How Big an Army?

An old question rose to plague the U.S. last week. The speed with which the draft will soon strip the nation of its young men was now apparent (see above). The manpower pinch was already sorely felt by factory and farms; food rationing was destined to grow stricter by the month (see col. 3).

Men looked at the Army's 1943 quotas and began to wonder. The Army planned to have 7,500,000 men by year's end, plus 650,000 officers. Navy and Marines planned to expand to 2,000,000. Did the nation really need a military force of 10,150,000 men--or would an Army of that size only delay victory?

In the Senate, up rose Alabama's bald, cotton-wise John H. Bankhead, to propose a Congressional examination of the Army goals. Said John Bankhead:

"In view of the absolute necessity of at least continuing, and if possible increasing the production of war materials ... it is apparent that it will be too dangerous to withdraw from war production many more men for service in the armed forces. . . . We should shrink from the adoption of any program which endangers in the slightest way the production of all of the things that our armed forces and our allies need.

"Of all the countries in the world, China and Russia are in the best position to furnish men, while America is in the best position to furnish equipment. Why should we not accept these undisputed, fundamental facts, and apply to them the rule of sound reason? . . ."

Pro & Con. Farm State Senators, whose constituents have been hardest hit by the draft, were quick to rally to Bankhead's side. Their chief arguments:

> Present Army goals were drawn up when it appeared that Russia's 10-20,000,000-man Army might be knocked out of the war momentarily.

> Shipping shortages will keep most of the 10,000,000-man U.S. armed forces at home, thousands of miles from the closest battlefront, until more workmen build more ships to transport them.

The Army's side of the case had already been well stated by Chief of Staff General George Catlett Marshall, who says the quotas were drawn up with all problems, including shipping, firmly in mind (TIME, Dec. 21). Two more rebuttal points were presented by Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson: 1) "It is ... essential to obtain superiority . . . the Axis powers and their satellites have under arms 569 divisions. This is considerably more than we and our British and Russian allies have." 2) "We are training men in 1943 to fight in 1944. Our training program must contemplate a long war. . . ."

Between the Army and such Senators as John Bankhead, Manpower Commissioner Paul V. McNutt was in the middle last week. Paul McNutt must find the men the Army asks for--but he can go to the President if he considers the Army's demands too high. It appeared that McNutt, who would like to compromise on a figure of 9,000,000 men, might do just that.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.