Remarks at the Dedication of a New Building at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort McNair

General Mundy, General Lernnitzer, the Chiefs of Staff of the Services, and friends of the Industrial College:

It is a distinct pleasure to come here and take part in the ceremony dedicating this new building to the service of the United States. This structure is a far cry from the humble habitation of the old Army Industrial College with which I was identified in the early thirties, just as the atomic-age curriculum of this year's class is far removed from the course of study in the college almost three decades ago.

Before I give to you the few thoughts I have--before formally dedicating this building--I think it might be fitting for me to indulge in a few of the reminiscences to which Mr. Ward has alluded, as he told you about the beginnings of this Industrial College.

I came into the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War about 1930, when the Industrial College was limping along in its course for about 7 years. Limping, I assure you, is an exaggeration of the progress it was making.

But a few civilians had a great vision. The one with whom I came in closest contact was Mr. Baruch. When I was assigned to the Assistant Secretary's Office and told that one of my principal functions would be to be a liaison with the Industrial College, because the Assistant Secretary of War was then its boss, I thought that my career in the Army had come to an end. Service people at that time looked down a very long and disdainful nose when they thought about the Industrial College and its mission--indeed, they rather thought that it had no mission.

I was impressed here today by two of the speakers talking about the quality of the officers selected now for these classes. At the time I am talking about, selection was completely in the hands of the Chief of the Supply Services of the Army, and that officer had trouble in filling the quotas. Because they did, the Industrial College became known among the knowledgeable as rather a year of rest for the poor officer who no longer was desired by his chief but who nevertheless had a long record on which he could not be classed B.

In fact, so wide was the difference of outlook on the part of those who really had the vision about the Industrial College, that the Chief of Staff, in my time, issued instructions to his general staff that they would not enter the Office of the Assistant Secretary of War, because he felt that they would, apparently, thereby be contaminated.

If I have any claim to the allegation that I have helped toward the development of this College at all, it came about by one thing: I had just come recently from the Army War College--the building right across the way--and I had found out, working under the Assistant Secretary of War and the Chief of Staff, that officers could come there only if they qualified in the very highest ranks so far as their particular and respective fitness reports and efficiency reports were concerned. Well, I thought this was a good idea, if we were going to raise the quality of the Industrial College. So I induced our bosses to say no one could come to the Industrial College as a student, unless his efficiency report in quality fell within a certain high category of priority and excellence.

Well, there was a great outcry. There were many people that were going to be taken out of some comfortable billets and we did have to make a compromise to say that those who were then currently in the school would not be fired. But from that time on, people began to realize there was a distinction to be assigned to this school. Why? Because they knew among their fellows that their efficiency reports were high and this was an advertisement that never ceased to have a great deal of effect on the character of this school.

I lived in that atmosphere, I think, until 1935, and I can tell you that even within those very few years, the change, in spite of the meager accommodations that we then had, was indeed remarkable.

Times indeed have changed. In 1930 few among us gave serious and comprehensive thought to national security. The defense budget totaled a bit over 1 percent of our gross national product. The United States Army, which included the Air Corps and the Philippine Scouts, totaled some 140,000 people. In the Armed forces even a sketchy knowledge of tactics was deemed far more important than the deepest understanding of the productive capacity of the United States. Indeed one of the purposes of the Industrial College was to bring about a firm and permanent relationship between the fighting forces and the economy on which they necessarily had to exist.

Today, national security is one of the central facts of our existence. Ten percent of our gross national product is devoted to it; over one-third of our scientists and engineers are engaged in it; half our research moneys are committed to it. into fewer than five million of our citizens are directly and wholly involved in its programs.

Thus there has been an intrusion of defense matters into our national life on a scale never before approached except in time of war. And this condition will continue until powerful aggressors renounce their aims of world conquest. Until that time arrives, our first priority task is to develop and sustain a deterrent commanding the respect of any potential aggressor and to prepare to face resolutely the dangers of any possible war.

At the same time, we of course cannot neglect the vital problems of a nation at peace. This places a heavy responsibility upon Government and especially upon those charged with the management of the human and material resources which we devote to our national security. The wise and prudent administration of the vast resources required by defense calls for extraordinary skill in meshing the military, political, economic, and social machinery of our modern life. It requires the finest understanding of how a complex industrial economy may best be put at the service of the Nation's defense so that the greatest effective use is made of resources with a minimum of waste and misapplication.

Our liberties rest with our people, upon the scope and depth of their understanding of the spiritual, political, and economic realities which underlie our national purpose and sustain our Nation's security. It is the high mission of the Industrial College of the Armed forces to develop such understanding among our people and their military and civilian leaders. So doing, we will make the wisest use of our own resources in promoting our common defense. The Industrial College has been a guidepost pointing to the greatly increased quality of our defensive capacity; it must continue to point to an ever-ascending progress for the years ahead.

This splendid structure, which now we dedicate, will enable the College to do its work more efficiently, and it is a tribute to the continuing high public esteem in which it is held. To all who had a part in making this possible, I offer my warm congratulations, and officially dedicate this College to the service of the United States of America.