Political Clubs Here Support U.S. Commitments in Europe

All of the College's political organizations came out last night with full or qualified approval of the Committee on Present Danger's request to arm this country and Europe.

Thomas Schneider '52, speaking for the World Federalists, was most emphatically in support of this policy. "We must continue helping our allies, but not for our own welfare alone," he said. "The United States is in one world and cannot face it single handed."

Schneider critized Taft's proposal to weaken the U.N. by fighting under our own banner. "The U.N. needs more strength, and we must take the moral as well as military leadership in giving it to her," he said.

The Liberal Union said it had recently passed a resolution favoring Secretary of State Acheson's policy of arms shipments and other aids to Europe. The H.L.U. amplified this resolution to brand Hoover and Taft as "dangerous and inimical to the nation's welfare."

Chester J. Salkin '51, president of the Democratic Club, said he thought most of our servicemen in active combat would rather "stay out there and fight, rather than subscribe to an impossible policy of isolationism."

Sincere . . . Not Isolationist

In a less definite statement, the Young Republicans asserted that the Taft-Hoover proposals are "sincere, military in nature, and not isolationist."

They, too, back up our commitments in Western Europe. "If Eisenhower feels an efficient European defense can be made," said president Gordon L. Poole 2L, "then we should send all the troops he asks for," he added. "However, we must have insurance that the Europeans are doing everything possible to help themselves."

In addition, the H.Y.R.C. stated that the whole project must be thoroughly discussed by Congress before any action is taken, and that Congress only can give the authorization to sendf troops abroad.