Evening star., 1949-10-31
Four Points in the Nays Behalf.

Four Points in the Navy's Behalf.
To the Editor Of The Star:
Although fortunately have no part in the
Battle Of the Pentagon," may presume on
IS years Of active naval service to comment
mot without partisanship) on some minor
aspects Of this controversy?
First. there seems little justice in the COM
mon assumption that the Navy's original
opposition to unification was improper, and
hence discredits any subsequent objections
to the way it has worked out. A Department
OF National Defense is not ipso facto sacro-
sanct conception. It is right only as it
proves itself to be. If opposition to its
adoption were In any degree discreditable.
then 1t Is discreditable whenever any mi
nority unsuccessfully opposes the adoption
OF some measure in which it honestly dis
believes.
Second, dissatisfaction with an existing
plan or organization does not imply either
an attempt to sabotage it or a peril to its
ultimate success. The Navy opposed the
original unidcation measure because it
feared the very things which it now asserts
are coming to pass. Yet there are many
naval officers who long have believed that a
Department Of National Defense is logical
even II in some ways unpalatable, and all
OF them know that there now is not the
faintest chance of reverting to the old
system Of two or three wholly independent
armed services. Is it then really sabotage
Tor one service to point out and seek correc-
ton OF what 1t considers faults in the exist
ing mechanism; or should it ignore ominous
KNOCKS and rattleS and proclaim that every
thing is lovely and without need Of adjust
ment or change?
Third, why should the Navy's doubts over
the potentialities of the B-36 be considered
an unwarranted attack on q sister service?
Olo not both the Army and the Air Force
gang up against the Nays proposed biz
carrier? Regardless of who was right or
wrong technically. rule Of etiquette that
applies to one service should apply to all.
Fourth dhough q minor matter), why
should SO many commentators and editorial
writer's refer hissingly to "The Admirals."
as If the Nays officers of flag rank consti-
tuted sort Of sinister camarilla instead of
the legitimate leadership Of q great organ
lzat1on? II there be such an entity as s'The
Adm1rals," then why not "The Generals'
also? Any belief that the former are less
representative Of their whole service than the
latter Is wholly wrong. You could poll NAVY
opinion from top to bottom, you could nnd
dlsapproval OF some Of the ways in which
the Navys case has been presented, but you
aiso wouid discover that II the Navy men
VINO nave spoken the truth as tlev saw A.
are Fancy Dams" (whateyer that Isl. "a were
the Navy men who died all the way from
peari Harbor to Okinawa. and 50 would
~ s-l0 per cent OF the Nayy's present per-
sonnel wish to be. RALPH c. PARKER,
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.),
Hard Words Tor Defense Heads.
To the Editor Of The Star:
So Admiral Denfeld has been purged ON
Navy Day! Is this the manner In which we
show the Soviet Union how democracy
works? Shame on Bull johnson and Row
boat Matthews! And beware, Columbia, of
small men In high places!
FRANK ADAMS.
Retaliation "Too Terrifying"
To the Editor of The Star: 3
Admiral Denfeld has been removed after
Congress was given assurance from Secre-
:ary Matthews that there would be no
retaliations.
It Is dificult to realize that such q thing
artua11v enllId hory,ey, In mir and of <tnA