 The World Honored Watch is Long Jean. Long Jean watches have won ten World Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals and more, honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Long Jean Wittenall Watch Company. It's time for the Long Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Long Jean Wittenall Watch Company, maker of Long Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittenall, distinguished companion to the world-honored Long Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Long Jean Chronoscope? Editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for the evening is the honorable Harry P. Cain, United States Senator from Washington. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Cain, our audience knows you, sir, as a vigorous critic of our Korean War policy. Now, do you feel that the American people are being deceived by the Korean reports? Well, I do not think the word deceived is the correct one. It is not my view that the administration is attempting to deceive our nation. It is my conviction, however, that the administration has made no attempt worthy of the name. To explain the nature or the danger or the length of time American and Allied forces are likely to be involved in Korea. Well, I'm sure that our audience would like to use tonight, sir, to explain just how they are not being given the proper impressions. Now, let's take the matter of our own casualties. Do you think our people realize the extent of our casualties in Korea? Well, I'm certain that they aren't, and I'm not clear as to the reasons why. In the last three or four months, one has generally found it necessary to refer to the middle sections of our American press to determine our American losses. It is singular and completely distressing to me that each and every day we can find with no trouble at all on the front pages of our papers, exactly and precisely the number of enemy individuals we have either killed or wounded, and that gives to me a feeling of great distress because in order in part to get this war over with, we must convince America that Americans in two great numbers are losing their lives, the most precious manpower we have. How about our air losses, Senator? Do you think that we can trust the newspapers as far as these figures are concerned? Are our losses greater or less? Well, I'm satisfied that we can trust the newspapers. That is to say, it seems very clear to me that the newspapers would only run what has been given to them by official forces and sources within our government. We have been singularly fortunate so far in the minimum character of our air losses. But what distresses any student of the war in Korea is that because month after month after month, the Allied forces have made no attempt of any kind or character to destroy the enemy's air ability to destroy us. We have permitted the enemy to build up a potential which may overnight increase our air losses a hundredfold. Now, sir, about the enemy's potential, how many airplanes do you think that the Reds now have opposing us in Korea? I can give you no personal opinion. I can only give you what comes to us from authoritative sources. I think it's no military secret. That conclusion and estimate is that in the last nine or ten months, the enemy aircraft strength has probably increased from about a hundred to something in excess of several thousand. Now, you mean to say that nine months ago, perhaps they had a hundred airplanes and now we are opposed by several thousand airplanes? I think that is approximately correct. Now, is there also a comparable buildup of troops against us? There is a comparable buildup of enemy personnel, ground strength in Manchuria. What is the most disturbing factor within Korea itself is that since the ceasefire talks a hundred months ago and then broken off to begin again just the other day, that the enemy has taken advantage of that unexpected and unusual opportunity to send in enemy armor, enemy artillery, enemy missiles, enemy flamethrowers. How about his airfields? Does he have those in Manchuria or does he have a lot of them in Korea? Well, an interesting question I take it for granted that he has but very few in Korea because we have had supremacy of the air in Korea. No American, and isn't that an ironic thing, has the slightest idea, actually, as to the number of enemy airfields in Manchuria because the Yellow River is a screen behind which we, though we're involved in one of the greatest, bloodiest wars in all of history, do not dare to venture and to look. Now, Senator, you're saying that, number one, we are now opposed by many more aircraft. We are opposed by a much stronger enemy than we were when the ceasefire talks began. Is that correct, sir? Permit me to turn it around in substance. It's exactly the same thing. If the prevailing ceasefire talks do not result in a ceasefire, it stands to reason that as a result of the continuing enemy buildup, our war against our enemies, the North Koreans and the Red Chinese in Korea will be ever so much more difficult to win on the field of battle than would have been the case four or five months ago. Do you think that ceasefire is a deliberate tactic on the part of our enemies? It is my best view that a ceasefire on the terms which the enemy has been offering, at least by indirection in the last several months, would be of tremendous advantage to them and in the eyes of a large part of the world, particularly the Far East, the resulting ceasefire on the enemy's terms would be construed to be conclusively a victory for our enemies. Well, Senator, tell me, would you be in favor of using the atomic weapons in Korea? I have for many months said publicly what I think any person desirous of reaching a military conclusion would say that the supreme commander in the field ought to be given the authority to use every conceivable tactical weapon possessed by his country and atomic energy is certainly in that class. Now, Senator, I'm sure that our audience would like you to list first what would you do if you were given the power now? What would you like to see our professional military do now first in order to remedy this situation? What's the proper action for us first? The only way in which you can win a war is to apply more pressure. It is merely the application of force against your enemies in order to win that war in Korea. Do we need more air power in Korea now? More air power in Korea is relatively unnecessary at the present time because you have no area in which to operate. But if you will take the handcuffs, so to speak, off of our air force and permit them to pursue attacking enemy aircraft to where they came from and destroy them and the airfields from which they fly, then I think it stands to reason, sir, that we ought to have many more aircraft to pursue your question logically for just one very brief moment. We ought to have more troops despite the fact that we have some 350,000 Americans involved in that conflict out there with about 35,000 of our allies if we are going to go from where we are today back to the Yalu River from which we got chased last December and last November a long year ago. We are not only going to need a greater personnel strength from the United States and mothers and fathers ought to know that and young people so that they can plan their futures but our friends, our allies, must contribute more, too. What should they contribute? Manpower, machines, weapons, what? Every nation with whom we are associated as free nations in the United Nations ought to contribute proportionately their fair share of blood. Ammunition, weapons, and manpower. And you don't feel that they have contributed that up to now? No, my goodness gracious, sir. There is no person alive who has any understanding of the size and the potential of the free nations of the allied nations who thinks for a single minute that any nations outside of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America has made a reasonable contribution to the war in which we became involved because 50-odd free nations signed a solemn declaration let us defeat communism where it has broken out in the field of aggression in Korea. Do you think that this country is keeping faith properly with the men who are fighting the hand-to-hand battles on the heartbreak register? I must speak very personally in answer to that question as an American. I feel that we have not begun at home politically and among our people to make contributions and to give the kind of support which justifies the blood which young Americans are shedding so willingly in Korea. To me it's the tragedy of my lifetime, sir. You've had a great deal of experience in war. As I recall it, you were down in North Africa, you went into Sicily, you went into Italy, and then I think subsequently you went into France and Belgium and Holland and Germany and Austria. I've seen a lot of it. Do you think that you've come back to the war in Korea? Do you approve of it? Do you think we have capable leadership? I think the only... I think the only justifiable and explainable part of the war in Korea which you notice I hope with interest and approval I do not refer to as a police action are the gallant actions of the American GIs who are fighting the war and the management of the officers who are leading that war. Now I have a lot of prejudice in me because with reference to what you just said for about two years of my life I was privileged as perhaps I shall never again be to act as an assistant chief of staff to the then Lieutenant General Matthew Bunker Ridgway who is the supreme commander of all of our forces in the Far East. And I think that there is no greater strategist or tactician or fighting soldier than General Ridgway. The only comfort I can give in writing to the mothers and fathers of those soldiers over there is that they are properly led. Well, Senator, and I understand that you to say that our men are fighting gallantly but that as a nation we are not keeping faith with them. Thank you, sir, very much for being with us. The editorial board for this edition of the launching chronoscope was Mr. Henry Steger and Mr. William Bradford Huey Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Harry P. K. United States Senator from Washington Coast to Coast, the football season is in full swing. And Coast to Coast, the football games of more than a hundred leading colleges and universities are timed by Long Jean the world's most honored watch in sport. Yes, the games of Princeton Harvard, Dartmouth, California Texas A&M and Georgia Tech and a hundred more are all timed by Long Jean watches. The professional games too are Long Jean timed. All officials of the National Football League the field judges, the referees and the observers use Long Jean watches exclusively for official timing. The reason, accuracy not as an empty claim but accuracy which has been demonstrated time after time and year after year in the competitive accuracy trials at the great government observatories. Yes, for beauty, for greater accuracy for the promise of a long and useful life throughout the world no other name on a watch means so much as Long Jean, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Long Jean Wittner Watch Company since 1866 maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight again reminding you that the Long Jean Chronoscope is brought to you three times weekly every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So won't you join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Long Jean Chronoscope a television journal of the important issues of the hour broadcast on behalf of Long Jean the world's most honored watch and Wittner, a distinguished companion to the world's honored Long Jean sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display the emblem agency for Long Jean Wittner watches. This is the CBS television network.