Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Tuesday, Feb. 23, 1965
Joke's on Us
We won the game Saturday, but we lost the so-called battle of the signs. The joke was on us, but the way the final score stood, we can afford to consider it all in good fun.
The K-State "cow cuddlers" had little else to yell for, and the highly successful prank failed to rally a team that was no match for the spirited KU five.
WE HAVE TO HAND IT TO THE pranksters, though. The large, cloth banners that dropped like window shades from the time clock about midway through the first period took everyone by surprise.
It was a clever joke which required some imagination and daring to pull off. Unless the culprits are discovered, we will never know the brains behind the scheme. Mystery shrouds the execution of the plot. E. P. Moomau, KU police chief, and Wade Stinson, KU athletic director wer unable to explain how the K-State fans or students gained access to the locked and guarded field house.
The morning of the game the clock was lowered to put in the team signs. The official in charge of the clock told reporters he was with it the entire time and that it was clean when it went back up.
ONEWOULDALMOSTSUSPECT that the K-State culprits had some "inside" help from some disloyal KU fans in order to pull off such a spectacular coup. But that is mere speculation and is not intended to touch off a witch hunt in our own midst.
The incident failed to arouse heated emotion between the schools, but if the game had been close, it might have been a different matter.
The way it happened, with KU ahead 19 points, even Coach Ted Owens, whose vision of the clock was blocked by the K-State banners, managed to remain calm and afterwards remarked that K-State fans had to be given credit for the clever stunt.
EVERYONE CONSIDERED THE STUNT clever. Coach Tex Winters wished afterwards that his team would have been half as clever.
We can't help but view this incident as a good-natured, practical joke. The rivalry with K-State is good and healthy, and pranks between the schools stimulates interest.
But a good joke is not without its hazards. Officials warned that those involved in acts of "vandalism" would be expelled from school.
With a little ingenuity, good jokes can be executed without risking expulsion from school.
Korea: Did We Win or Draw?
There is an old saying that "it matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."
Since the signing of the Korean War armistice on July 27, 1953, there has been considerable conversation, debate and speculation on the question of whether the United States won or lost, and how we played the game.
ON THE SURFACE, the armistice appears to indicate a draw—the ending of the war by compromise. But still there are many ways to look at the armistice and its provisions. Gen. Douglas MacArthur would and did call it a "sell-out." Almost everyone hated the frustrating war, but many disagreed with Gen. MacArthur and thought the armistice was the best possible solution at the time.
Did we win or lose?
In one respect, neither side ever wins a war. One can hardly call itself a winner when it takes into consideration the number of people who suffered injury or death as a result of conflict.
MORE THAN ONE MILLION Communists were killed or injured during the some 30 months of conflict. Figures show 140,000 for the United States, 350,000 South Korean soldiers, and several hundred thousand Korean civilians.
These grim figures — fourth highest in the history of United States' wars — show that the Korean War was a major conflict, and not a "police action" as the Truman administration preferred to call it.
Can we really say our side "won" when the victory cost almost two million human lives?
THESE CASUALTIES GIVE rise to the interesting question— "How did we play the game?"
One factor responsible for the horrifying casualty figures was the primitive style of warfare employed by the Communists. The "tidal wave" attacks of the Red Chinese used to advantage their large numbers, but were greatly responsible for the bulk of the casualties.
On the other hand, the numbers were not as astronomical as they might have been. About the only innovation from previous wars was the aerial fighting of jet fighter planes at speeds around 600 miles per hour. For one or several reasons, the much-discussed "push button warfare" was not employed.
PERHAPS ATOMIC BOMBS were not used because of a lack of suitable targets. Perhaps it was that we were saving them to use against the Russians if the need arose. Perhaps it was even the humanitarian motive of trying to minimize casualties. At any rate, to the advantage of all, they were not used.
Another factor contributing to the "lost" argument was the disappointing fact that the 52-member nations of the United Nations branded North Korea and Red China as aggressors, but only 15 contributed troops to fight alongside the United States forces and the South Koreans, and most of these were only token troops.
IN ACCORD WITH OUR membership in the United Nations and its international policy to repel aggression wherever it might develop, the United States entered the Korean War.
Nevertheless, the United States and the United Nations accomplished what they intended to do when they entered the war.
The basic goal of the United States and the United Nations was not a clear and decisive victory, but was to turn back Communist aggression.
Thus the deadlocked outcome of the war did not spell failure
for the policies of the United States or the United Nations. On the contrary, they achieved their goal of repelling the Communist invasion of Korea, or at least checking it. The idea of collective security through the United Nations had passed an important test.
ANOTHER RESULT WHICH was to the advantage of the United States was that the Korean War was directly responsible for causing the United States to rearm itself—a necessity which the nation was not aware of before the conflict. Now it is possible for our nation to conduct its foreign policy from a position of strength rather than of weakness.
But it is the opinion of this writer and most Americans that the United States and the United Nations were victorious because they managed to check the invasion, and because of the way they achieved the victory. Robert Leckie, in his "Conflict: The History of the Korean War," put it thus:
"IN KOREA INVASION WAS repelled, and in such manner as to remind the world that an invader need not be destroyed to be repulsed. To gnash one's teeth because the invader escaped destruction is to revert to that concept of 'total war' which is no longer possible without mutual destruction. Of Korea, then, it is enough to say: It was here that communism suffered its first defeat.
"That was the only victory possible."
— Russ Corbitt
Dailij Ifänsan
111 Flint Hall
11 Fint Hall
UNiversity building
University 4-318, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
in January 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York
22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary Noland ... Co-Editorial Editors
The People Say...
Dear Sir:
Since coming to KU two years ago as a transfer student, I have really been disappointed in the student body in general. As a rule the students have seemed stuck up, lacking in true school spirit, and generally unfriendly.
Being from a state which takes great pride in its accomplishments, especially on the collegiate athletic field, I have been appalled at the general lack of enthusiasm shown by both players and spectators at most of the athletic events which I have attended, and I have missed very few since coming to KU. With the exception of our fine track teams, whose members always give 100% plus, most of the athletes have given me the impression of being on the team only in order to be famous or because they are being paid to compete.
With the above having been said, something that I have wanted to say for two years. I now turn to the other purpose of this letter. Last Saturday night I attended, along with 15,000 other people, the KU-K-State basketball game. I went hoping that KU would win, but feeling that they would lose because of a lack of desire which has been prevalent throughout the season—something that student apathy has helped to bring about. I was never more pleasantly surprised. I can truthfully say that I have never seen a team exhibit such a tremendous team effort. Each player gave more of himself than he thought possible, and it was this something extra that made the victory so satisfying, both to the players and to the fans. If, in the remaining games, this same 100 per cent plus effort is shown, I know that the students will look upon the Jayhawks as the real champions of the Big Eight, whether the standings show this or not. And if the students can continue to show this tremendous spirit, enthusiasm, and backing, as shown last Saturday night, both in victory and in defeat, they and KU will benefit; and we, the student body, will forever be proud to call ourselves the Jayhawks, the Best!
Robert B. Boyd Houston, Tex., senior
Dear Sir:
ONE CAN CERTAINLY SYMPATHIZE with the disappointment expressed by John L. Barton, M.D., (The People Say, Feb. 19) at the poor turnout of Stouffer Place residents to a blood donation scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 16. As a physician, he has undoubtedly seen many instances in which lives have been saved and recoveries have been made possible through blood transfusions. And certainly it was unfortunate that the time of so many volunteers was wasted.
As Dr. Barton points out, at 3:30 p.m. "the project was abandoned due to lack of support . . ." In all fairness to Stouffer Place residents, it should be pointed out that this closing time was one and one-half hours before the announced closing time, and one hour before several buildings of residents were asked to appear. It occurs to me that if blood is in such short supply, it would have been all the more important to retain at least a skeleton force to accommodate donors who might appear after 3:30 p.m.
In fact, in the forty-five minutes following the time of closing, at least two donors appeared in advance of the time they were asked to come, only to be told that no more blood was being taken. Fortunately, these two would-be donors made appointments to give blood at Lawrence Memorial Hospital this week. One wonders how many persons appeared to give blood after 4:15 p.m. and found no trace of the equipment or anyone to explain why the project was abandoned.
Dr. Barton might have concluded his letter by stating that those Stouffier Place residents who could not come on Tuesday, or who came after 4:15 p.m., may still donate blood by calling Lawrence Memorial Hospital and making an appointment.
Allan W. Wicker
Lawrence graduate student
Stouffer Place
BOOK REVIEWS
THE PENGUIN BOOK OF PETS, by Phil Drabble (Penguin Handbook, $1.45)An attractive little volume with tips on caring for all kinds (really) of animals, birds, and fish. If you have, for example, a pet weasel, a pet deer, or a pet hedgehog, this book will tell you things you need to know.Rush out and buy!
HEARTBREAK HOUSE, by Bernard Shaw (Penguin, 65 cents) Another in a series of Penguin plays by Shaw. The play was first published in 1919, and the volume includes the long introduction by Shaw.The title refers not only to the play but to Europe itself in the days before World War I.