• Share
  • Read Later

This is a full U.S. infantry division (Pennsylvania's 28th, National Guard). How many such divisions can the Western allies muster against Russia's 175 divisions? Despite Eisenhower's reluctance to give a specific answer, some facts & figures are available. The following is a catalogue of the twelve NATO nations' ground strength, based on the rough & ready available figures—and on estimates, guesses and hopes:

Britain: Spending 21% of her budget* for defense, will increase to 33⅓%. Under arms: 800,000 men, 7½ divisions spread around the world. Available to NATO: 2 divisions now, 2½ more by 1952. Equipment: mostly World War II design. Best weapons: 60-ton Centurion tank, jet fighters. Morale: fair; labor government uninspiring, but Britain's effort is biggest in Europe.

France: Spending 18.6% for defense, may increase to 29%. Under arms: 697,000 men, 7 divisions; 150,000 of her troops are in Indo-China. Available to NATO: 3 divisions now, 15 by the end of 1952. Equipment: fair, but improving with U.S. help. Morale: uncertain—i.e., poor but could be made good; shot through with Communism, beset by uncertainties of revolving-door government—facts which Premier Pleven (see The Presidency) refuses to recognize publicly; anti-Communism could be solidified.

Italy: Spending 25% for defense, the bulk of it for military housekeeping. Under arms: 250,000 men (the peace treaty limit), 5 divisions. Available to NATO: none now, 3 pledged. Equipment: outmoded and inadequate, limited by treaty to light artillery, fighter aircraft, a few tanks. Morale: fair, despite strong Communist opposition; great willingness on part of the government to do more, if permitted.

Belgium: Spending 15% for defense. Under arms: 73,000 men. Available to NATO: 1 division now, 2 more by mid-1952. Equipment: inadequate. Morale: fair; powerful anti-Communist strength (spearheaded by Catholics), but filled with ambiguities of socialist pacifism. The Benelux countries set their pace by the pace and policies of France.

The Netherlands: Spending 24% for defense. Under arms: 80,000 men, no division organization. Available to NATO: nothing now, 3 divisions promised. Equipment: inadequate. Morale: fair; stiff opposition to military spending at expense of welfare, but a few days after Eisenhower's visit, government almost doubled its defense budget.

Luxembourg: Under arms: 2,280 men. Available to NATO: no troops.

Denmark: Spending 20% for defense. Under arms: 23,000 men, home guard of 30,000. Available to NATO: 1,000 men. Equipment: more Danish-made machine guns on hand than Danes can use, but other equipment inadequate. Morale: excellent.

Portugal: Spending 24% for defense. Under arms: 60,000 men, no division organization. Government insists on inclusion of Spain in NATO.

Norway: Spending 20% of her budget for defense. Available to NATO: 4,000 men. No standing army, but drafts 22,000 men annually for nine months training. Equipment: fair. Morale: excellent.

Iceland: Nothing; even the cops are unarmed.

Canada: Spending 40% of her budget for defense. Under arms: 62,000 men. Available to NATO: some air squadrons. Promised: 5,000 men. Morale: good, except for attitude of extreme complacency (see CANADA).

  1. Previous Page
  2. 1
  3. 2