MINUTES SATURDAY, MAY 16, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met in executive session at 10:30 a.m. in the committee room. Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Hickenlooper, Ferguson, Green, and Mansfield. The committee continued consideration of the Mutual Security program. The witnesses were: C. Tyler Wood, Associate Director, Mutual Security Agency; Stanley Andrews, Administrator, Technical Cooperation Administration, Department of State; Arthur Z. Gardiner, Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs, Department of State. For record of proceedings, see printed hearing. The committee recessed at 12:30 p.m., to meet again on Monday, May 18 at 2:30 p.m. (405) MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 18, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D.C. The committee met in executive session at 2:30 p.m. in the committee room. Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Smith, Green, and Mansfield. The committee considered chapter V of the proposed mutual security bill, relating to multilateral obligations. Witnesses were: C. Tyler Wood, Associate Director. Mutual Security Agency; D. A. Fitzgerald, Deputy to the Director for Mutual Security; Stanley Andrews, Administrator of Technical Cooperation Administration, Department of State; and Edwin M. Martin, Office of the Secretary for Mutual Security, Department of State. For record of proceedings, see printed hearing. The committee recessed at 4:20 p.m., to meet again on Tuesday May 19 at 10 a.m. (406) 1 MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1953 1 [Editor's note: In January 1953, President Truman recommended to Congress: a $7.6 billion program for mutual security in fiscal year 1954. After lengthy study of the matter, President Eisenhower recommended on May 5 that the program be reduced to about $5.8 billion. This reduction was effected largely by further major cuts in nondefense items in the program and by the "stretch out" of military deliveries, the aim being to gear the mutual security effort to the "long haul"-to a pace that could be maintained for some years without disrupting the economies of the free nations, including that of the United States. An exception was made for the Far East, however, funds requested for that part of the world being increased by $1 billion over the preceding year. The Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the program in open and closed session from May 5 until May 29. The markup began on June 5 and an original bill, S. 2128, in the form of amendments to the Mutual Security Act of 1951, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, and the Act for International Development, was reported to the Senate on June 13. On June 15, the Senate referred the bill to the Armed Services Committee, which reported it back on June 18 with several amendments. The Senate passed the bill on July 1, substituting the text of its bill for the House version, H.R. 5710, passed on June 19. The conference report was filed on July 10 and passed the House and Senate on July 13. The bill was signed into law as P.L. 118 on July 16. One other matter bears mention: On June 1 the President sent to Congress his Reorganization Plan No. 7, which abolished the Mutual Security Agency (MSA), created the Foreign Operations Administration (FOA) in its stead, and transferred the Technical Cooperation Administration. (TCA) from the State Department to the new agency. The plan was referred to the Committee on Government Operations and went into effect 60 days after transmittal when Congress took no action to disapprove it.] TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a. m., in the caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Wiley (chairman), Smith of New Jersey,. Hickenlooper, Taft, Ferguson, Knowland, George, Green, Fulbright, Sparkman, Gillette, Humphrey, and Mansfield." Also present: Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Kalijarvi, Mr. O'Day, Mr. Marcy, and Mr. Holt, of the committee staff. Maj. Gen. George C. Stewart, Director, Office of Military Assistance; and Brig. Gen. J. J. O'Hara, Deputy Director of Military Assistance Division. [The committee met at 10:30 to hear General Ridgway in open session. The hearing room was cleared at 11:30 and the meeting resumed in closed session at 11:35.] The CHAIRMAN. All right. The meeting will come to order. 1 See appendix D. STATEMENT OF GEN. MATTHEW B. RIDGWAY, SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER EUROPE General RIDGWAY. Thank you, sir. My intention now, sir, is to present further information and evaluation which may guide your thinking on our vast problems of defense, and I am speaking again in the same role as before, both as the international and U.S.commander in Europe. What I have to say does not alter my premises nor my conclusions of the morning session, but it will give you a great deal more classified documentation and background, and the reasons behind my major observation. THE SOVIET THREAT First of all, the Soviet threat: You will recall I mentioned this morning that the U.S.S.R. itself has some 175 to 180 army divisions, in their army, and some 20,000 aircraft. Of these, 134 army divisions and approximately 15,000 aircraft or 75 percent of each, are disposed in areas facing the allied command Europe. By facing my command, I mean these forces are located in the occupied countries of Eastern Europe, and in the western and southern areas of Russia. The Navy has more than 350 submarines, including an estimated 125 ocean-going submarines in the European fleet. While the number of divisions in the Soviet Army has remained the same since the end of the war, their combat effectiveness has been considerably improved; the troops are well-fed, well-trained and disciplined. Soviet equipment is considered adequate both qualitatively and quantitatively. In some respects present Soviet weapons, such as their armored vehicles, heavy mortars and artillery possess excellent combat characteristics. In the air, the Soviets have made significant progress in reequipping their forces with high performance jet aircraft, and in increasing overall combat efficiency. The Mig-15 is-a jet fighter-a good airplane and, as an interceptor, is generally the equal of our F86F, although the F86D, which is now in production, is considered to be superior to the Mig-15 in practically all respects. The airfield construction program in east Europe, which began in 1948, has advanced well beyond the needs of air units currently deployed in that area. There are over 100 major air fields with runways 6,000 feet or longer completed or under construction in Eastern Europe. In addition, there are well over 200 second-class airfields, a great many of which are either fully operable or maintained on a standby basis. The Soviet Navy continues to increase its strength in ships and submarines, and to improve the quality of its naval aviation, with emphasis going to the submarines. Soviet forces are considered combat-ready to undertake large-scale offensive operations, and with their adequate logistical support of the armed forces of their captive. nations not as yet fully prepared. SATELLITE MILITARY POWER Nonetheless, the most ominous situation in Europe today is the continued growth of satellite military power. At the end of 1950 there were 59 divisions; there are 75 today. The air forces of these captive nations now possess some Soviet-made jet aircraft. Their armed forces have grown far beyond the needs of the task of maintaining Communist power in each country. While possibly only a third of their divisions could participate in an aggressive campaign, the other divisions which would constitute a reserve at the present time, are gradually acquiring combat capabilities. These divisions are organized, trained, and equipped, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, along Soviet lines, and even some of their commanding officers are Russian. The U.S.S.R. has furnished the armed forces of these captive nations large amounts of equipment and materiel, including some of the best the Soviets have to offer. To insure the trusted leadership to conduct the military activities of these forces, the officer cadres have all been purged of doubtful personnel. As a further safeguard, Soviet military advisers have been sent to organize, to train, and to direct the political indoctrination. It seems reasonable to assume that the Soviets have knowingly taken a calculated risk in re-equipping these forces, and, therefore, must consider them worthy in any future war of the expense they are incurring. At the present time, the industrial and military mobilization capacity of the U.S.S.R. is such that the present 175 to 180 Soviet army divisions could be increased to 320, 30 days after mobilization. NATO REQUIREMENTS There is the threat which I and my principal commanders must be prepared to meet. It is an essential element in the development of our plans, both our availabilities plan and our requirements plan. The requirements plan is the source of the determination of the requirements in terms of divisions, ships, aircraft, and supplies. As I indicated earlier today, the military estimate of the minimum. requirements to meet the threat are under constant review. In reappraising the military situation, the NATO Military Committee agreed at its April 18 meeting in Paris on the following minimum requirements up to D plus 30: 14013 divisions; 3,347 vessels, and 12,314 aircraft for the defense of the NATO area, less North America, against the initial Soviet threat. Of these totals, the requirements for the Allied Command Europe is this: 100 percent of the divisions, 25 percent of the vessels, and 80 percent of the aircraft. PROGRESS SINCE 1950 I should like now to discuss with the committee, the progress which Allied Command Europe is making toward meeting these require72-194-77-vpl. V-27 |