We have a company located at objective NAN prepared to go in on 165 soon as the airstrike is finished.
We use loudspeakers to invite the Reds to come down off the hill and surrender, and reinforce the argument with mortars, bombs, and low-level strafing.
Probably pick up some Chinese language in a few minutes. We're going to broadcast right down the valley there.
Oh, fine.
What is this, a psychological warfare tank?
That's right. M39.
Do you speak Chinese, Captain? Do you have a interpreter?
No, I have an interpreter, a translator.
The Reds are circling over our position now. They're pulling up over this hill directly ahead of me.
The captain is preparing a psychological warfare tank to broadcast the Chinese, telling them to give up.
My friends, we've told you so many times. Come quickly. Come quickly.
The whole engagement was successful. The Glastostsher's battered and bloody were rescued.
The whole UN line disengaged itself from the enemy and rolled back to a defense perimeter north of Seoul.
General Van Fleet called it a great victory, but warned of still further blows.
One of the rescued Glastor battalion took it all in his stride.
I'm a single man, single man Blakelock from Scarborough Yard. We just got cut off, that was all, and we just fought our way out.
It was a good job. The infantry was around the back, and the difficulty was our trucks were at the other side of the river, and we couldn't get them across.
We could have got away ourselves, but we wanted to get the vehicles away, you see.
Did you go by it?
No, we got them practically all out. With the cover of darkness, we were doing very well, you see.
Major General O.P. Smith, just back from Korea, is as proud of the infantry's recent record as of his own Marines.
He said a few dozen words about the last offensive, which would mean a good deal more to the foot soldier than all the collected utterings pouring out of Washington this week.
General Smith said,
The officers and men have considered that they were fighting in a just cause. We've never felt we had to give them any other information.
Their task hasn't been easy, but they've never fallen.
I've observed the measure of their devotion to duty and self-sacrifice, and I can assure you that they have given both without stint.
They ask nothing in return except loyal support from the American people.
At home, the overall debate on strategy almost dwarfed the tactics of the Korean Peninsula.
The political byproducts of the Korean War appeared to be better copied than the war itself.
A few people realized the danger of this, including California's Republican Governor, Earl Warren.
We have been in the Korean War now for 10 months. Our casualties have approximated 50% of our World War I casualties.
Yet we find many people still appraising the seriousness of our national situation by the daily fortunes of our men in arms in Korea.
If our situation is currently bad, we find these same people depressed.
If the reports from the front are encouraging, we find that they relax.
But many do not seem to realize that Korea is but the overflow of a volcano that could submerge this world.
We find, unfortunately, that there are people who are still jockeying for position in this country economically, personally, and politically.
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio spoke before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington.
Although favoring the MacArthur approach, he still fears overextending ourselves. Here is Senator Taft's solution.
Well, what we have to decide, it seems to me that in control of sea and air throughout the world, we give ourselves the protection that we need.
That doesn't mean that you don't need a land army. Of course you need a land army.
We need land troops for the occupation of many bases. We need land troops to land on the continent wherever we think we can get away with it.
So I see it this whole question as a question of capacity.
The reason that I opposed any all-out commitment to Europe and insisted on a limitation of the commitment to Europe is that because that kind of an operation not only is dangerous, you face a tremendous superiority.
And then you face a tremendous...but also you face a tremendous expense.
Here's a little war in Korea, a small nation, and yet it took all the then capacity of the American army to make it.
If you go to Europe with six divisions, why in the Second World War we had 60 divisions?
The land operation is capable of perfectly indefinite expansion and the addition of billions of dollars to your budget if you're going to undertake actually to fight that land war as one of your major purposes in the defense of the United States.
Democratic Senator Brian McMahon of Connecticut did not agree.
I have rarely seen anything more illogical than the statement made by the senior senator from Ohio.
I have no of no senator who would not like to cut the budget $20 billion.
I do not know of any senator who would not wish that our armed forces numbered 300,000 men instead of 3,500,000.
But I know of no member of the United States Senate except the senator from Ohio who believes that it is possible to cut the budget $20 billion, cut the armed forces by 500,000 men, and mind you, carry on an invasion of the Chinese mainland.
The MacArthur-Truman controversy, kept afire by inside stories, predictions, leaks, and rumors, approached some kind of a climax with the Senate hearings beginning on Thursday.
Over the weekend, Harold Stassen delivered a message to the White House with a plan for lessening the tension.
Dear President Truman, the issue of peace and war must be above personalities or partisanship if America is to exercise constructive leadership among the free nations.
I therefore ask with humility that you consider extending an invitation to General MacArthur to meet and confer with you.
I have not spoken to him, but I am certain from my knowledge of him for many years that he would at once respond.
The White House had no reply to make to the Stassen suggestion.
When a reporter asked General MacArthur if he had done anything about it, the general turned the other way and walked into the elevator of his hotel.
In the Capitol, opinion on the open or closed hearings was almost equally divided, with Republicans almost to a man favoring complete coverage,
and the Democrats almost to a man insisting on secrecy.
At 9.40 Tuesday night, the Senate adjourned, and the next morning the two committees decided that any Senator could attend,
but the public and press and radio would have to wait for censored versions.
Also on Wednesday, the Pentagon released a set of notes on the Truman-MacArthur meeting at Wake Island,
indicating that the general did not believe the Chinese would attack in North Korea.
The general commented on this report by comparing it to an ancient report on Bunker Hill.
On Thursday, General MacArthur arrived in Washington without any formal statement,
ready and eager to face all questions from the Senate's Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.
For six hours yesterday and another eight and a half hours today, the veteran soldier of 52 years service spoke of history and philosophy,
of Asia and Europe, of allies and enemies.
While newsmen awaited each page of the censored transcript and quickly passed their main features onto the nation and the world,
the general sat quietly with little sign of weariness and told his story.
In the main, he had no startling news, but he did tell us some of his views.
He does not question the president's right to fire him, but he thinks the way it was done jeopardized the interests of the United States.
He feels that if our allies won't come along on a firm policy in Asia, we should go it alone if necessary.
He is confident that the Red Army in Siberia is a defensive army, cannot attack because of transportation difficulties from European Russia.
He wants to stop the dying in Korea by attacking the Manchurian bases of the enemy.
He feels it was his responsibility to speak his mind on our Far Eastern problems, says he did not contradict his directives.
He believes the enemy is communism throughout the world and he would fight it everywhere, Europe and Asia.
As the two committees and other senators who were permitted to listen but not question, heard the general explain and define his views,
there were many who found confirmation for their own views on his dismissal and his recommended strategy.
Republican Senator Nixon of California was pleased with the way the general made his point.
The questions that have been put have been extremely difficult.
They've not been easy to answer. They have been prepared. It's been obvious by real experts, people who have been attempting to build up their cases against his
and that MacArthur, it seems, gets better as the day goes on rather than weakens as far as his case is concerned.
The general very effectively has stated the issue very clearly to be this.
He has pointed out that those who oppose his program for ending the war in Korea offer no alternative but continuing the war.
They say that we must continue the war because if they adopt his program that there's a chance we will become involved in World War III.
The general has answered that very effectively by pointing out that the continuance of the Korean War itself is as great a threat to the peace of the world as could exist.
But Republican Senator Morris of Oregon still had his fears.
I think it is perfectly clear that the general's position on Asia does not take into account the global problems that faces from the standpoint of national defense.
I think the American people must face the fact that he's talking as a theater commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to talk in terms of defending America throughout the world.
The general returns to Washington and the Senate hearings tomorrow.
Next week Defense Secretary Marshall and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will tell their story.
The president has asked the nation to wait until all the evidence is in before deciding who is right in this controversy.
War mobilizer Charles E. Wilson was in Europe conferring with Eisenhower and other Atlantic Pact officials,
and America's mobilization effort was rapidly being stepped up all along the line.
In San Francisco, a new type submarine was christened.
There she goes.
There you are.
I named the K-2.
There she goes, the SS K-2.
At the Merrill Island Naval Base, the K-2, the first of the new killer type submarines, went down the way.
And at a harbor in Japan, a new division arrives for duty under General Matt Ridgeway.
Oklahoma.
The 45th Division is a National Guard outfit, obviously from the state of Oklahoma, with a long record of combat in the last war.
It will, for the time being, serve as an occupation force in the home islands of Japan.
But not all who serve America need go to foreign shores.
A week ago tonight we tried to tell you a little of the story of 16 men of the Air Force and their B-36 bomber, America's biggest bomber.
This is a general briefing by the 7th Bomb Wing, directing that the 436th Bomb Squadron fly a simulated high-altitude mission on target at Eglin Field, Florida.
You heard the 16 men briefed at Carswell Air Force Base in Texas.
And then for 20 minutes you listened to their casual conversation and their brisk busyness as they simulated a mission of thousands of miles.
There too, to a point of x, someplace in Canada which will be specified.
From Texas to New York to Nova Scotia, over a mysterious point x in Canada, down to Denver, across Alabama to Eglin Field in Florida.
You heard the 16 crewmen prepare for their bomb run, and you shared some of their excited enthusiasm as they waited for Eglin Field to report on their bomb score.
Air Force 2658, this is Eglin Bomb Plot, over.
Go ahead, Bomb Plot, this is 2658.
2658, your score on that run was a King Victor zero-zero, over.
Woo-hoo! Hot dog.
Fourteen of the men of aircraft 2658 are dead.
It happened a week ago today, at the very time we in the newsroom were preparing the story of the men and their aircraft for you.
2658 was on another practice mission.
Over central Oklahoma, the time came for the customary gunnery practice.
An F-51 fighter plane was making passes at the big bomber.
The B-36 gunners were shooting it with their camera guns.
Suddenly, the fighter plane ripped into the three-and-a-half-million-dollar bomber.
Both went down.
But there was time for some of the men in aircraft 2658 to use their chutes.
Listen to Technical Sergeant Ellis Maxson of Pownell, Vermont, as he recalls what happened after the collision, 20,000 feet in the air.
I had always wondered if a fellow would be afraid or if I'd be afraid to bail if the time ever came.
But I'm telling you, not.
But I suddenly realized that we just had to get out of there.
I grabbed my hat, jumped to the lower deck, pulled my straps up tight on the chute, and stepped out.
Washington has the most grounds for divorce.
New York has only one, adultery.
And some, like this girl, go to Florida.
Florida seems to be the place to go nowadays.
I was married here six years ago, and the divorce laws in New York are so limited, well, it's very hard to go through that at home.
If you don't want to commit perjury in New York, it's almost hopeless to get a divorce unless adultery can be proven.
One way out is annulment.
One of the most prominent divorce lawyers in the country, Charles Rothenberg, recognizes this problem.
New York State has only one ground for absolute divorce, which makes it the most backward in this respect in the country.
There is no reason why the statute should not be enlarged so as to create additional grounds.
I also favor a uniform divorce law which will eliminate the chaotic situation where people are lawfully married in one state,
but living in sin and their children illegitimate in another.
For more than 50 years, efforts have been made to standardize our divorce laws, but with no success.
This despite the fact that Supreme Court Justice Jackson has observed, if there is one thing the people are entitled to expect,
it's rules of law that will enable them to tell whether they are married and to whom.
But this is how Father John Ryan of Reno and many others feels about it.
Since the very beginning of Christianity, Christ himself said, whom God had joined together, let no man but asunder.
Therefore, Nevada's liberal divorce laws are contrary to Christian principles and teachings.
The jurists, like Florida's Judge Holt, see the American divorce problem a different way.
The trend throughout the country and I think throughout the entire world is to liberalize divorces.
Our problem does not lie in that field.
The problem lies before these individuals become eligible to go to the divorce court.
It's generally agreed that many marriages could be saved if time and energy were united in the right direction.
There are many counseling services, but few take advantage of them.
One of the best is the American Institute of Family Relations.
A couple in Los Angeles, on the verge of divorce, come in to discuss their problem with Dr. Paul Papenal.
Both of you people seem so much to side aside with marriage, it's hard to know which is the real complainant, but what would be your story here?
It seems to me that my wife is making some very unwise expenditures, not in accord with our means.
Just last week she was downtown and bought a group of new dresses and we just can't afford that.
Would that be your understanding of the situation?
Well, I can see no reason why I shouldn't go down and buy clothes.
My mother does the same thing. She thinks that I should be nicely dressed.
Have you ever sat down and talked over with your husband just what the family finances are and what the obligations are?
No, he handles all of that himself. He never confides in me.
You don't actually know then how much you could pay out, how much you have to work with?
No, he just says no, no all the time.
And every time I mention my mother wants this and that, why, he resents it.
And he takes on that holier-than-thou attitude and throws a temper tantrum and I just don't seem to get any place.
A little time, patience and compromise save this marriage.
Contrary to popular belief, divorce is not the privileged sanctuary of the wealthy.
Many seeking divorce in Florida work as waitresses or bartenders to raise money, and the same is true in Reno.
I decided I wanted a divorce. I had very limited means.
So, I actually, I had $200 when I came to Reno, which isn't very much money to spend for six weeks room and board to pay for a divorce.
Three nights after I arrived, I came to see Archie the Bouncer at Harris Club and I was put to work chilling.
It's been very helpful and by doing this work I've been able to pay for my divorce and therefore get it quicker than if I were in California.
Remember our other girl from California who came to Reno? Her six weeks residence are up.
And in what we believe to be the first recording ever made of an actual divorce proceeding, she gets her freedom.
Are you alleging your complaint that you and your defendant John Daly were married on the 10th day of June 1943 in New York City, New York?
That's right.
There is one child the issue of the marriage, John Daly, Jr., aged five.
Yes.
All matters concerning the care, custody, control, and support of the minor child have been taken care of by written agreements between you and the defendant.
Yes, they have.
All matters concerning the community property of you and the defendant have here before and taken care of by an agreement dated the 5th day of February 1951.
That's right.
Also all matters concerning your now-loaning and claims against the defendant.
Yes.
A life disagreement marked plenty to exhibit a identification. Are you familiar with your husband's signature?
Oh, yes.
Is that his signature appearing thereon?
Yes.
Do you feel that this agreement is fair, just, and equitable to you, to the defendant, and to the minor child?
Yes.
You allege as your cause of action for divorce that the defendant has treated you with extreme cruelty and paramilitary since your marriage. Is that allegation true?
Yes, it is.
Was the defendant very indifferent toward you?
Yes, he was.
Did he take any interest in the home or in the child?
No, none at all.
Less than 5% of all divorces are contested. The easiest way out, when neither party contests, is on grounds of cruelty, recognized as valid in 42 states.
In Miami, a divorce, grounds, cruelty.
Your complaint, as I read it here, charges him with extreme cruelty. Is that correct?
That's correct.
And under the heading of extreme cruelty, you have testified as to constant bickering, disagreements in the household, and his staying out at nights, and your constant worry about where he was and not knowing what he was doing. Is that correct?
That's correct, sir.
Is there anything you can add to that?
No, sir. Not about coverage.
In view of that, I am now signing the final decree of divorce.
Thank you.
There are some who contend that one cause of divorce is casual marriage, that if marriage were taken more seriously, the same might be true of divorce.
Elkton, Maryland has only a two-day waiting period.
It used to be even shorter. The justice of the piece plays a phonograph record, the couples recite the vows, and it's all over.
You will join right hands, and you will speak the words. I, William Arnold, take thee, Helen Smith, to be my witted wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health.
We asked Reverend Percy Lambert how he feels about this quick marriage he's just performed.
The quick marriage laws permit the people to come without losing time, without spending extra money for train fares and hotel bills, and a lot of things like that permits them to come and get married and return immediately to their work.
If marriages were harder to get and divorces were harder to get, would this help?
Dr. Goode doesn't think so.
Divorce policy, which does no more than make divorces harder to get, is only tackling the symptoms.
We can cut the divorce rate down to zero by simply forbidding divorce, but this does nothing about the causes of the trouble.
But Judge Paul Alexander of Toledo is convinced that the basic problem is not so much the law itself, but the way it's interpreted and administered.
The law says that when a marriage gets sick, turns out to be a headache, the doctor, in this case the judge, must do just one thing, decapitate, says the law.
Here's a sick marriage off with its head.
If the law of the hospital was that doctors had to amputate upon request, we would all agree that such a law belonged in the realm of Alice in Wonderland.
Well, the law of divorce is much like that. When a wife finds her husband is a pain in the neck and files a request with the court that he be removed, the court has got to remove him,
utterly regardless of whether the marriage might be cured and the family salvaged. The judge has got to amputate.
Now, something has got to be done about this, and something is being done about it.
The American Bar Association is pressing hard for uniform divorce laws, for family courts, for machinery to save the marriage before it ever gets to court.
Cleveland is among the leaders in this respect, as a domestic relations department supervised by the court. Its director is Edana Brooks.
The basic purposes of the department may be simply stated to be, first, reconciliation, second, investigation of the facts relating to the care of minor children,
and third, enforcement of the orders of the court relating to support of children by peaceful means wherever possible.
While the department will make no attempt to compel performance of something which the law does not require a person to do,
suggestions can be made which, if followed, will improve the marital relationship and make the home secure for the children.
And what we have to remember is that a divorce is not a criminal proceeding, that it's not a question of guilt or punishment.
We're dealing here with human lives and often with the lives of the most innocent, the children.
Marriages can be saved and are saved, but it takes patience and understanding by all parties, including the judge.
This is Judge Joseph A. Moynihan of the Circuit Court of Michigan. He's in his private chambers with a couple on the day they're going to get their divorce.
I've brought you in here to discuss a possible reconciliation until these children arrive at least an age where they can understand things.
You too can tell me, as you already have, I'll take care of them. I'll find a way to take care of them.
Ms. Smith, you say, well, you'll get work, you'll get help from your mother, you'll get some support from your husband.
But these children that are denied the husband coming home from his work every night, they look up to their father.
Everything he does is interesting to them. The way he walks, they'll imitate him, those boys.
That girl of yours is going to imitate you. These boys, the way they act, the way they talk and everything, they're imitating the finest person in their minds in the world, and that's their father.
You take that discipline away from them. They have nothing to tie to. They come home, and the first thing you know, the father isn't there, the mother isn't there. Why? Because you'll take a job.
Now, Mrs. Smith, you have this mother and father of yours down in Ohio. First thing you know, you'll be sending Mary Jane down because Grandma wants her.
Gradually, you'll have the whole three children down in Ohio. Mr. Smith is going to come into court and want to take custody over to himself because you have sent the children outside the jurisdiction of the court.
And I may wind up and then ask the friend of the court to become the custodian, the guardian of these children, and then you and Mr. Smith can see them in some licensed boarding home.
Now, do you really want that as a future for your children? Are you going to stand up there that day in the last judgment and you'll say, well, we got into a little difficulty.
He called me names. I called him names. We may not have acted as well as we should, but do you think that's going to be a defense for your turning these children over to somebody else?
The children that you promised to cherish and love when you brought in the world, when you were so happy when the child was placed in your arms for the first time, Mrs. Smith?
In your own souls, both of you have got to answer this question. You've got to answer it now. You can't put it off into the future.
These two people saved their marriage as others have been saved by work and compromise. Not all marriages so seemingly hopeless have to end up in Miami or Reno.
And it's not true, as this girl says, as she stands on the banks of the Truckee River.
Well, that's that.
Many legal and social experts have urged the necessity for uniform divorce laws, but individuals like nations often split up for secondary unimportant reasons.
Others maintain that the whole institution of divorce is evil.
For those who accept divorce, there is clearly a need, as Justice Jackson has pointed out, for more clear-cut and more comprehensible legislation on the subject.
It was our purpose in this program to indicate the magnitude of the wreckage it leaves in its wake,
rather than to attempt to reconcile the conflicting opinions as to the basic causes for divorce or the type of legislation that may be required.
You have just heard Program 21 of the CBS series, Hear It Now, a document for air based on the week's news.
Hear It Now is edited and produced by Edwin R. Murrow and Fred W. Friendly and the CBS staff, which includes Irving Gatlin, John Aaron, Jesse Zausma, Joseph Werschver, and Edmund Scott.
The versions of the program originated at WTOP Washington, WJR Detroit, WGAR Cleveland, WGBS Miami, Florida, KOLO Reno, WCAU Philadelphia, WLAC Nashville, KOMA Oklahoma City, KLRA Little Rock, KNX Los Angeles, KCBS San Francisco, and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Special acknowledgment is made to Lieutenant Leonard Andrews of Carswell Air Force Base.
This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.