U.S. TROOPS IN EUROPE

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27463, 24 September 1954, Page 13

U.S. TROOPS IN EUROPE

Campaign For Withdrawal (Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 8 p.m.) LONDON, Sept. 23. The withdrawal of the United States from Europe was an “appalling prospect” as much for the United States herself as for Europe, says the “Manchester Guardian,” discussing the campaign said to be apparent in some parts of America for such action to be taken. “The United States would be deliberately throwing the balance of industrial power, technical ability, and educational resources from its own side into Russia’s favour. It would also be denying itself vital military bases. Surely it would not be so foolish.” Remarking that few Europeans had supposed that the United States would seriously consider withdrawing from the Continent, but that a growing number of Americans believed it should, the “Manchester Guardian” quotes an influential American Middle West newspaper, the “Indianapolis Star.” This newspaper, after noting that during the last seven years, the United States had sent about 35,000,000,000 dollars to Western Europe, had suppied six American divisions for European defence, and had tried to strengthen European nations, goes on: “What has happened in seven years? The demise of the stillborn E.D.C. has been the climax to year after year of deferred promises and sinuous evasions, of lagging timidity and lack of resolution. “Today we find our leading European allies consorting with, and seeking more trade with, the very enemy against which they are supposed to be defending themselves. Most European leaders, with few exceptions, are more interested in commercial trade than they are in freedom. It is time to change a policy that has failed.” “Based on Misunderstandings’* The Manchester Guardian comments: “The change advocated by the ‘Star’ is to bring home American forces in Europe, stop spending money there, and concentrate on defending liberty and human dignity in the United States. We should not be irritated by this view. It is natural in the United States but is based on serious misunderstandings.

“It under-estimates the actual achievements of American policy in Western Europe between 1947 and 1953. ft misconceives reasons why E.D.C. was ever proposed, it misreads the purpose of the European emphasis today on trade and development, and it fails to foresee how great would be the cost to the safety of the United States itself in withdrawing from Western Europe. “At best, if there had never been a Marshall Plan or N.A.T.0., the countries of Western Europe, including Britain, would still be struggling to raise standards of living above the impoverished levels of 1947.

“At worst, they would all have come under Russian control.

“Today they are fairly prosperous and free from Russian direction, because of economic aid from the United States, because of the combined resistance to the Berlin blockade, because American forces provided the nucleus of their defence, and because of the sustained effort made by European nations themselves. “About E.D.C., Americans really ought to realise it was an expedient hastily devised because the United States blackmailed its European allies in 1950. “About trade with the Communist countries, can Americans not understand that it is essential to Western Europe? “About European insistence on diplomacy, can we persuade the Americans to see that its reason is not because we are soft towards Russia or approve of communism but because we believe the Western democracies can gain by diplomacy? Timidity, surely, lies with the United States, which does not dare let its diplomats negotiate.” British Coal Industry Loss.—The nationalised British coal industry showed an over-all loss of £264,905 for the second quarter of this year, compared with a profit of £754,461 for the first quarter.—London, September 22.