 for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittgenor Watts Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored Watts, and Wittgenor, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, author and analyst, and Mr. Henry Haslett, editor of the Freeman and business columnist for Newsweek Magazine. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Ambassador Ernest A. Gross, former United States deputy representative to the United Nations. Mr. Gross, you've just completed four years of splendid service with the United States delegation to the United Nations. So tonight, sir, you're in an excellent position to give our viewers some of your views on particularly whether we're going to have war or peace in our time. First of all, sir, I think that most Americans have been a little bit disillusioned in the last two or three days. Three or four weeks ago we had high hopes for peace, and now with the Communist advancing into Indochina, we're wondering if we haven't had false hopes again. Now, in general, sir, how do you feel about it? Do you think that we have a fair chance of getting peace in Korea? That, I think, involves reading the Communist mind and mentality. I think the famous last words are, I know what the Communists are going to do. They have the key to the solution in their pocket. This is a supreme test of their intentions. I, for one, would not be prepared to guess. I certainly have been making all sorts of professions of peace and protesting peaceful intentions. I believe that if they fail us this time, the consequences would be serious to the extreme. Well, do you think a truce is worth getting? That is to say, do we gain anything by making a truce with a group that have shown themselves to be barbarous and their treatment of our prisoners that have shown themselves unable to keep their word? Why do we gain by a truce if we make it? I think that a truce in Korea would be of tremendous importance. In the first place, the Communists started out to gain the whole of Korea and, in my judgment, that was the first step on the road to Japan and to all of Asia. Now, if we made an armistice, if we could get one on honorable terms, the Communists might break it, of course. Their promises have not proved very worthwhile in the past and anything. But breaking an armistice would be, again, of such serious consequence that I believe that they would think twice before doing it. Well, wouldn't we, meanwhile, have to keep most of our boys over there for fear they were going to break it? My impression is, Mr. Haslitt, that we will continue our efforts to get traditional troop contributions. And you know and I know how disappointed we've all been that there haven't been more troops from more countries. But even if there is an armistice, we'll want more troops from different countries. We've made very vigorous representations on that over the last few years. How big do you think those contributions ought to be? Is there any reason why they shouldn't be, let's say, in proportion to their populations if this is going to be typical of the UN War? Not in accordance with their population. You see, one of the difficulties, Mr. Haslitt, in getting troops from other countries is that our military authorities, by and large, have insisted that when troops are contributed they should be supplied by the country from which they come. And that, of course, in many instances involves dollar expenditures. That is no alibi, no excuse for the fact that there haven't been greater contributions. I hope that there will be many more Asian countries that contribute forces to Korea even if there is an armistice. Well, on that point, sir, on getting Asian countries to contribute forces to a war against communism, our chronoscope audience has heard such people as Ambassador Ben Lehm of South Korea and others who represent those Asian countries. And they seem to imply that if we accept the truth in Korea that it will imply a defeat for our cause and the cause of freedom in Asia and possibly will cause the Asiatic peoples who are anti-communists now to assume an eventual victory for communism. Now, are you saying to us, sir, that if we accept a truth in Korea it's your belief that our friends in Asia will not regard it as a defeat but as a victory for us? Yes, yes. I think that if we do accept a truth, they will not regard it as a defeat. They will regard it as a great victory. In other words, we can accept a truth without dashing the hopes of South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese on Famosa, Filipinos, Pakistanis, the other people who are anti-communist in Asia. So far as the Koreans are concerned, the South Koreans, of course they would be very disappointed if their country were not unified and the whole country made independent. But the United Nations, as they know, did not go into Korea in order to unify the whole country by military means. The United Nations went in there in order to repel an aggression against South Korea. We've never given up in the United Nations the policy of unifying the whole of Korea but not by military means. It might involve a world war and the South Koreans would not benefit by that. How could this be considered a victory for us when we would end on the same line as it began practically? In other words, they would have made this invasion and it would have cost them nothing because they would at least be no worse off than before the invasion. So how would that be considered our victory except a mere, or anything but a mere stalemate? In the first place it cost the Chinese communists over a million lives. That of course may not mean much to them but it means that much of a great deal to Chinese communist families, families or families. But the main point I would make is that they set out, the communists set out to conquer a country and by the grace of our own force and valor of our fighting men, they have not conquered that country. That has been a tremendous victory. Now it would have been much greater victory if we had been able to take all of Korea but that's not what we set out to do and I think this would be regarded in Asia as a great victory. Well, Mr. Gross, since you have served this country under both Truman and Eisenhower administrations in the United Nations you have important observations to make to us about the United Nations and our position there. Now first of all, sir, do you think that our nation is in a stronger position in the United Nations today than it was six months ago? Yes, sir, I do. I feel that we are in a stronger position because I think that we have won a great deal more support in Asia and the Middle East. Not to say Western Europe as well. Then we had six months ago. There's a negative and a positive side to it and I don't want to make a speech about it but on the negative side if you want to call it that the communists have day after day in the United Nations show the true nature and the purposes of their system and it's been pretty much a dramatic process of self-disclosure and I believe that most of our friends understand now what a menace communism is. They didn't a year ago. In your four years in the UN, what about that organization itself? Have you had the feeling that the organization itself now commands more prestige in the world than it did four years ago and justifies more of our hopes? I think so, Mr. Huey, because the strength of the United Nations depends to a great extent on the strength of support which the people of the United States give it. And I would think that the people of the United States, generally speaking now have a faith in our leadership in the United Nations, in the United States delegation to the United Nations and in the purposes of the United Nations. President Eisenhower has made it clear and I think he speaks for most Americans and to the extent that the Americans support the UN to that extent the UN becomes a vital force in the world. Why would this faith in the UN, why would we have turned to NATO and why would there be this sentiment for an Atlantic community and all these other things outside of or apart from the United Nations? Well, it may sound strange to say it this way but I believe that I've worked very closely with NATO in the past. The reason for those organizations is, of course, to protect the United Nations against its enemy. The enemy inside of it. Yes, the enemy inside the gates. Well, does that enemy inside the gates strengthen the organization? The enemy inside the gates does not weaken the organization. Strange as that may seem. The reason is that there's nothing the Soviet Union can do inside the organization that they could not do outside the organization. Doesn't it give them a better sounding board, for example, in their attacks against us? It gives them a sounding board, but mind you, it gives us a wonderful sounding board as well. I'd like to give you an example of that when we were debating the prisoner of war issue. Some months ago, Vyshinski said that the will of the prisoner was the will of the state. Well, you could just see a shutter go around the room. Everybody in that room learned a lesson from one Frank statement by Vyshinski. They reveal themselves. But if we don't match them word for word and idea for idea, it's our fault not theirs. I think we can come out on top in that kind of a match. Mr. Gross, now that the Eisenhower administration has been in 100 days, a great many people around the country are now taking another look at Eisenhower as a president and as a world leader. Do you feel, sir, that his prestige in the world is greater today than it's been at any time in his career? Oh, yes, without any question. It's a great deal of what the communists are now doing. And I hope that they make it more than words. As due to the fact that the president, President Eisenhower, has a tremendous prestige throughout the world. Well, as a final question, Mr. Gross, and this is a hard one, from your long experience with the United Nations and studying the nature of the communist enemy, do you feel that in your lifetime and the lifetime of most Americans now living we may see the eventual defeat of communist totalitarianism in both Asia and Europe? I have faith that we will see the defeat of communism in the world. I think communism cannot survive unless we encourage it to do so. It has the seeds of its own destruction in it. People will not live in slavery any longer than they have to. I believe we must keep the pressure very steadily on them, and I think we can roll them back. Well, thank you, sir, for these statements of yours. The opinions that you've heard our speakers express tonight have been entirely their own. The editorial board for this edition of the Ron Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. Henry Haslett. Our distinguished guest was Ambassador Ernest A. Gross, former United States Deputy Representative to the United Nations. In countless homes, the months of May and June are like a second Christmas season because of the important gifts there are to select for mother, for dad, for a graduate, a bride and groom, for an anniversary or a birthday. Now, for this season, Ron Jean Wittner-Johlers are now showing an unusually fine collection of new, exclusive and exciting styles in Ron Jean watches, and you're invited to see them. For any important occasion, the world's most honored gift is Ron Jean, the world's most honored watch. The only watch in history to win 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes, 28 gold medals, and so many honors for accuracy in fields of precise timing. Whatever your needs in a watch, the name Ron Jean is your assurance of superior performance. Each of these magnificent watches is powered by the famed Ron Jean watch movement built for greater accuracy and longer life through superior workmanship. Remember that throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Ron Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift, premier product of the Ron Jean Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening at this same time for the Ron Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Ron Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion for the world-honored Ron Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Ron Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, Agency for Ron Jean Wittner Watches. It's absorbing City Hospital on the CBS television network.