realize. That is my life.

Mr. VORYS. I think it is so unfortunate to give the impression that we haven't been trying to do this thing and that is where I think Senator Tydings has not been helpful, because he has apparently ignored the vast and continuous efforts that we have made to secure disarmament, with inspection.

Mr. LIBBY. But, Mr. Vorys, we have tried it on the basis of the Baruch plan for atomic weapons.

Mr. VORYS. Our conventional armaments plan went beyond that. We have sought every way that I can think of to make a start and we can't get a start. Is that not true? There isn't a glimmer of a chance. Except that the Russians come out about every 6 months or so and say "We move that everybody disarm, but no inspection or enforcement." Is that not right?

Mr. LIBBY. No.

Mr. VORYS. That is what they say.

Mr. LIBBY. They have advocated inspection.

Chairman KEE. I have never seen it.

Mr. RICHARDS. I think they have advocated inspection but they confine it to atomic production.

Mr. LIBBY. It is not quite as bad as that.

Mr. RICHARDS. They agreed to inspection of atomic production but nothing else.

Mr. VORYS. And one of the things in our proposal is to get a world law on the subject, so that an individual who violates it can be punished. We have offered in advance to withdraw our veto on that sort of punishment for violation of world disarmament law, have we not?

Mr. LIBBY. You are mistaken about

Mr. VORYS. Is that not correct?

Mr. LIBBY. How was that?

Mr. VORYS. We have offered in advance to withdraw our veto insofar as punishment for violation of world laws with respect to disarmament is concerned?

Mr. LIBBY. I haven't followed that.

Mr. VORYS. That is part of the Baruch plan.

Mr. LIBBY. You realize the Baruch plan was not fair to Russia, don't you?

Mr. VORYS. No.

Mr. LIBBY. Really?

The Baruch plan was based on our having the monopoly of the atom bomb and therefore this international commission that was to be set up, on which in the very nature of things the capitalist states as the Russians call us would be the majority, was to own and control atomic energy everywhere in the world, and secondly was to have the power of licensing its use for peacetime purposes, from now on, indefinetly into the future.

Now obviously that would limit the development of Russia. This international commission would own the actions where atomic energy was to be developed and could put them anywhere in the worldcould omit Russia if they choose, not have any there, have them in neighboring countries-they were to have the complete ownership of atomic energy production and use.

Mr. VORYS. How do you propose to limit the use of atomic bombs? You want to have atomic energy used by civilization, do you not? Mr. LIBBY. That is exactly it.

Mr. VORYS. But you want to have it made certain that it is not used for destructive purposes?

Mr. LIBBY. That is what inspection is for and that is all you can accomplish.

Mr. VORYS. How can you have it otherwise than by inspection, control, and the best way of all would be ownership so you could be sure of control.

Mr. LIBBY. That is where Russia draws the line and I should think she would, because

Mr. VORYS. Do you want to give Russia a majority vote, then? Mr. LIBBY. No, and if Russia had the majority vote, we would never accept the Baruch plan, not in a thousand years.

Here were the agreements. Trygve Lie summarized them awhile ago: The areas of agreement on atomic energy between the United States and Russia.

1. Both want to protect mankind from the use of atomic energy for war;

2. Both want to promote the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes;

3. Both agree that atomic weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction should be eliminated from national armaments.

4. Both are agreed that there should be international control of atomic energy;

5.

Mr. VORYS. But you said the Russians opposed international control because they might be outvoted.

Mr. LIBBY. No, no. No; I didn't. That is just the opposite of what I said.

5. Both are agreed there should be an international control agency that operates without veto in its day-to-day operations. That is an important point that has often been overlooked; and

6. Both are agreed that some system of inspection is necessary to help prevent violations and to discover them if they occur.

Those are the broad lines of agreement between Russia and ourselves, including inspection.

Now then the points of difference, the areas of disagreement. The majority believes international ownership and operation of all atomic energy facilities is essential. The minority believes national ownership is necessary to prevent an Anglo-American bloc from interfering with the national economy of Communist nations.

Mr. VORYS. But go on about the Security Council and the veto. Mr. LIBBY. Second: The majority believes that atomic disarmament should proceed in a series of stages, the first of which is to bring all fissionable ore as it is mined under control of the international authority. Only at the end of this series of stages would the nations having atom bombs and atomic plants turn them over to an international authority.

The minority believes that a treaty or international convention outlawing the production and use of atomic weapons should be signed simultaneously with a convention setting up-that is not so important. Then third, the majority believes that inspection should take place all the time and in fact be a part of the function of international operation that is the Baruch plan-and the minority believes that inspection should be periodic rather than all the time but states that such periodical inspection may be supplemented at any time by special investigations by the international control organization.

Now there it seems

Mr. VORYS. Now you have not come to the last, unless Trygve Lie left it out, that the Soviet reserves the veto on any actions, sanctions or other things, when inspection shows there has been violation.

Mr. LIBBY. This is your point: The majority believes that after violations are reported, either the international control agency or the Security Council should be able to impose punishment without veto. The minority believes violation should be reported to the Security Council where any punishment might be subject to veto. There you are correct.

However, I would say that if they find a nation is violating that treaty you hardly need authority-or the veto wouldn't make any difference. The other nations would go ahead just the same and prepare for war.

Mr. VORYS. So you say that the veto doesn't make any difference. The veto is what has hung up everything, as I understand it.

68542-50- 9