No Ground War in Europe

Ranging in mood from measured restraint to flashes of anger, sarcasm and near-disgust, Ike at his press conference provided as many answers on Berlin as newsmen, nation, allies and enemy are ever likely to get in one half-hour:

Will the U.S. fight for West-Berlin?

"The U.S. and its allies have announced their firm intention of preserving their rights and responsibilities with respect to Berlin. If any . . . push in the direction of real hostilities is going to occur, it's going to occur from the side of the Soviets."

How about Khrushchev's proposal of token four-power troops in West Berlin?

"Well, I'd say first of all that I would not expect ever to be in the business of reacting instantly to one of Mr. Khrushchev's wisecracks or whatever he calls it ... You don't expect to have a doctor hit you on the knee with a rubber hammer and your foot jump quickly up and have that kind of a system in responding to suggestions of Mr. Khrushchev's about anything . . . Now, violating everything I have said, I don't think much of [Khrushchev's proposal]."

Why is the U.S. cutting Army-Marine Corps manpower in a time of crisis?

The U.S. and its allies face 175 Communist divisions, could not reverse the odds on the ground. "[The] adequacy of our defenses is not going to be especially increased or strengthened by any particular sudden action in response to one of these moments of increased tension." The Army's reduced 870,000-man strength is not "a small army," and if it could not handle a brush-fire situation, "then the war's gotten beyond a brush war--you have got to think in much, much bigger terms."

Will the U.S. fight a ground war for Berlin?

"We are certainly not going to fight a ground war in Europe. What good would it do to send a few more thousands or indeed even a few more divisions of troops to Europe? . . . You wouldn't start the kind of ground war that would win in that region if that were going to make the way you had to enforce your will."

Does that mean that the U.S. intends to defend Berlin with nuclear weapons?

"Well, I don't know how you could free anything with nuclear weapons."

Is there an in-between response that the U.S. can make at Berlin?

"No.

"I think we might as well understand this: I didn't say that nuclear war is a complete impossibility. I said it couldn't, as I see it, free anything. Destruction is not a good police force . . . But I know it would be quite serious. Therefore, we have got to stand right ready and say, 'We will do what is necessary to protect ourselves, but we are never going to back up on our rights and our responsibilities.' "

Should the American people be alerted to a possibility of war over Berlin?

"I personally think that the American public is more soberly aware of the true situation than a lot of people around this town. We are so close to ourselves around here that we have a great possibility of stirring ourselves up ... Now, this country knows it's a serious situation . . . But what I decry is, let's not make everything such an hysterical sort of a proposition--that we go a little bit off halfcocked. We ought to keep our steadiness, is what I plead for, steadiness in meeting this whole business, whether it be in Quemoy or Berlin or anywhere else."

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