Evening star., 1951-05-29

clared, "I don't think that I dis
agreed with any policy. I was ex-
lplaining a result from military
action. I was not advocating it..
Il made a statement. and as
I believe it today that statement
is factual when you consider the
point of time to which I was
talking"
The witness explained that "at
that time the United Nations
forces were up close to the Yalu." !"
There was very little distance
between the Yalu and the front
line where air power could oper-
ate against them, and I was SIM
ply making a factual statement
that when that condition occurs
your airpower is relatively inef-
fective."
Taking up the questioning at
this point. Senator Knowland,
Republican, of California queried
the general about Air Force losses
in Korea compared to Communist
losses.
Gen. Vandenberg agreed with
the Senator that the figures pub
lished earlier this month indi-
eating 212 Allied planes lost. COM
pared to 149 enemy aircraft were
probably correct"
General Explains Losses.
The witness explained:
1.-The Communist air forces are
Operating generally between 5 and
10 miles south of the Yalu and
have no connection with our
ground forces.
Our air power is assisting the
front line troops. going into the
face of very heavy ground fire,
ground flax, and small arms fire.
They are operating at practically
tree-top level where almost a
hand grenade can bring them
down, and the losses that we get
in addition to that are the losses
when we deliberately go up along
the Yalu River and are exposed to
attack along the river
| In addition he said the figures
are explained by the fact that
allied air forces fly more than soc
times as many missions as the
: enemy.
before the committee yesterday
Senator Gillette, Democrat, oi
Iowa questioned the witness fur
ther on his views as to U. N. OBJ
jectives in Korea. He said ht
had been disturbed by Gen. Van.
denberg's discussion with Senator
Bridges. Republican, of New
Hampshire on what victory il
Korea would mean.
Gillette Questions Debate.
Il was tremendously perturbed,
Senator Gillette said, when &
l great Senator, the senior on tht
= minority side of the Senate Armed
' Services Committee. and a mem.
Der of the Joint Chiefs of Stat
should be questioning one anothel
= as to what the objective was il
= -1this Korean conflict and both O.
them protesting that the,
= did not know what was meant b.
r winning-what was the objective
:. Nov. if there is that uncer
tainty in the mind of a membe
: of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and /;
= great United States Senator, wha
can we expect from the genera
: public that is committing their re
" sources and their sons to this con
). f1ict?"
: Gen. Vandenberg testified yes
terday that he believed "our OBJ
ljective is to kill as many Chimes
: Communists as is possible withou
). enlarging the war at the presen
, = time in Korea"
4 Senator Bridges complained tina
5 he hadn't been able to find ou
!; what our objective is" in Korea
o Today, Senator Gillette questione,
!; the Air Force chief on his earle
S statement to the committee.
: Minimum Objective Clarified.
d Gen. Vandenberg-I should hav
!, added. to that. Senator, and I ap
preciate you calling it to my at
: tention, that the. minimum OBJ
). Jectives, of course, is to establisl
the status quo, where at least tn
1t South Koreans have an opportu
> nifty to re-establish themselves an,
"lpush the aggressors north.
:, Senator Gillette-By the statu
|. quo, you mean the status gu
y ante?
Gen. Vandenberg-Yes, sir, tina
,; would be the minimum objectiv
in my opinion.
s The witness then launched int
a discussion of the possibility O
a creating balance of power" in
t stead of completely destroying ou
s enemies.
: For a long time, he said, Grea
!. Britain held the balance of power
= = and thereby kept the peace in
s world that was, let us say, in a;
: explosive condition over perio
3 Of a great number of years. The
N have had a great deal of expert
er ence with this balance of powe
n. business, and they (believe) ths
- there are two ways of going abor
ag establishing peace in the world
O. Forrestal Supported Theory.
= Gen. Vandenberg added paren
IS. thetically that II often used
OF hear Secretary Forrestal tai
n about this theory, and / am a
advocate of. what he believed" ]" .
One type of victory, he sait
- - would be one which completed
wipes out the potential of coun
1T try to engage In war for perhar
w. many years.
S, There is another complete vic
g. tory that is a combination of
A.