It suggests that bad public morale was in fact to blame for these latter episodes, but questions who was responsible for the poor morale. The public could not figure out whether the Government wanted to prepare the country for peace or for another war. Was it to be the era of the Big Stick with the atom bomb or of the U.N.O.?

The piece sees no compromise between the two positions. It was not necessary to maintain large forces in the Pacific and Europe if there was to be faith placed in the peacekeeping capabilities of the U.N.

But the problem remained that the issues had not been explained by the Government. Thus the country could not determine any need for sacrifice and saw no basis for maintaining men abroad. The blame for the omission, the piece finds, lay primarily with the President who appeared not to have made up his own mind on direction.

It concludes that a few more months of indecision would lead to "another futile effort to bury our heads in the sands of isolationism."

But the Army had done nothing to correct the problems, which threatened any well-functioning peacetime Army. Morale needed to be high to have an efficient force.

The issues had been present during the war but censorship had prevented discussion. Now, the men could address the irritating policies openly and thus were venting pent-up frustrations. They insisted on the democracy for which they fought the war be incorporated into the Army. The fact that the Army was comprised of intelligent men caused them to be more apt to gripe of conditions.

Based upon the letters received from servicemen, Mr. Pearson sets forth proposals for improving morale: 1) abolition of political appointments to West Point, instead basing them entirely on merit; 2) award of all officer commissions from the ranks, except in wartime when specialists would be needed; 3) have further promotion of officers based on competitive examinations, not seniority; 4) provide the same food to enlisted men and officers; and 5) eliminate the favoritism practiced by some officers, only serving to create resentment among the men.

He then cites a series of examples of the problems of which he had been informed, such as the early release of football and baseball players, and the provision by General MacArthur of a special airplane ride 8,000 miles home for the low-point son of a general.

The officers themselves had the authority to change these routines and needed no legislative authority. A strong Army, with or without conscription in peacetime, was at stake.

She points out that the United States was the only nation threatened by a general strike of labor at home—neglecting to point out that it was the only nation in the world whose economy had thrived during the war. Labor, she continues, would strike, even if the effect was the equivalent of a blitz. Owners were just as bad. Consumers were greedy. The Government passed the buck to fact-finders.

Crime waves meanwhile swept the country. Night clubs were jammed and public drunkenness was at its highest since the era of Prohibition in the Twenties.

The Russians were proving the better organizers with better discipline. The British inspired respect, and the French had settled down to "the tough, historic watch." But the formerly respected fighting men of the U.S. only wished to go home.

"Extravagant and self-indulgent, they awaken envy and resentment, not that they are tough, but they are soft, as no one ever saw them soft in war."

The only country with the atomic bomb acted afraid of it, as if it might detonate by itself.

The Administration showed weakness, as the Republicans and Southern Democrats rejoiced at the display.

The diplomats retreated from firm stands while assuring the country that it was making progress in international relations.

Argument had been replaced with questions as to who uttered a particular position and who agreed with it, whether affiliated with a trustworthy group or one of the many groups against whom bigotry had resurfaced or who were politically suspect as leaning toward a particular foreign ideology. Various groups denounced everyone while proclaiming democracy for all.

"Must bombs drop on this nation to recall it to its community of destiny?

Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon had voiced dissent from the leadership of his party, the "Ohio gang" as he called it, led by Senator Robert Taft, considering it too reactionary to be inclusive of millions of Americans. The party was in need of a split before it could grow.

It appeared as the opening salvo of a fight to derail the nomination in 1948 of Ohio Governor John W. Bricker, Thomas Dewey's running mate in 1944. But it could not be deemed representative of a true split, as many reporters had sought to characterize it, for the liberal wing of the party, led by Senator Morse, Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota, Newbold Morris of New York, and former Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen, lacked numbers behind it.

Meanwhile, Senator Taft attacked the President's concept of full employment as a "Soviet idea", alienating workers from the ranks of Republicans. Likewise, he described the health insurance plan of the President as a "left-wing Communist proposal".

Voters who subscribed to these proposals of the President would not be enticed to join the Republicans only through the contra voice of Senator Morse.

The bill would likely have passed but for protest from the atomic scientists who wanted nuclear technology internationalized rather than under the control of the United States, and specifically the military. The opponents of the bill believed that it would have perpetuated the control of General Leslie Groves over the bomb. It allowed military men to fill civilian posts on the atomic energy commission without loss of rank, the contrary having been the case since the Civil War. The proposed commission would have been directed by the administrator, with the members being only occasional advisers.

Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner from the University of Chicago, and Dr. Leo Szilard had been the two most effective opponents of the bill.

Just before the recess of Congress for the holidays, Connecticut Senator Brien McMahon had introduced a bill for a different form of control, providing for five full-time members with complete authority over all military and peacetime uses of atomic energy, except when the President believed that military necessity required certain numbers of atomic weapons be provided to the armed forces.