Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edward R. Murrow, January 25, 1951: "The American public believes that we should get out of Korea."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Amerigo Vespucci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:43 PM
Original message
Edward R. Murrow, January 25, 1951: "The American public believes that we should get out of Korea."
January 25, 2011 02:02 PM

January 25, 1951 - There Was Korea To Think About.



In this broadcast of Edward R. Murrow And The News from January 25, 1951, Murrow lays it out how the public was feeling:

Edward R.Murrow: In this reporters opinion, there has been considerable time for clear thinking. It has been just about two months since General MacArthur, announcing the arrival of massive Chinese formations in Korea said the United Nations forces now face a totally new war. Generally, a new war involves a new policy and some change in grand strategy. If there has been any change in policy or grand strategy it has escaped our notice. There mere labeling of China as an aggressor, even if were able to bring that off at the U.N. isnt a policy, its a gesture. Meanwhile, we have the testimony of General Marshall that we require replacements at the rate of 15,000 a month for Korea. It is important to understand that this does not mean reinforcements. It means 15,000 bodies to replace those who have, in one way or another been consumed by the fires of war. We have at the same time increasing evidence in public opinion surveys and in the mail to Congressmen that the American public believes that we should get out of Korea.

It is also clear beyond doubt that the majority of the free world will not participate in effective steps to repulse Chinese aggression in Korea. I have seen this whole situation no better put than by Walter Lippman in his column of today where he says; our people feel that it is intolerable that American soldiers should be suffering in a war which can no longer be won, which can no longer achieve the aims for which it was begun yet, a war which was undertaken, not for a national purpose but for a principle. They feel, continues Mr. Lippman, naturally and rightly that there is something decisive that should be done about it all. What the decisive something is, they do not know. They cannot be expected to know. They have a right to expect their government to tell them what it is. Their government tells them nothing. Day after day the casualties continue and the young men are called up to replace them. Thats the end of the quotation from Walter Lippmans column of today. Two months ago we were confronted with what General MacArthur called a wholly new war. The record does not show that weve expounded or adopted new strategy or new policy. Mister Truman says today, obviously this is no time for rash or unwise action. This is a time for clear thinking and firmness. Admirable sentiments with which most of us would agree. But two months of firmness and clear thinking ought to produce, perhaps not a solution, but at least a new policy to meet a new situation. We cannot fight todays wars with tomorrows weapons. And we cannot pursue in a new war the old policies.


And some things just never change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. He was one of the great ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. We still have 28,500 troops there
It's been 60 years. I'm not saying what that means one way or another. Just saying.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm

Several aspects of the U.S.-R.O.K. security relationship are changing as the U.S. moves from a leading to a supporting role. In 2004 an agreement was reached on the return of the Yongsan base in Seoul--as well as a number of other U.S. bases--to the R.O.K. and the eventual relocation of all U.S. forces to south of the Han River. Those movements are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition, the U.S. and R.O.K. agreed to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Korea to 25,000 by 2008, but a subsequent agreement by the U.S. and R.O.K. presidents in 2008 has now capped that number at 28,500, with no further troop reductions planned. The U.S. and R.O.K. have also agreed to transfer wartime operational control to the R.O.K. military on April 17, 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-11 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Help me with this one.
South Korea is a primary source of certain automobile and appliance brands.

Would they be if those in the North had been ceded control?

I'm with Truman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Of course not....
and wages wouldn't be diving in the shitter here. I'm with the American public on Jan. 25, 1951.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 18th 2024, 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC