Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1942-12-14
Too Big an Army?

Too Big an Army?
Addressing the Massachusetts, Fed
Grafton of Taxpayers Associations last
week, Senator Truman, who heads
the Senate's Special Defense Investi-
eating committee, suggested that we
may be raising larger Army than
we can supply and transport.
This is matter which has been
the subject Of considerable informal
discussion, but the Missouri Senator's
address marks the first time that the
Governments policy in this respect
has been directly attacked by an off,
cial who has had exceptional oppor-
tunities to familiarize himself with
the facts Of the case. The position
taken by Senator Truman, however,
is subject to at least one obvious
criticism.
1T will do little good" the Senator
was quoted as saying, "to raise a
huge Army unless, consistently with
supplying our Allies with the weapons
they need, we can transport and
supply our own Army overseas. It
is even more futile to raise so large
an Army that its attempted supply
and maintenance will destroy the
essential civilian economy"
This, as far as it goes, is a state
ment which seems to be beyond sue
cessful challenge. But like so many
broad congratulations, the implica-
ton Of the statement rests on a
premise which is of very dubious
validity. If it were fact that the
Army, as presently constituted and
as planned, is too large to be supplied
and transported, then the Senator's
contention would be unanswerable.
But Senator Truman offers no facts
to support this assumption, and the
probabilities are that 1t cannot be
supported when all the evidence is
taken into account.
To begin with, in matter of this
kind, the judgment of our military
authorities ought not to be lightly
set aside. Better than Senator Tru-
man or any one else, they know the
dimensions Of the job that the Army
has to do, and the extent to which
we can rely upon our Allies for effec-
tive combat troops. In their view Of
the matter it is just as dangerous, if
not more So to undertake to fight the
war with an Army too small to- in
sure victory as it is to put our civilian
economy in jeopardy by attempting
to raise and maintain too large an
Army.
Thus, the essence of the question
is whether the Army in contempla-
ton can be maintained by the work.
ing force which will remain after the
military demands have been salts
fed. Naturally, in such a matter,
there is room for difference Of opin-
ion. Yet there is one point in sup
port of those who advocate a large
Army which should be obvious to all,
but which was ignored by Senator
Truman. and that concerns the con-
tinuance Of the 4O-hour week.
Speaking before the same group,
Senator Byrd said that the military
reverses which we have suffered
would not have occurred had the 40
hour week been repealed after the
fall OF France. And Undersecretary
OF War Patterson, in a statement
last week, said that frightening of
the overall work week from the
present average Of slightly less than
43 hours to 48 hours would have the
effect of increasing the labor supply
by a million and half workers.
Whether the armed force that the
military authorities want to raise
could be supplied even with a 49,
hour week is, of course, a debatable
question. But 1t would seem evident
that no responsible official should
advocate reduction in the contem-
plated size of the Army until, for the
duration, we forget about our social
gains" and make a serious effort to
find out what can be done with a
civilian working force whose work.
week is adjusted to the realities of
war.