Mr. LIBBY. The Russians gave up the veto upon day-to-day decisions.

Chairman KEE. You said just then that the other party would go ahead and prepare for war.

Mr. LIBBY. I say other nations would probably do that if Russia was violating.

Mr. VORYS. Your plan is that the United Nations breaks up as soon as a violation occurs, because the nations proceed unilaterally, or under article 51, to go to war, because obviously Russia is going to veto.

Mr. LIBBY. That is not my plan. That is what I say would undoubtedly happen. However, my point is that there is a basis for negotiation and that is what Mr. Eaton denies. I say there is a basis. for sitting down at the table and seeing if we can work out a method of living together in the same world. We are not going to accept the Russian point of view and they are not going to accept our ideology. But the Moslems and the Christians have learned to live in the same world and even in the same villages. The Catholics and Protestants at one time burned each other at the stake but they now get along together in the same world.

Chairman KEE. Mrs. Bolton

Mrs. BOLTON. I am very much interested in the last, particularly, in what you have said. Yes, the Arabs and the Moslems and the Christians and the Jews and the Jains and the Buddhists and all the rest of them have all lived together. Why? Because they all believe in God.

Mr. LIBBY. Do you think that is why?

Mrs. BOLTON. I know that is the reason why. So do you.

Mr. LIBBY. I know they believe in God.

Mrs. BOLTON. They have learned how to live together. You have just said so. I am just quoting you.

But not the Russians-I do not mean the Russian people, but the Kremlin, the Communists. If you are a Communist, you have to take an oath that you do not believe in God.

Now is that the kind of a world that you can envisage? Is that not Armageddon in itself? Is that the kind of people you feel will ever sit down with us? Why should they?

Mr. LIBBY. You mean war is inevitable.

Mrs. BOLTON. No, I don't mean that at all.

Mr. LIBBY. I think that is the logic of your thinking.

Mrs. BOLTON. Not at all, sir. I believe implicitly that eventually those who disbelieve in Deity will destroy themselves. The question is, how much are we as belivers in Deity, and as responsible to Him for our stewardship in the world, how much are we going to permit them to destroy?

Mr. LIBBY. Permit? You mean, how would we prevent it.

Mrs. BOLTON. Your discussion is all on the Baruch plan, apparently. Mr. LIBBY. How would we prevent it?

Mrs. BOLTON. The Baruch plan is based, as you speak of it, on the fact that we had the atomic bomb when that plan was brought forth. Well, that is out the window.

Mr. LIBBY. That is out the window. You are correct.

Mrs. BOLTON. So the Baruch plan doesn't enter into anything that should be discussed at this moment.

Mr. LIBBY. Good. I am glad to hear you say so. window.

It goes out the

Mrs. BOLTON. I am simply quoting, sir. If the Baruch plan was based upon the fact that the Russians did not have the atom bomb, we know that they have had it for at least a year; we know also, Í hope, that when it is possible for one human being to open up mysteries of God's universe, it is just as possible for another human being somewhere else to open it up. It is perfectly senseless to think that we can have some knowledge that others do not have.

Mr. LIBBY. Right. And you are saying then that a fresh approach to Russia is possible.

Mrs. BOLTON. I am not saying that at all. I am saying what we are up against is an Armageddon of the spirit. And how great is our responsibility to the Infinite? Christ went into the temples with a whip and turned out those misusing the area. There is not always an attitude of "Let anybody walk over you; let anybody do anything they want," there is a responsibility to Deity. Mr. LIBBY. You do not mean that Generals Eisenhower and Marshall would let other people walk over them?

Mrs. BOLTON. I am not talking about Generals Eisenhower or Marshall. I am talking about you and me, and I am talking about this committee and its responsibility to the Congress and to the United States; I am talking about, if you wish to say just Christians, all right, the Christian responsibility to the Almighty.

Also, I have spent a very great deal of time in the study of the strategy, tactics, and principles of communism. I have read Lenin. I should advise very strongly, Mr. Libby, that in the interests of peace, you also would read Lenin, Trotsky, and others.

Mr. LIBBY. What books?

Mrs. BOLTON. I will be very glad to give you the report my subcommittee was responsible for which will give you the best of the reading matter.

Mr. LIBBY. Thank you.

Mrs. BOLTON. I shall be very glad to see that you have it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Zablocki

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I have a question which is probably a little removed from the present discussion.

However, listening to Mr. Libby-and I know it is not the intention of his organization but I was deeply impressed how the organization could provide an excellent foundation for a Communist front.

What steps has your organization taken to prevent the Communist sympathizers from infiltrating into your organization? Mr. LIBBY. I did not get your name, Mr. Congressman. Chairman KEE. Mr. Zablocki.

Mr. LIBBY. First of all, our membership is a corporation of about 160 members. We have no popular membership. We have about 10,000 people who take my bulletin, Peace Action, which you get in the mail every month. Then we are supported by American contributions, with the Quakers being the backbone of our support-I am a Quaker-but there has been no Communist infiltration in the peace movement as a whole, insofar as I have been able to prevent it, and in my organization, none. We are 29 years old, remember. Our

organization was founded in 1921 and during all that time we have succeeded in preventing Communist infiltration.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. You do not authorize any affiliates?

Mr. LIBBY. No. We had at one time 30 member organizations. We did have 30 member organizations, up to about 1937 or 1938, and then our member organizations dropped off. But among them there were no Communists.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. You are aware, however, there are councils for the prevention of war which are forming, whose membership may be questionable.

Mr. LIBBY. Not under that name. That name is copyrighted. They cannot take this name. This is our name. Have you seen any in the papers? Prevention of World War III.

There is a Council for the

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I have heard several commentators who have called attention to the fact that there were councils for the prevention of war springing up throughout the Nation whose membership is questionable. That is the reason for the question.

Mr. LIBBY. They are no branches of ours because we haven't any.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman KEE. Mr. Smith-

Mr. SMITH. No questions.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Fulton

Mr. FULTON. I try to be open-minded on these things. I am looking for the right answers on this. I must say we have given you every credit for a wholesome approach and you are intelligently trying to reach the results we are all aiming for. The question is the method.

As various situations come up, the approach of individual Congressmen is much different. As you can see from the various parts of the country represented, the viewpoints among individuals themselves vary, even on the mutual defense assistance program.

Mr. Vorys read to you what this committee placed in the law as a declaration of policy in the mutual defense assistance program. This committee specifically took the program and policy out of the military aid program field to which your statement refers.

The program is no longer the MAP, it is the MDAP. This means the mutual defense assistance program. Could I then point out that the exact language, "mutual defense assistance program," is the language Russia uses in referring to her agreements with other states whom she is helping economically and militarily, so there can be no objection on either side to the other having a mutual defense assistance

program.

I was surprised to hear you agree as to Korea that today you are willing to have our aid program there continue. In the previous mutual defense assistance program, we had included funds for military aid to Korea, in addition to the economic aid for Korea.

If you would not change the policy for Korea in view of recent events, what, then, do you make as the distinction between that case and other places where such events have a danger of immediately occurring? Why do you not have the same position with regard to other places where there is immediate danger, especially when this mutual defense assistance program in no case to date, during many months of the program, has resulted in aggressive action, but exists merely as a bland defensive force?

Mr. LIBBY. Your question is a fair question. My answer would be this: With respect to not changing tomorrow or today on a program on which we have made commitments, it is a question of national honor. I don't see how we can abandon a nation which we have just assured of aid. That it seems to me would be dishonorable.

Now the question about the program as a whole, the policy as a whole, it seems to me that we are becoming terribly overextended. We are practically undertaking to police the world. It is so easy for the Soviet Union to bring pressure on this correr, on this spot, or pressure on that spot, and then we have to rush aid there, and as Senator Flanders has been saying over in the other House, there is great danger that we will be bankrupt if we keep on guaranteeing the security of all nations against Soviet Russia. I would like to reverse the policy and move in the other direction.

In

Mr. FULTON. Some of us would like to reverse the policy and move toward disarmament if we found cooperation on the other side. So you say "Let us continue to try to get Russia to cooperate.' order to take such a step you must have some first place to go. Whom, as a person, would you suggest we get in touch with? Mr. LIBBY. The United Nations is the agency through which this can be achieved and I was glad to see in the papers a day or two ago that Mr. Frank Nash, our representative on the conventional armaments committee, is proposing you couldn't tell from the clipping in the paper the whole scope of his proposal, but that he was proposing a far more general disarmament plan than our Government has sponsored hitherto, and I am hoping he will go as far as Senator Tydings has proposed. First, Senator Tydings says the two committees should be combined-conventional armaments and atomic armaments -because if Russia were to accept our proposal to control atomic weapons, and not to control conventional armaments, the United States is left in a very bad situation, because Russia has conventional armament and not so many atomic weapons, and therefore we would lose in that arrangement and probably the American people would not accept it. So he says the two committees should be combined, all armaments should be dealt with in one program, and I think he may be proposing or may be planning a proposal for general disarmament. I hope so.

Mr. FULTON. Could I finish by agreeing with you in part. I do not think that the concept of this program, or the area of reference within which it should operate-that is the mutual defense assistance program should include any field where we are carte blanche backing any regimes in any countries against Russia, where there are regimes those countries don't particularly want and that are decadent regimes. I think you would agree with that, too.

Mr. LIBBY. We have been on the wrong side two or three times, and are now.

Mr. FULTON. That is all, sir.

Chairman KEE. Does anyone have a further question weighing heavily on his mind?

Mr. FULTON. May I say to Doctor Eaton that he is one of the best peacemakers I know on this committee, and I do not want it to appear for the record he is crying for war. He is aiming for peace. Mr. LIBBY. He misrepresented himself, didn't he?

Mr. EATON. I just want to make the matter very clear that when a victim stands in front of a tiger, I do not think it is necessary for him to ask the privilege of making a short address on cruelty to animals before the obsequies take place. That is the world situation at the present time. Russia is a monster of power, absolute in its government without any moral restraint whatever. We are governed by morals, idealism, and by humanity. The question is whether the tiger or the victim will survive. I am in favor of the victim, myself. Mr. LIBBY. Under those circumstances, the only kind of agreement that will be kept will be one that is mutually advantageous to both sides and that is why I think the Baruch plan was a failure, but I think as Mrs. Bolton has said, a plan can be proposed that will be fair to both sides. A nation keeps a proposal that is to its advantage. Mr. EATON. In our negotiations, we are prepared to admit advantages to the other side of the negotiation. Russia is never prepared to admit any advantages except to the Kremlin government.

Chairman KEE. I would like to ask you, Mr. Libby, whether or not you would be in favor of us yielding to Russia on a point upon which there seems to be now complete disagreement, that is, yielding to them the right to veto any punishment of any nation violating an agreement in respect to atomic power? In other words, if on inspection it is found that a nation has violated its agreement and the United Nations proposes to punish the nation that violated it, can we afford to have Russia step in and veto the proposed action? Do you think we should concede that point and give Russia the veto?

Mr. LIBBY. I would call that utterly immaterial when the conflict reaches that point, that the veto or acceptance of it is not significant, because the nations would begin to arm at once if they found the other nation was cheating. That I just take as a realistic appraisal of what the situation would be.

Chairman KEE. If we had an agreement under which the veto was not permitted, the United Nations could certainly take sanctions against any nation who violated it.

Mr. LIBBY. They would anyway, wouldn't they?

Chairman KEE. They coulda't do it if such a proposal was vetoed. Then there would be no use at all in making agreements. We would be in the same situation.

Mr. LIBBY. When it reached that point I believe we would reach the same situation.

Chairman KEE. I am frank to say I do not understand your position. Mr. LIBBY. I am sorry. I have done the best I could to make it clear.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a brief executive session.

Chairman KEE. We thank you very much for coming up.

Mr. LIBBY. You have been very generous.

Chairman KEE. The committee will go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee proceeded in executive session.)