Evening star., 1950-12-24
Invitation to Disaster


to call upon the National Security Council as
rebuttal witness is a measure of the seriousness
with which the administration views Herbert
Hoovers call for retreat from Western Europe.
(The Security Council says such retreat could
lead only to surrender or defeat)
Mr.. Acheson and the others have good reason
to be deeply concerned with the Hoover speech.
For it was an appealing statements speech
which was bound to evoke a warm and en-
thusastic response from millions of Americans.
But it was also speech which may well have
contained within it the seeds of our own destruc-
ton, and it is proper, therefore, to examine and
re-examine it.
When Mr.. Hoover said that he spoke with
sense of deep responsibility" he was wholly
sincere. He has passed that point in life when
men may be tempted by some hope of personal
advantage, when partisanship seems worthwhile
merely for the sake of partisanship. In The Stars
opinion, Mr.. Hoover spoke as an American citizen
whose sole concern in these dark times is to serve
the best interests of his country. Nevertheless,
this newspaper believes that the course which the
former President has advocated is course
which, if followed at this time, can lead us only
to disaster.
When the speech Is boiled down to its essence,
Mr.. Hoover is saying that we should pull back
from Europe unless the Western Europeans build
for themselves defense capable of turning back
Russian attack. If anything is certain, 1t is
that Europe, without our vigorous assistance
and support, will never erect such a defense.
And the alternative, in MIR. Hoover's opinion, ia
to arm ourselves to the teeth and maintain our
oh defense, with the Atlantic and the Pacific
as our outward bastions
The first trouble with the advocacy Of such
point of view is that it tends to frighten the
Europeans into doing nothing. without our
help, they cannot and will not fight in any
effective manner. If they do not fight, If they
do not erect what Mr.. Hoover calls "sure dam"
against Communist aggression, the overwhelming
probability is that Russia will take over Western
Europe What then?
Mr.. Hoover does not advocate that we fight in
such an eventuality, but rather that, while
pursuing our own rearmament, we adopt watt
and-see policy
What we should expect to see is Russian
exploitation and development Of the skilled man
power and the industrial resources of Western
Europe. Instead of having 100 million people
aligned with us, they would be working for the
Russians. Mr.. Hoover says there is no more
danger that the Russians could invade Wash
ington than that we, with land armies, could
reach Moscow. That is quite true. But what
about the ability of Russia, once the resources
of Western Europe are at her disposal, to launch
an all-out, devastating atomic attack on this
country? All that Mr.. Hoover says on this point
is that the atomic bomb is far less dominant
weapon than 1t was once thought to be. Maybe
SO. But the prospect of living for an indefinite
future under the constant dread Of an over
powering atomic attack is not an attractive one.
At best it leaves with the enemy the initiative,
the choice of the time and means of attack. And
at worst, it invites the prospect that this country
might be destroyed without any effective chance
to fight back.
Mr.. Hoover seems to think that his proposal
offers hope, after the initial preparation of re-
duced expenditures, a balanced budget, and free
dom from the dangers of initiation and economic
degradation. The Star fears that this is the
sheerest wishful thinking. We would be faced,
for one thing, with loss of our foreign trade.
That might not be too important. What is i'm
portant is that, as the Russians increased their
military strength after the conquest of Western
Europe, we would have to increase ours. We
would never reach the point where we could sit
back and say that we are strong enough that we
do not need more and newer weapons. Instead,
we would have to live indefinitely in an armed
camp and that, even without actual war, would
sap our resources, cancel out our freedoms and,
finally, bring on the economic degradation
against which Mr.. Hoover warns
Mr.. Hoover cautions in eloquent terms against
appeasement But that which he proposes actu-
ally WOulQ De CIle greatest aCC dppedSenle0C OF
all It is true that if Western Europe does not
take every possible step to insure its own defense
we probably will have to fall back to the line
which MIR. Hoover wants us to occupy. But it
would be ghastly mistake to beat such retreat
unless and until it becomes clearly necessary.
The sensible thing for us to do is to try by
every feasible means to encourage and help the
Europeans to stand up to the common enemy.
If they refuse to do that, then we must fall
back But let us not abandon this battle until we
have really tried to fight it.
Many of the people who respond favorably to
Mr.. Hoovers counsel are also admirers of General
Macarthur. Perhaps this is good time to recall
some advice that he has given.
More than decade ago. when another ruthless
enemy threatened the civilized world, General
Macarthur wrote to friend: "The history of
failure in war can almost be summed up in two
words: Too Late. Too late in comprehending
the deadly purpose of potential enemy too late
in realizing the mortal danger; too late in pre-
paredness; too late in uniting all possible forces
for resistance; too late in standing with ones
friends
That is the advice of one of our ablest military
commanders. So let us not be too quick to
abandon our friends and prospective allies in
favor of standing alone.