The Pittsburgh Press (January 17, 1946)
Simms: Will we renege?
By William Philip Simms
WASHINGTON – Is the United States going to renege on its promises of world co-operation after this war as it did after World War I? Foreigners hope or fear it will, depending on whether they are former enemies or allies.
At Versailles, President Wilson pledged the United States to membership in the League of Nations whose covenant made an act of war against one an act of war against all. Subsequently the Senate and the American people repudiated the pledge.
This week, in London, Secretary of State Byrnes, our chief delegate to the UNO Assembly, told a cheering audience that this time the United States would give its wholehearted co-operation to the new league of nations. Yet 24 hours later, in Washington, Gen. Eisenhower was compelled, by circumstances at home and within our armed forces, to imply doubt that we would be able to make good on our promises.
U.S. mission is threefold
“The War Department,” the general said grimly, “has no intention of abandoning the mission assigned to it by the government, the Congress and the people of the United States.” But he had to qualify the assertion by adding, “so long as we have the troops to accomplish it.”
The mission which “the government, the Congress and the people of the United States” have pledged themselves to undertake is threefold.
-
It is to help – during what might be called the Armistice period – clean up the mess left by the war in Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
-
It is to occupy enemy areas for a generation or more, if necessary, and to garrison the homeland and its outposts of defense on a permanent basis.
-
It is to provide our share of the military forces deemed necessary by the UNO to police the world and preserve the peace.
The question foreigners have been led to ask, and with increasing anxiety, is: are Congress and the people prepared to see these objectives through to the bitter end? President Wilson’s pledges were heartfelt and specific. But Congress and the people turned him down. Will they do the same to Mr. Byrnes?
To implement our post-war pledges, we shall need a large and permanent Army, Navy, Air Force and Merchant Marine – large, that is, compared with the past. Will we be able to get enough volunteers, anxious friends abroad are inquiring? Today both Selective Service and volunteer recruiting combined are not adequate for replacements.
Congress lacking in courage
Congress apparently lacks the courage to provide for universal peacetime service. But even if this were otherwise, it is asked, would the American people “allow” their sons to help police the world? Would they “allow” them to fight and die, if necessary, to enforce the UNO’s decisions in areas beyond the seas? Or would there be a repetition of the present hysteria to “bring the boys home?”
“The American government, Congress and people,” it is pointed out, are going to have to make up their minds, and soon. Merely pledging a small force to act under the orders of the UNO’s general staff will not be sufficient. If the UNO attempted to put down an aggressor, and took a licking, it would have to be reinforced. The alternative would mean end of the UNO plus world domination by the victorious aggressor.
Other nations call us the earth’s strongest power. They look to us to share responsibilities of peace in proportion. If we fail them – and many are convinced that we are now showing signs of reneging – we will emerge from the war with far less than we had at the beginning. We will have only our losses in men, money and world respect for our pains. If we abdicate, observed one bitterly disillusioned veteran in a letter to the writer, it will be said that: “Never have so many fought so hard for so little!”