Evening star., 1951-05-05

# Staff on January IL? Is that
n the record?
Chairman-I am not clear, SEN
ltor. I would prefer to have the
general state it.
Senator Kefauver-I believe
hat you say the study of January
q by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
vas sent to the various commands
and that you got yours just as one
If the theater commanders; is
hat correct?
Gen. MacArthur-That is cor.
'ect, sir.
Senator Ketauver-When it was
;ent to you, was it sent to you with
any instructions or suggestions
that you look it over and advise
the Joint Chiefs what you thought
Of it?
Gen. MacArthur-No, sir.
Senator Kefauver-It was sent
TO you then
Gen. MacArthur-For informa.
tion.
Senator Kefauver-Just for your
Information?
Gen. MacArthur-Correct.
Senator Kefauver-As to what
they had recommended to their
Gen. MacArthur-Correct, sir.
Senator Kefauver - Did you
make any reply-I think that
question was asked you-to the
study that you received?
No Reply Called for.
Gen. MacArthur-This study?
No, sir, no direct reply. None was
called for.
Senator Kefauver-Gen. Mac
Arthur, you said yesterday that
Chiang's troops on Formosa would
have to be given considerable
equipment, particularly artillery
and trucks and other things of
that kind; that you recommended
that American officers or techni-
clans be placed with them for the
purpose of teaching them the use
of that equipment. I believe that
is correct.
Do you contemplate that in the
event that were done and they
made landing on the continent
Of Asia, in China, that those tech
1icians would remain with Chiang'S
troops?
Gen. MacArthur-I see no rea-
son why they shouldn't, but think
It would probably be offensive to
;he Chinese troops to have United
States personnel supervising in
hat way in combat.
Now. we are engaged, of course
in your question, I pre-
sumo, is whether it would be ad-
'iSable for American soldiers and
officers to be engaged in a war
With Red China; and we are, Sen
ator, engaged in the war now in
Korea.
Senator Kefauver-But you said,
Gen. Macarthur, you nor no one
Else had recommended that Amer
can troops actually engage in any
BART of the ground warfare on the
continent, in China proper; that
t be limited to blockade and
bombing by air and reconnaissance
~ air.
I wondered if any substantial
number of technicians actually
vent along with Chiang's troops,
what kind of situation that puts
us in.
Sees No Objection.
Gen. MacArthur-I see no OBJ
lection to it at all, Senator. It is
common practice. We have had
DUR advisers with them in the
past. We have had missions there.
We had a mission in Greece. We
nave got missions in a great many
countries. They go and advise,
'ut it does not commit us beyond
he technicality of the assistance
hat the individual can render.
don't think it would be mate
lal one way or another whether
hey went in with them or not, as
ar as the efficacy of the forces is
concerned. I can see no reason,
Why, if our air and our Navy are
ngaged against the Red Chinese,
Why the use of a few hundred
echnicians wouGa be a matter of
my serious import.
My recommendation that ground
roopS should not be committed
% China was not on the basis of
lvoiding any concept that we
we're not utilizing our force to the
maximum. It was because of the
acrif1ce that would be involved
n our forces because of our in
lbility with our bases 10000 miles
way to maintain large units of
round troops there.
1t had nothing to do with any,
hing except a military decision
hat ground troops should not be
ommitted in force-our ground
roops.
Senator Kefauver-Your con-
option is based upon the feeling
hat we do not have sufficient
roops to accomplish that pur.
'ose: is that correct?
Cites insufficient Manpower.
Gen. MacArthur-That is one
I the reasons. Another reason is
nat the manpower of those coun-
rles is sufficient; if we aid and
Sslst them in their training and
4 their supply features, they do
ot need the assistance of our
Continued on Page A-4, Col. ~