Sunday, December 14, 1941

WILL MEN AND WOMEN BE DRAFTED? Not for combat, of course, but Brig. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey says that "we undoubtedly are soon going to consider the registration of women" between 18 and 65 for war work -- taking the place of men on assembly lines, working in civil defense, or doing noncombatant jobs in the military. According to the Associated Press, General Hershey envisions that 20,000,000 women could be put into national service this way. When you read things like this, you realize what an unprecedented situation we’re in.

As reported by Samuel W. Bell in the New York Herald Tribune, the current draft bill is sweeping enough. All men between 18 and 65 must register. All men between 18 and 45 are subject to military service in the land or naval forces. That’s a potential of 10,000,000 men available for military duty and another 30,000,000 who could be inducted for non-combat service. That’s what the War Department’s put before Congress, and there’s no doubt it’ll pass, of course.

Plus the Senate approved $10,572,350,000 in war appropriations Friday -- a figure so massive that the Chicago Tribune followed it with an exclamation mark in their front-page banner headline.

After a year of fitful attempts at "preparedness," we’re finally taking the job seriously. And it only took a direct, immediate threat to our national survival to get us to do it.

WE’RE HOLDING ON IN THE PACIFIC. The Administration says that Guam, which was guarded by a scant 550 American soldiers, is "probably" lost. But our troops are holding on at Wake Island, at Midway, and in the Philippines. In fact, the brightest spot at the moment appears to be the latter, where according to Saturday’s headlines, U.S. and native Philippine troops repulsed three Japanese landing attempts on Luzon. Enemy parachutists have landed at two other locations on northern Luzon, but neither is considered a major threat to Manila. And there are good tidings on the sea -- Navy planes have sunk two Japanese battleships off Luzon, and Dutch submariners have reportedly sunk four Japanese transport ships off Malaya, killing 4,000 of the enemy.

Still no official word on the toll from the Hawaii attack, though. The newspapers seem to be blacking out the story since Wednesday, but the rumor mill is going full steam. Does the Administration realize the adverse consequences of blacking out critical news? When will we hear some hard facts?

THE GERMAN CENTER COLLAPSES. That’s what it sounds like, anyway. A week ago the Nazis announced they had given up attempting to take Moscow until next spring, and would dig in their current positions for the winter. I didn’t give it much credence, and in any case, it’s become academic whether Berlin really meant it or not -- the Russians have no intention of letting the Germans rest in place. Rest in peace, maybe. This is how the Washington Post reports the latest Red claims --

""Russia announced the utter defeat of a crumbling German army of 750,000 men on the Moscow front . . . with 85,000 Germans killed and 23 of an original 51 divisions either smashed, routed, surrounded, or retreating. A special communique reported German troops in flight along both flanks of the encirclement front on the frozen Moscow plain. Red Cossack detachments were said to be slashing through the German lines, isolating division after division and leaving them behind for battles of annihilation to come."

Soviet claims have sometimes been as extravagant as Nazi boasts, but it’s hard to believe that Stalin’s regime would be crowing on this large a scale unless there was something to it. And coupled with the German defeat at Rostov, Axis morale on the Eastern Front has to be falling through the cellar about now.

MORE AIR RAID ALARMS, STILL NO PLANES. Four consecutive nights of alerts in southern California. But the main focus is still on San Francisco, which went through what the Associated Press calls a "weird wartime blackout" Friday night. Once again, no bombs fell, but from the A.P. dispatch it sounds like mayhem out there --

"Unidentified airplanes roared low over the city during the two hours and thirty-four minutes of total darkness. Unverified reports said flares were dropped in the financial district and into the ocean, but police were inclined to discount them. Dogs howled in all parts of the city and many accidents were reported. 'People were running around like wild,' declared Elmer Combs, booking steward at Central Emergency Hospital. 'A lot of people came in that we couldn’t even begin to handle. There were accidents from all kinds of things -- autos, streetcars, streetcars sliding down hills. Some people blew their tops.'"

A modest proposal -- why bother with comprehensive blackouts at all? There was a story in the New York Herald Tribune yesterday quoting Samuel O. Hibben, the director of applied lighting for Westinghouse. He said that a blackout of all the street lights in New York City would be "more deadly than bombs" and that blackout-induced traffic accidents in London last year killed more people than raids. Yes, Mr. Hibben says, turn out the advertising signs and home and business lights. But darkening the streets would lead to "confusion, death, and destruction." Judging from what’s happening on the West Coast, it sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Meanwhile, the Herald Tribune also reported that Emil Davies, a British official who headed the London County Council during the worst of last year’s blitz, says it’s "likely" there were be German nuisance raids on New York City. The story says German pilots might "do what they did over England: drop their load of bombs over New York, fly on for some 300 miles, bail out and give themselves up as war prisoners." I still think the West Coast is where we have to worry most about getting raided, but East Coast raids are probably more plausible than I thought.

Thursday, December 11, 1941

"THE NEWS HAS ALL BEEN BAD." In his Tuesday night talk, President Roosevelt made no attempt to sugar-coat the extent of our defeat. While rejecting Japanese claims that they held mastery over the Pacific in the wake of the Hawaii attack, he told the largest radio audience in the history of the U.S. that more bad news will come --

"We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized."

The main action involving U.S. forces appears to be in the Philippines right now. According to John G. Norris in this morning’s Washington Post, the War Department admits to a successful Japanese landing on the main island of Luzon, after American troops repelled an earlier attempt on the west coast of Luzon with "apparent heavy enemy losses." This new landing is considered strategically unimportant, but if Japan does succeed in gaining a foothold on Luzon’s west coast, "they would then be in a position to fight down the narrow coastal plain to the Lingayen Gulf." So, that’s the area to watch in the next few days.

WHAT ABOUT GERMANY AND ITALY? (II). We’re still not "officially" at war with Hitler or Mussolini, however much that matters. Both sides are acting like there’s a state of war, and the Germans might be getting ready to make it official in any event -- the Associated Press quotes a Swedish source in Berlin as reporting the Reichstag will meet later this morning (Eastern time) "to hear a government declaration reaffirming German-Japanese solidarity under the tripartite act." There is another possibility, though -- does Hitler, instead of declaring war himself, want to goad the U.S. into declaring war first, for propaganda purposes?

Perhaps that’s why President Roosevelt used this particular wording in his radio speech Tuesday night -- "Remember always that Germany and Italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the United States at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with Britain or Russia." He could well have mentioned that the Reich’s campaigns against Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Norway, Greece, Russia, etc., never showed a regard for such diplomatic niceties as a declaration.

Associated Press wires between Berlin and Switzerland were cut Wednesday night, and American newsmen in Germany have been placed under house arrest. Apparently this is retaliation for the F.B.I.’s roundup of Axis newspapermen. All German and Italian nationals are now considered enemy aliens, just as Japanese nationals are.

AIR RAID ALARMS IN NEW YORK, LOS ANGELES. The two air raid alarms in New York City yesterday are now said to be "a gigantic war-time misunderstanding." Writes John G. Rogers in the New York Herald Tribune -- "Official sources, annoyed by the indifference with which the city’s millions confronted the bright face of danger, disclosed that there were never any planes bearing down on New York. They explained that a series of accidents translated a rumor into a crisis which electrified those responsible for the defense of the world’s largest city." According to C.B.S., the alert was sparked by a single telephone call from a civilian, asking air force authorities about a rumor enemy planes were two hours away. So, nobody was hurt, but the "raid" did break up a meatloaf luncheon held for a group of newly enrolled air-raid wardens.

Much more serious are the air raid alarms on the West Coast. One broadcast report says that the Army ordered Los Angeles radio stations off the air Tuesday night due to an alarm. General DeWitt, the 4th Army commander, warned San Franciscans in stark terms after their two air raid alerts Monday night that "death and destruction are likely to come to this city any moment." He’s even madder about civilian apathy than New York’s authorities are, and at a civil defense council meeting he even seemed to hope that the Japanese might drop some bombs --

"The people of San Francisco do not seem to appreciate that we are at war in every sense. . . . Unless definite and stern action is taken to correct last night’s deficiency, a great deal of destruction will come. Those planes were over our community . . . for a definite period. They were enemy planes. I mean Japanese planes. They were tracked out to sea. Why bombs were not dropped I do not know. It might have been better if some bombs had dropped to awaken this city."

That’s going a little too far, but in any case the West Coast could definitely get some bombs soon.

One creepy note of possible confirmation in this morning’s Washington Post – "the War Department . . . reported that Fifth Columnists had lit signal fires on the Pacific Coast."

WHAT TO DO WHEN THE SIRENS SOUND. Good advice, from the front page of yesterday’s New York Herald Tribune --

"In Case of an Alarm. Above all, keep calm. Don’t create a panic. Get off the streets but don’t run – walk. If within five minutes of home go there. If at home stay there. Home is the safest place. Don’t mingle with crowds. If more than five minutes from home seek shelter in the center portions of nearest building. Avoid top and lower stories of buildings. Stay away from windows and outside walls. Avoid elevators. Motorists should park cars and seek shelter. Stay out of subways. They are not safe. Put out lights. Avoid use of the telephone. Stay calm."

"In Case of a Raid. Shut off all gas ranges, heaters, and furnaces. Turn off pilot lights. Fill bathtub and buckets for use of firemen if mains break. Go to room with fewest windows and lie down. Keep radio turned on. Leave at least one window open. If incendiary bombs fall, spray water on them. Never use splash or stream of water, as the bomb will explode. Bomb will burn fifteen minutes if left alone, only two minutes if sprayed. Don’t use a chemical fire extinguisher on bombs. Co-operate with air-raid wardens. Obey instructions. Above all, keep calm."

PEGLER SALUTES THE PRESIDENT. One of the fiercest and barb-worded critics of the Administration, columnist Westbrook Pegler, took his hat off to the President yesterday in a piece titled "Roosevelt Was Right" --

"No American has more angrily detested and suspected most of the internal operations of the New Deal, but no American more admires now the tenacious bravery of President Roosevelt in his war policy than this author of many criticisms of the Roosevelt Administration. Long before the war began with the sneak-punch invasion of Catholic Poland, the President had made his own decision that Adolph Hitler was determined to see the German nation loose, armed beyond the poor, dumb power of Britain’s military men or the best of ours to imagine, in a campaign to enslave Europe and conquer the United States. Having made up his mind on the basis of plain evidence, Mr. Roosevelt determined that this country must fight for its life against Hitler and Japan and set about creating a war psychology in the American people so that we would not be caught entirely unprepared spiritually or entirely unarmed. In the earlier phases of his preparations he stood almost alone, and it may be remembered that his dramatic Chicago speech about a quarantine for aggressors was savagely denounced . . . . As the war developed, Mr. Roosevelt was accused of surrendering his own country to the British for Britain’s own sake and the cry of war-monger, raised from Berlin, where this war was made, was taken up by many of the President’s own people at home. . . . But all the way from the hour when he first realized that war with Hitler was inevitable down to the moment when Hitler’s ally in the Pacific suddenly bombed a sleeping American city, Mr. Roosevelt stood by his conviction, often under conditions which would have made a weaker man give ground and look for excuses."

Tuesday, December 9, 1941

ROOSEVELT TO SPEAK TONIGHT. In case you haven’t yet heard, President Roosevelt will address the nation tonight at 10 o’clock Eastern time.

"HOSTILE PLANES" NEAR SAN FRANCISCO? The Associated Press quotes Brigadier General William Ryan of the 4th Interceptor Command as saying a "large number" of unidentified planes approached San Francisco from the sea last night, coming as far as the Golden Gate and then turning southwest. The air-raid sirens sounded in San Francisco, amidst a tremendous amount of confusion as authorities alternately said the alert was merely a test, then claimed a real raid had been expected. There’s no proof the mystery planes were Japanese bombers, but General Ryan said, "They weren’t army planes, they weren’t navy planes, and you can be sure they weren’t civilian planes."

If they were Japanese planes, that’s pretty alarming for any number of reasons. San Francisco is 2,408 miles west of Honolulu, and the presence of a sizeable number of Japanese bombers in the area would suggest that Japanese carriers feel comfortable to roam the Pacific virtually at will. Of course, Tokyo’s overall offensive has already shown a massive Japanese capability to press their military strength over a vast area. They’ve attacked Thailand (which according to reports has already surrendered), Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Borneo, the Philippines (six separate air attacks), Hawaii, Guam, Midway, and Wake.

The Japanese war machine is no joke. This fight will go on for a long time.

"INFAMY." I have never heard the President speak with such righteous indignance as he did in the joint session yesterday. His voice turned contemptuous as he recounted the peace talks with Nomura and Kurusu -- negotiations which took place as the warlords of Tokyo cynically planned, "many days or even weeks ago," the massive offensive which has now lit the fires of war throughout the Far East. Congress didn’t need any further encouragement to declare war. The two branches of government set records for efficiency -- the President spoke for about six minutes, then the Senate and House passed the war resolutions within 51 minutes of the President’s address. The Senate voted 82-0, the House 388-1. Let Miss Rankin’s dissenting vote be treated with the lack of interest it was shown by the morning papers, which generally relegated it to the inside pages.

It’s interesting to note that the war resolution was not a "declaration of war" in the straightforward sense. Senator George and several other Congressmen agitated Sunday evening for a resolution that didn’t "declare" war, but instead acknowledged an already-existing "state of war" provoked by Japan’s attack. This, they reasoned, would put the blame for the war where it belongs. Judging from the President’s words, that’s what they got -- a declaration stating simply that "since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan . . . a state of war has existed."

HOW BAD IN HAWAII? It sounds worse by the hour. Both the New York Herald Tribune and Chicago Tribune cite anonymous sources as putting U.S. casualties at Pearl Harbor far higher than what the White House has told us so far -- 1,500 dead and another 1,500 wounded. The Chicago Tribune story, by Walter Trohan, says that according to "unimpeachable sources" the Japanese raiders sunk or disabled six capital ships, an aircraft carrier, and "numerous" support vessels. Another source says told Mr. Trohan that the U.S. "clearly has lost its margin of superiority in the Pacific" in the wake of the raid. "Washington officials" say it’s the "greatest reverse of its kind in history."

Already, amidst the cries for national unity, there are calls for an investigation. Edward T. Folliard writes in this morning’s Washington Post that there’s been at least one call to court martial the Army and Navy commandants in Hawaii. "No one can tell me they weren’t sound asleep," one Congressman said. The chairmen of the House and Senate Naval Affairs Committees, Senator Walsh and Representative Vinson, have called upon the Navy Department to explain how the Japanese struck some 3,500 miles from their home bases without being detected.

I want to hear those answers too -- but wouldn’t Tokyo want most of all to hear about our military weaknesses? This kind of inquiry can wait.

HOW WE COULD LOSE THE WAR. Walter Lippmann’s column in the New York Herald Tribune this morning reminds us that the stakes of this war are the survival of America itself --

"Overnight we have, it is true, become at long last a united people. Yet that alone will not avail us unless we also become an awakened people -- wide awake to the stark truth that the very existence of the Nation, the lives, the liberties and the fortunes of all of us, are in the balance. We are not facing a feeble and contemptible little enemy on the distant shores of Asia but the most carefully prepared, highly organized, and shrewdly directed combination which has ever set out to conquer the world. This is not a separate little war in the Pacific between Japan and the United States. This is the world war in the complete and literal sense of the words -- a war which can only end in our victory or our defeat. If it ends in our defeat, let no one imagine that we shall be treated mercifully, or generously, or honorably. Let no one imagine that the price of defeat is anything less than invasion and occupation upon the North American continent itself -- if ever the bastions of British and American sea power are conquered. The planes which bombed Hawaii could just as easily have bombed San Francisco or Panama if the fleet did not bar the way. The troops which have been landed in Malaya could -- if American and British command of the seas were lost -- be landed in Brazil or Alaska. We are fighting as the British are fighting, as the Russians are fighting, as the Chinese are fighting, for our own survival. Only by opening our eyes to this grim fact can we cast off the deadly delusion that behind the protection of our oceans we could sit around waiting and arguing whether we chose or did not choose to move until our own soil was violated. If we do not purge ourselves absolutely of this delusion, we can lose this war."

One would hope that we realize this by now. But I remember the Congressional debate last year on whether to fortify our outpost on Guam, how the isolationists railed at spending defense dollars on something that was sure to "provoke" Japan. After all, they reasoned, Guam was so far away from U.S. shores, and as Colonel Lindbergh told us again and again, what more do we need than the wide expanses of the Atlantic and the Pacific to protect us?

Yesterday Guam fell to the Japanese. Tokyo says it did so without resistance. Let us never again cede territory, or surrender a battlefield, in order to prop up a delusion.

THREE CHEERS FOR THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE. In a front-page editorial Monday, America’s most rabidly isolationist newspaper offered a message that extremist Roosevelt-haters need very badly to hear right now --

"War has been forced on America by an insane clique of Japanese militarists who apparently see the desperate conflict into which they have led their country as the only thing that can prolong their power. Thus the thing we have all feared, that so many of us have worked with all our hearts to avert, has happened. That is all that counts. It has happened. America faces war through no volition of any American. Recriminations are useless and we doubt that they will be indulged in. Certainly not by us. All that matters today is that we are in the war and the nation must face that simple fact. All of us, from this day forth, have only one task. That is to strike with all our might to protect and preserve the American freedom that we all hold dear."

Sunday, December 7, 1941 (afternoon)

THE AIR RAID ON PEARL HARBOR. So much for the guesswork this past week over whether a Japanese strike in the South Pacific would lead to a U.S. declaration of war, a "war of nerves," or something in-between. In one brash, audacious, and villainous move, Tokyo has made things crystal-clear. America is now at war -- not an undeclared war such as the one we’ve been fighting with Nazi vessels in the Atlantic, but an all-out war of survival. Whether Congress votes a declaration of war or acknowledges a "state of war" or does nothing, it does not matter now. What matters is that the Japanese Empire has cold-bloodedly decided to try and kill us. To save ourselves, we must kill the Japanese Empire. It’s as simple as that.

H.V. Kaltenborn’s mid-afternoon commentary on the N.B.C.-Red network offered some reassuring words -- "You may rest assured that both our army and particularly our navy and our air force were not caught by surprise by this attack. They knew what they might have to expect and they were ready for anything that might happen. They have been ready for along time." I so hope that’s true. But all I know is my first response was -- Hawaii?? There’s been a lot of press speculation about where the Japanese might strike -- Thailand, Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Siberia. But not Pearl Harbor.

BOMBING RAID OR PRELUDE TO INVASION? It’s hard to say for sure yet. Here’s what we do know, taken from a bulletin broadcast on N.B.C. a little while ago, and compiled by reporters for the Honolulu Advertiser --

The first group of planes attacked Ford Island at Pearl Harbor. Japanese planes attacked Hickam Field and Wheeler Field as well. Bellows Field "bombed very heavily." At Pearl, three ships were attacked -- the Oklahoma was set afire. All lines of communications down. No statement from the Navy Department yet. Civilians are to stay off the streets. After attacking the airfields, several squadrons of planes came in from the south over Diamond Head, dropping bombs and incendiary bombs on Honolulu. One bomb fell in front of the governor’s mansion, another near the Honolulu Advertiser. "Heavy bombing" in two residential districts. A direct bomb hit on a barrack at Hickam Field killed 350 men.

As grim as this sounds, other reports are are even more worrying. One N.B.C. bulletin says that "parachute troops" have been sighted off Harbor Point. An unverified report from a United Press correspondent in Honolulu says that "cannon fire" could be heard from a "foreign warship" sighted off Pearl Harbor. Another N.B.C. bulletin this afternoon says "at least one enemy aircraft carrier" is participating in a "naval engagement" near Pearl. All this suggests that Tokyo has more in mind than a quick strike against the U.S. Navy -- they plan to seize the islands and complete the destructive work their air raiders have begun.

On the other hand, I’ve only heard one direct eyewitness report of the raid, which came from KGO in Honolulu via a telephone line to N.B.C.-Red. The correspondent, whose name I didn’t catch, described the raid as "very severe," almost three hours in duration, but said "the navy and army appear to have the air and sea under control." Let’s hope and pray that's the case.

MAYBE TOKYO’S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? I can’t recall ever listening-in to Upton Close before. He’s a "Far Eastern expert" for N.B.C., and judging by his comments on the Pearl Harbor bombing, he’s also flakier than a coconut pie. I don’t know his political leanings, but his comments today are drawn deep from the well of crackpot isolationism.

His theory, as broadcast this afternoon -- the Japanese government is innocent of complicity in the attack, which was launched by rogue elements in the Japanese Navy, assisted by Nazi conspirators who are trying to embroil the U.S. and Japan in war. His evidence -- he spoke by telephone to the Japanese consul-general in San Francisco, who denied knowing anything about plans for the attack! Well? What more proof do you need? Obviously, Tokyo was in the dark about this.

Here’s a transcription of his comments, from acetate --

"I suppose that if the attack on Honolulu had been made in such force as to destroy the American naval base there, we might believe that the Japanese government is behind it as a matter of policy. But you notice that the news gives us every assurance that it is far from destroyed, and that the only thing left there now as a result of the first attack are a few parachute troops wandering around on the sand somewhere on the north end of Oahu Island. They will soon be pulled in the bag and we’ll find out who sent them. It is possible, my friends, that this is a coup engineered by German influences and with the aid of German vessels in the Pacific. . . . engineered by a small portion of the Japanese navy that has gone fanatic and decided to precipitate war."

Shortly after this, Mr. Close left the surface of the Earth --

"Still again, it is possible that this is a coup engineered by the group in Japan that wants the group that wants war kicked out of office. And that when the thing is brought home to the Tokyo government, it might be possible for the Tokyo government to repudiate the action, call upon the nation to repair the injury to America, by agreeing to American terms, and precipitating a complete revolution in the government in Tokyo. All these things are possible."

In other words, the Pearl Harbor attack could lead to peace. But only if the Roosevelt Administration doesn’t overreact to it. After all, Mr. Close surmised, Secretary of State Hull’s nastiness might have caused the Japanese to strike in the first place. Yes, that’s what he said --

"You’ll notice, we are told, that Mr. Hull burst out in true Tennessee language and told the Japanese that their reply was ‘crowded with infamous falsehoods and distortions.’ I have been in many a Japanese brawl, I am sorry to say, and I have seen many an argument with Japanese that would have ended just an argument, suddenly burst into violence because something was said by one of the so-called 'white' people in the brawl that suddenly lashed across the Japanese face. Now, it is possible that the Japanese completely lost face and descended to the status of being willing to engage in a violent brawl as a result of this answer, although it might be that this answer and Secretary Hull’s message came at the same time. But it sounds like one of those Japanese arguments that suddenly descends into violence."

Then, finally, Mr. Close offered what he called San Francisco’s man-in-the-street response to the Japanese attack -- "If they did it on purpose, they have certainly got guts." Somehow I doubt that’s what the cabbies in San Fran are saying this afternoon.

And even if somehow, it turned out that the Pearl Harbor attack was a military decision, and not a political one, does it matter? This is clearly a major raid, not some kids tossing a string of firecrackers on Grandpa’s front porch. If "rogue" military elements in Japan have the capability to launch a major attack involving large forces of the Japanese military, that gives them the status of a government. Of course, General Tojo’s cabinet is not exactly composed of pacifists, and the idea that the current Tokyo regime would oppose such an attack is ludicrous in the first place -- not to mention contrary to Tojo’s own recent comments.

N.B.C. listeners deserve better on this critical day than this kind of hooey.

Sunday, December 7, 1941

AN EVENTFUL WEEK-END. Until this morning it looked like the big news of the week-end would be Britain’s declaration of war on Finland (along with the Nazi satellite states of Rumania and Bulgaria). Then came word of President Roosevelt’s dramatic appeal to Japan’s Emperor Hirohito, which James M. Minifie of the New York Herald Tribune calls "a last-minute bid for peace." Mr. Minifie’s account describes just how tense things have gotten in the South Pacific --

"The President took this dramatic action as information came in that Japanese troops were moving while the British prepared to meet them by ordering their fighting men in Singapore to action stations and the American authorities in Manila decreed the immediate evacuation of non-essential civilians from the Philippine capital."

Mr. Minifie writes that the State Department puts the number of Japanese troops in Indo-China now at 125,000. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Administration also has gotten wind of "two heavily escorted Japanese convoys" sailing from Indo-China into the Gulf of Siam -- presumably heading for landing points in Thailand.

And if this wasn’t enough cause for worry, the Associated Press reports this morning that a new Nazi assault on Moscow, comprising some 1,500,000 men, has put the Soviet capital in her "direst peril" yet. Both sides are making their usual extravagant claims and counter-claims. One thing that is not in dispute is that the fighting is taking place in temperatures of thirty below zero.

A HOT ONE FROM TOKYO. The Tojo government has replied to President Roosevelt’s inquiry about Tokyo’s big buildup in Indo-China. According to the Japanese, it’s merely a "precautionary measure" in response to Chinese troop movements. I can’t even imagine the most fire-breathing America Firster buying that, and Secretary Hull doesn’t even consider it worthy of rebuttal. According to the Washington Post – the Secretary, "in what appeared to be an understatement of the official view in Washington, said in response to a press conference question on the Japanese explanation that he had no feelings on the matter now which he had not had before the note was delivered."

THE TRIBUNE PRINTS SECRET DEFENSE DOCUMENTS. Last Thursday, while the rest of the press was focused on the deteriorating state of affairs in the Pacific, the Chicago Tribune claimed a whale of an exclusive -- the publication of what they grandeloquently called "F.D.R.’s Secret War Plans." These documents are said to "reveal" that the President plans a massive U.S. Army of ten million men, including a five-million-strong American Expeditionary Force which would sail to Europe and seize the entire continent. Since then successive Tribune front pages have crowed about its "history making" revelations.

But it looks like there’s less here than meets the eye. While the Tribune may have hoped its scoop would be "history making," it didn't stop the House from voting $8,000,000,000 in supplemental defense appropriations the following day (by a vote of 309-5). And according to Secretary Stimson, the Tribune’s "exclusive" is really a secret War Department study on the feasibility of such an offensive, one of the many such studies the government undertakes on what the military might face in a war. But while not a statement of actual U.S. policy, its contents still could be useful to our potential enemies. For that reason, according to the Secretary, the Tribune was "wanting in loyalty and patriotism" for publishing this document.

"Wanting in loyalty and patriotism." Gosh, somebody else has noticed.

"WE FACE A WORLD WAR." Mark Sullivan’s column today looks at the need for an A.E.F.-style commitment to send troops abroad in event of war --

"At the moment this is written we are extremely close to war with Japan. If that comes -- thus it is thought by many -- it will be wholly a war for our naval and air forces, not for our soldiers. They think there will be no need for soldiers of the United States to fight outside the limits laid down in the Draft Act: the Western Hemisphere, together with our territories and possessions including the Philippine Islands. But can we be sure? If we should fight Japan it would be greatly to our advantage if our air force could have bases at Vladivostok and elsewhere in Russian Siberia. If we have such bases it would be desirable to have soldiers there to guard them. It might even be desirable to have a considerable Army in Siberia. Also, if we are at war with Japan, Britain will be united with us. Prime Minister Churchill has said that Britain would be at war with Japan within an hour after the United States is. With the United States and Britain united in a war with Japan, a most important base of operations would be Singapore on the Malay Peninsula, occupied by Britain. It might readily become desirable for us to have an armed force at Singapore, either supplanting the British force or in place of the British force. Wholehearted cooperation between ourselves and Britain in a war with Japan might call upon us to provide practically all the necessary soldiers in Singapore, releasing British soldiers for service where Britain needs them sorely, in Europe and Africa."

A LOOK BACK AT 1942. Time magazine had a double-page subscription advertisement in last week’s issue, listing some of the major events of next year that Time’s writers and editors will report on. And they include some good tidings on the war (which the Time-sters seem to think America will be fighting by then) --

February 12, 1942 - Uprising of Zagreb. Here began the armed disorders which swept the Nazis from the Balkans."

"April 14, 1942 -- Isle of Dordrecht. Here Britain began a successful invasion of the continent."

"May 11, 1942 -- Over the Great Deep of Japan. A U.S. fleet under Admiral Stark here defeated the flower of the Japanese Navy."

"May 21, 1942 -- Battle of Bornholm. Where a small British fleet wiped out the Nazi navy in 27 minutes."

"November 5, 1942 - Santos, Brazil. Here the exiled Benito Mussolini broadcast Hitler’s secret plans to the world."

"November 23, 1942 - Berchtesgaden. Adolf Hitler deposed by Goering. Riots in Berlin, Munich, Mannheim."

Time isn’t claiming to have a working crystal ball. "But it would be much more amazing still," the ad reads, "if the decisive year ahead failed to produce stories even stranger, news even more historic, discoveries and inventions and achievements even more significant than those [described here.]"

Well, let’s hope that at least a couple of Time’s imagined events really do come to pass.

Sunday, October 19, 1941

JAPAN’S TOUGH NEW CABINET. If Japan-watchers are looking for any sign of hope in the fall of Prince Konoye’s cabinet, they can give up for now. There is none, not that the press mavens can see, anyway. The latest word from the Associated Press is that the new premier, Gen. Eiki Tojo, has publicly pledged "settlement of the China affair and establishment of a Japanese order in East Asia by quick action, not words, plus continued alignment with the Axis." Echoing his Fascist counterparts in Europe, the general prescribes "speedy action and iron will" as a cure for the Empire’s ills. His cabinet is predominantly military, with three posts reserved for himself -- premier, war minister, and home minister. (The Konoye cabinet had ten civilians and seven military men.)

While the New York Times and the Washington Post emphasize these facts, naturally the Chicago Tribune harps on Britain’s reaction to them. London is portrayed, of course, as prodding the U.S. to get into the war. Larry Rue’s story in the Tribune quotes a Daily Mail editorial -- "The time for decisive American action is at hand" in the Pacific. The News Chronicle advocates an American declaration of war if Tokyo engages in any more aggression in the Far East, but adds that "the resulting struggle probably would be short and sharp -- a single fleet engagement would decide the issue." Buried at the bottom of the Tribune article is a single sentence from the Daily Telegraph, which takes a more cautious approach. The Japanese cabinet crisis "does not necessarily mean war tomorrow," and hasty conclusions should be avoided.

But what the Tojo cabinet actually does is what’s important, not what London says the Japanese might do. And while the talks in Washington continue, there’s no indication General Tojo and his men have much of a regard for them.

NAZI SUCCESS CAUSES CHANGE IN TOKYO? Barnet Nover, in his Friday Washington Post column, ties the shift in Japan’s foreign policy to the success thus far of the German offensive on Moscow --

"The German drive has strengthened the hand of the Japanese extremists. They are eager to get going, believing that the present is a heaven-sent opportunity to settle accounts with Russia. But their first victory, if victory is theirs, is not likely to be acquired in either in Siberia or Thailand or any other area they hope to take over, but in Japan itself. Their first victory must be won over the realists who, believing as the extremists themselves do, in Japan’s ‘divine mission’ to be ruler of all of east Asia, nevertheless feel that this is no time for Japan to act. The composition of the next Japanese cabinet will tell how far these extremists will have their way. A showdown nears in the Far East."

From what we’ve heard since Mr. Nover wrote these words, it appears the extremists will have quite a lot of leeway.

THE RUSSIANS MOVE THEIR CAPITAL EASTWARD. The Red Army claims to be holding the line in front of Moscow, but the Soviet government’s actions paint a far different picture. Several unofficial reports now say the Russians have moved their government out of Moscow and have set up shop in Kazan, some 450 miles eastward. A Time magazine article from last July mentioned Kazan as a potential Soviet capital if Moscow were in jeopardy, and identified the city as the capital of the Tatar government in medieval times. The U.S. embassy got the jump on the Soviets, moving all but a skeleton crew of embassy personnel eastward to Kazan back in the summer.

The BBC says Stalin is still in Moscow, though no one expects the Russians would make some sort of grand announcement if he wasn’t.

IF JAPAN JUMPS INTO THE WAR. Walter Lippmann writes in his New York Herald Tribune column just how dangerous a Japanese attack could be to U.S. and British interests --

"Japan is teetering on the edge of a decision which, if taken, will immediately have the gravest consequences for the United States. A Japanese attack on Siberia, especially if the Russians are unable to hold a defensive line at the European end of the trans-Siberian railroad will immediately make Alaska and the North Pacific as exposed an area as is the Atlantic from North America to Greenland, Iceland, and the British Isles. Perhaps it will be more exposed. For the Japanese navy is much stronger than the German navy. A Japanese attack in the south via Indo-China and Thailand in order to isolate China and surround Singapore would be equally serious. For the region of the South Pacific is of the highest strategic importance, both economically and in a military sense. If it falls to Japan, she will have conquered the resources for an almost unlimited expansion of her armed power, and we shall become dependent on Japan for certain indispensable supplies. Moreover if the Japanese get to Singapore, there will be little to stop them beyond that. They can go to the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic -- the German, Italian, and Japanese navies will be able to join hands and act together."

Mr. Lippmann notes that, on the other hand, Japan cannot realize such gains "without a full-dress war with Great Britain and the United States," and that "the sober Japanese know quite well that if they start such a war, they will almost certainly be defeated." Thus Tokyo would be dependent on coordinated action with Hitler, and it is "in the highest degree probable" that something like this is being planned. We are moving, in the columnist’s words, toward "one of the great climaxes of the world struggle."

Sunday, March 2, 1941

BULGARIA JOINS THE AXIS. The lead sentence in the Washington Post’s lead story yesterday summed things up with dramatic simplicity -- "The long-brewing Balkan crisis has apparently come to a head." Specifically, according to the Associated Press, the Bulgarian government has agreed to sign the Axis Tripartite Pact, making Bulgaria a formal German ally and automatically inviting German troops to march into the country. And march they have, entering the capital of Sofia last night. No doubt, no question about it now. (Another A.P. story notes that Bulgaria is "the eleventh sovereign state [Germany] has overrun since 1938."). Bulgarian Premier Philoff went to Vienna to make everything official in a seven-minute ceremony, making his country the seventh member of the Axis, along with Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Rumania, and the "protectorate" of Slovakia. No doubt a British declaration of war on Bulgaria will soon follow.

There’s also no doubt Hitler is intent on protecting his Balkan flank from assault by British troops, and toward that end the Nazis have reportedly issued Greece an ultimatum – make peace now with Italy, or "suffer the consequences" two weeks from now. The United Press says the Greeks have been warned this is their "last chance" to accept peace terms, or Nazi troops will drive south from Bulgaria. There’s absolutely nothing surprising about this, but it sets new standards in Nazi gall -- Greece is at war because she was invaded by Mussolini’s forces, for goodness sake. She surely would have been quite happy to stay neutral, if the Fascists had left her alone. A war with Germany would be much tougher than anything the Greeks have faced so far, but I hope they stand their ground. Maybe, with British help on the sea and in the air, Greece’s military can once again defy outsiders’ expectations.

WHY IS RUSSIA SILENT? So far, no comment from Moscow about the German moves in Bulgaria, despite the high interest one would think the Russian government would have in a events taking place so close to her border. Professor Harold Laski’s syndicated column yesterday did a good job of putting forth some possible reasons for this --

"What is the explanation for the Soviet silence? In this country three predominant explanations are offered. One school, mainly Tory imperialists in complexion, though by no means wholly so, argues that the Soviet Union is bound to the function of a mere observer by secret clauses in the Russo-German pact. On this view, she is reconciled to the idea of a German victory in belief that the deeper enemy is Britain, behind which she sees the immense resources of America. With them, she thinks, there is no ultimate reconciliation possible....The second school of thought, among which many Socialists may be found, believes Stalin is anxious for a long drawn out war of exhaustion. This would, in his judgment, mean the undermining of the Hitler regime and the British Empire from within; there would be revolutionary uprisings throughout Europe due to the agonies of the people, and he would, as leader of the Soviet Union, then emerge as the leader of the revolutionary forces in Europe....The third school of thought takes a much simpler view of Stalin’s motives and I think its simplicity is founded on fact. Stalin is afraid of Hitler. He has seen the immensity of his victories. He is not persuaded that Hitler can be beaten. He knows of the blow Hitler could deal to the Ukraine were he to move in an anti-Nazi direction. He could count, no doubt, on a long defensive war. But he might well invite attack by Japan. He would have to desist from further aid to China and thereby add gravely to the powers of Japanese aggression."

Personally, I think the first explanation -- that Russia is bound by secret agreement with Germany not to react to the Bulgarian crisis -- sounds at least as likely a the last one, if not more so. Why? Simply because we’ve already seen it happen in regards to Poland. One could make a good case that Stalin’s pact with Hitler eighteen months ago to carve up Poland was short-sighted on the part of the Russians, since it led to the positioning of German armies right on Russia’s doorstep. Why isn’t it plausible that Stalin would cut a similar deal now, despite the fact that, as Professor Laski says, it "would bring the rich oil-bearing region of the Caucasus within striking distance of German arms"? It could well be that the Russians are winking of Germany’s march into Bulgaria in exchange for, say, Russia having a free hand in Turkey.

Thursday, February 27, 1941

LUCE SAYS WE’RE ALREADY IN THE WAR. Henry R. Luce, the publisher of Time and Life magazines and a Willkie Republican, contributed a long and thoughtful essay to last week’s edition of Life in which he exploded two pet arguments of the isolationist crowd -- that we can stay out of the war if we choose, and that if we get mixed up in it then we’re letting Britain dictate our foreign policy. To the contrary, Mr. Luce writes, acknowledging that America is already in the war would be a step toward taking an overdue leadership role in world affairs --

"All this talk about whether this or that might or might not get us into the war is wasted effort. We are, for a fact, in the war....Perhaps the best way to show ourselves that we are in the war is to consider how we can get out of it. Practically, there’s only one way to get out of it and that is by a German victory over England....We say we don’t want to be in the war. We also say we want England to win. We want Hitler stopped -- more than we want to stay out of the war. So, at the moment, we’re in....Americans have a feeling that in any collaboration with Great Britain we are somehow playing Britain’s game and not our own. Whatever sense there may have been in this notion in the past, today it is an ignorant and foolish conception of the situation. In any sort of partnership with the British Empire, Great Britain is perfectly willing that the United States of America should assume the role of senior partner. This has been true for a long time. Among serious Englishmen, the chief complaint against America (and incidentally their best alibi for themselves) has really amounted to this -- that America has refused to rise to the opportunities of leadership in the world."

All true and very well put, except for one quibble -- I have no doubt that when Mr. Luce says "we" want Britain to defeat Hitler, he’s speaking accurately about the feelings of a vast majority of Americans. But not all. The dirtiest sin of the isolationist crowd is their indifference to whether Britain or Germany wins. Just last Saturday the Chicago Tribune editorialized that Britain "has nothing to gain by continuing the war" -- an argument that could have, and often does, come from Berlin and Rome. But yes, most Americans wisely reject by now the foolhardy notion that we could live at peace with a Hitler-dominated Europe.

A CALL FOR AN "AMERICAN CENTURY." Contrast Henry Luce’s idealism in his Life magazine essay with the cynicism of isolationists. The latter portray the world as full of unscrupulous foreign leaders such as Prime Minister Churchill -- who is said to be hoodwinking the "bankers, college presidents, society women, and movie magnates" of America (in the Chicago Tribune’s phrase) into gullibly letting U.S. interests be subordinated to the economic appetites of nations which privately detest us. But Mr. Luce’s call for America to engage the world and lead the fight against tyranny -- to make this an "American Century" -- is built not upon cynical goals of exploitation, but on the ideals of our Founding Fathers --

"What internationalism have we Americans to offer? Ours cannot come out of the vision of any one man. It must be the product of the imaginations of many men. It must be a sharing with all peoples of our Bill of Rights, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our magnificent industrial products, our technical skills. It must be an internationalism of the people, by the people and for the people. In general, the issues which the American people champion revolve around their determination to make the society of men safe for the freedom, growth, and increasing satisfaction of all individual men....Most important of all, we have that indefinable, unmistakable sign of leadership: prestige. And unlike the prestige of Rome or Genghis Khan or 19th century England, American prestige throughout the world is faith in the good intentions as well as the ultimate intelligence and ultimate strength of the whole American people."

There’s much, much more to this inspiring and informative editorial, which is now available from the Life magazine offices as a reprint. If you missed it last week, by all means write for a copy from Time Incorporated, 9 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York.

THE ISOLATIONIST ARGUMENT FOR A TRUCE. For the sake of giving the other side a fair hearing, here’s a clip from the editorial from last Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, arguing why the British ought to seek a negotiated settlement with Germany. It’s offered here without comment, though I have to hold my nose to get through the arrogant condescension in the opening sentence --

"People in the midst of a war and under attack cannot think as clearly as people somewhat farther off. The question is whether a continuation of the war for an indefinite period, even with the unqualified assistance of America, will best serve the British interests. From a purely physical point of view the progressive damage to buildings, industrial and residential, and the increasing loss of shipping is obviously all loss and no gain. The realization, dawning on minds not prepared to accept it, that England cannot be a safe place is even more serious. Destroyed buildings can be rebuilt, but who will want to build in an England that has been pounded for another year or two?...The longer the war goes on the more it will be seen that the ocean lanes around England, even if they are kept open, as they can be, for the supply of foodstuffs, cannot be kept open for profitable commerce. Physically, therefore, Britain has nothing to gain by continuing the war....Even if peace today will not leave Britain the dominance of Europe she had held so long, it will leave her an empire intact, and the fleet that is not yet only one-half the strength of the American fleet. A negotiated peace would be the best thing for England."

Tuesday, February 25, 1941

TURKEY MIGHT DECLARE WAR ON HITLER. If German troops use Bulgaria as a staging ground for aggression, that is. The latest turn-around in the Balkan crisis comes just a week after the Turks signed a non-aggression pact with the Bulgars -- a pact that many observers took to mean Turkey was backing away from her alliance with Britain and giving Hitler a green light to move. But according to the United Press, Turkish Foreign Minister Saracoglu has now issued a statement saying his country "cannot in any way remain indifferent to foreign activities which might occur in her zone of security." The Foreign Minister also said the Turks would fight any aggression "directed against her territorial integrity or her independence" -- note the distinction. It’s widely believed Turkish officials consider a German occupation of Bulgaria and invasion of Greece to be a threat to the continued "independence" of Turkey.

They’re right to think that way, of course. Nazi occupation of the remainder of the Balkans would reduce Turkey to cowed neutrality at best. And it’s heartening that British Foreign Secretary Eden is headed for Ankara (from a visit to Cairo) to discuss what the current crisis means for the Anglo-Turkish mutual-aid pact. But is Saracoglu’s sudden attack of courage too little, too late? The Associated Press says that Bulgarian police have halted all automobile traffic in the region around Sofia, the capital, and foreigners have been barred from the border areas. "The capital was ordered to be ready for a blackout at a moment’s notice, beginning Tuesday," says the A.P.

There’s still no confirmation of whether German troops are actually inside Bulgaria or not, but the Bulgars certainly seem to think they will be shortly. They don’t seem to mind much, either.

WHAT WILL JAPAN DO? Will Japan and America remain at peace with each other? Part of the answer, according to Hugh Byas in Sunday’s New York Times, depends on Russia, which figures heavily right now in the thinking of Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka --

"Japanese strategists see two potential enemies able to engage Japan in a life or death struggle. On their north looms Soviet Russia, gigantic, distrusted, unknown. Manchuria no longer is a buffer State, for Red soldiers and soldiers of the Rising Sun can see each other’s blockhouses across the Amur River. On their south is the Pacific, where the American fleet can force Japan to throw its whole navy into a battle which, if lost, would lay the Japanese islands open to invasion from air. It follows, like a demonstration in Euclid, that Japanese strategy requires that Japanese high policy shall prevent circumstances from arising wherein Japan might have to fight these two potential enemies at once. Mr. Matsuoka belongs to that school of Japanese statesmen who hold that understanding with Russia should be a fundamental of Japanese policy. If an enduring pact with Russia materializes, Japan’s southward drive will be invigorated. But ‘no war with America’ must remain a fixed point in Japanese policy unless and until Japan is assured of Russia’s friendly neutrality. If an when Lieut. Gen. Yoshitsugu Tatekawa, Ambassador to Russia, can wire from Moscow that the Soviets have been squared, conditions will change and the pace of the Japanese southward march will be speeded."

Seen in this light, Japan’s troop movements in Southeast Asia this past week look more like a bluff than anything else -- the Japanese wouldn’t move on Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, and risk American intervention, until their position vis-a-vis Russia is secured. And one can take comfort for now in Mr. Byas’ estimation that Japan, if guided by the Foreign Minister’s hands, might not decide on war after all -- "The riddle of the Pacific is whether [Mr. Matsuoka] is skillful enough to devise and strong enough to enforce policies which can obtain by peaceful means those economic opportunities Japan asks as rightfully hers. Or will other Japanese forces, now dazzled by the results Hitler’s power policies have obtained, use their power ruthlessly and recklessly to seize the opportunity to which they believe Japan’s imperial destiny and their European ally’s might are beckoning them."

Sunday, February 23, 1941

ARE THE GERMANS IN BULGARIA? The New York Times’ C.L. Sulzberger says no, the stories about Nazi troops crossing the Danube River boundary line are "unfounded" and "premature." But the Reuters news agency reports from Belgrade that "German troops have been crossing the Danube into Bulgaria at the Bulgarian town of Ruse since 4 p.m....Friday." Also, Leon Kay of United Press reports that German marching troops and "heavily-loaded lorries" are said to have entered Bulgaria at Ruschuk, Mikopoi, and Vidin. And Sam Brewer writes in the Chicago Tribune that German engineer units have "pushed 60 miles into Bulgaria." I haven’t heard anything on the radio this morning to confirm or deny these stories, but there is one report that German officers in civilian clothes have established themselves in the capital, Sofia (and have been treated to student anti-Nazi demonstrations). There’s also a story that brand-new road signs -- in German -- have shown up on Bulgarian highways leading from the Rumanian border. Yet, there’s still no consensus that the Germans have arrived.

Is there any doubt they will? Unless this is all an extremely elaborate feint, it’s conceivable that the Germans would, this time at least, do what they have baldly telegraphed the world they are going to do -- drive through Bulgaria and into northeastern Greece. There’s a chance they’ll get a hot reception, if a U.P. report is accurate that the British have fortified the Greek island of Lemnos in the upper Aegean. This is a highly strategic point in the region, equidistant from the port of Salonika and the Dardanelles straits. According to the Tribune, a Turkish radio report said British forces in North Africa are holding large forces in North Africa in readiness "for an instant call to Greece." A year ago, the British were too little, too late in Norway -- this time I have a feeling it’ll be a much more even fight. It could even result in a stable Balkan front, similar to that which we saw in the World War.

HE WHO HESITATES... British author and statesman Harold J. Laski wrote in his syndicated column yesterday that Hitler is having a highly atypical attack of indecision --

"One can see the shape of a German spring offensive taking its determined form....Is it to be the long expected invasion of Britain? Is it to be an attack on the Middle East? Spain, to show its gratitude for past favors, by cooperating in an attack on Gibraltar? Is Japan to launch an attack which tests all of America to defend its interests in the Far East? Has France been pulled over to the border line of decisive subjection to the Axis? Will Turkey fight? Is the Soviet Union so fearful of a German attack that it will continue to stand aloof whatever the threat of a German advance to the Black Sea may imply? My guess...is that none of these and no combination of them at the moment is more certain than another. For the first time since the defeat of Poland, Hitler is uncertain of his next move. Axis propaganda is working overtime to find out, if it can, the weak point in the British armor. So much in the last six or seven months has proved totally unexpected that Hitler waits on the ‘feel’ of events for one of those intuitions of his which looses his barbaric savagery in a new quarter....Neutral observers who have recently been in Germany told me of conversations with sober, middle class Germans to whom now any postponement of rapid victory is the equivalent of certain defeat. They ask themselves why the Fuehrer hesitates. They begin to wonder if he is so certain of his direction. Something spectacular and determined he will no doubt attempt. The chance of a negotiated peace has disappeared. He must ruin or be ruined. But he is torn between the possibilities."

Professor Laski hastily warns that no one should underestimate the danger of a Hitler triumph ("His gambler’s chance of victory...is real and will last at least until American aid to Britain has made the sea lanes safe and has given us something approaching parity in the air."). But there does seem to be something lackadaisical about the German war machine all of a sudden – for instance, making such a big build-up about a tactical move through Bulgaria that will almost surely bring German troops into Greece, invading through the back door. It would be an offensive, yes, but limited in scope and defensive in purpose. Maybe you could say it’s still likely the Nazis will launch a "spectacular" attack on Britain this spring. Still, I’m starting to wonder if -- for whatever reason -- Hitler has suddenly opted for a careful and essentially defensive strategy of consolidation.

Thursday, February 20, 1941

A "FRIENDSHIP" TREATY THAT HELPS HITLER. The so-called "Pact of Friendship" just signed between Turkey and Bulgaria appears to be another sign of Hitler’s diplomatic offensive in the Balkans is going well for him. Certainly Washington Post columnist Barnet Nover sees it that way --

"The pact has the potential force of a bombshell. Its very ingenuousness creates the suspicion that it hides more than it reveals. Ostensibly an agreement whereby Turkey and Bulgaria agree not to attack each other, it may turn out to be an agreement permitting Germany to attack their neighbor, Greece, or frighten the latter into concluding an armistice with Italy. That is why there is no disguising the fact that the Turkish-Bulgarian treaty is bad news for Great Britain and her ally....Turkey happens to be an ally of Great Britain; Bulgaria has slowly but steadily moved into the orbit of the Axis so that today her status begins to approach the status of Rumania, an undefeated nation whose rulers ‘invited’ Germany to send in an army of occupation. Until just the other day there was the possibility that a German occupation of Bulgaria, whether open or covert, would meet with the forcible opposition of the Turks. For while Bulgaria is the pathway between the Danube and the Aegean it is also the pathway between Rumania and the Dardanelles. Indeed, the Turkish press issued repeated warnings to Bulgaria not to become the catspaw of the Third Reich. Yet now that this has happened, the Turks proceed to make a treaty which looks suspiciously like an acceptance by the Ankara government of Bulgaria’s new status and a pledge not to do anything about it so long as Bulgaria is not used as a base of operations against Turkey herself."

Ironically, Britain’s success against Italy’s armies in North Africa may have contributed to Turkey’s acceptance of a Nazi-dominated Bulgaria. Without an Axis drive on the Suez canal, there’s less reason for the Turks to fear a German pincer offensive through the Dardanelles and Turkey toward the oil fields of Irak, then southward. Mr. Nover also thinks the Russians, who are emphatically interested in staying out of the war, may have pressured the Turks to signal Ankara’s disinterest in fighting the Germans in Bulgaria. Could be, but unfortunately a number of countries in the last few years have declared their lack of desire to fight Germany, without prodding from the Russians or anyone else. They often end up invaded and enslaved. Turkey may live to regret her implicit acquiescence.

AMERICA’S DOING NOTHING TO STOP JAPAN. Syndicated columnists Joseph Alsop and Robert Kintner sounded a warning about the developing crisis in the Far East, and America’s lack of response, in their "Capital Parade" column yesterday --

"Expert opinion [in Washington] inclines to the theory that unless strong measures are promptly taken, the Japanese will move against Singapore or the Netherlands Indies in about a month, or perhaps sooner. If they do move, and are successful, the war in the Far East will be lost. It may prove to be one of the major misfortunes of our time, therefore, that the approaching crisis finds the Navy Department both badly divided on policy, and in the hands of men without real Far Eastern experience. American officers with this experience, who have seen the Japanese navy in action, are virtually unanimous that strong measures can be taken at little risk to ourselves. A mere gesture, such as the sending of a flotilla of cruisers on a ‘courtesy visit’ to Singapore, is considered enough to frighten the Japanese into good behavior for a long time to come....Unfortunately, the chief of naval operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark, is a rather careful, elaborately methodical individual who, for all his other virtues, possesses little dash or boldness....Stark and the general board are haunted by the fear that any measures we may take will risk reprisals from Japan, and that we shall find ourselves still involved with the Japanese when a threat from the European Axis power calls for greater naval strength in the Atlantic. Unless the President turns for advice to the men who know the Far Eastern picture, we may remain immobilized. And it is difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of the possible consequences of a timid American policy in the Far East."

What I want to know is, just what kind of "reprisals" are the Navy brass frightened of? As a New Republic editorial pointed out last month, our aid to Britain will not increase America’s chances of getting embroiled in war with Germany if Hitler doesn’t feel it’s in his advantage to fight the U.S. The same thing goes for Japan. If it’s true, as our Far East naval experts say, that the Japanese navy is much less imposing in quality than it is in quantity, and that "it could be dealt with adequately in six months by the American Navy’s Pacific squadron" (according to Alsop & Kintner), Japan wouldn’t go to war with us because America put on a show of force. Oh, she’d squawk, all right, but if we’ve learned anything from the European war so far, it’s that dictators are more likely to move if they detect timidity in an opponent.

Tuesday, February 18, 1941

WAR OR PEACE IN THE PACIFIC? Some contradictory indications in the papers the last couple of days over whether war is about to break out in East Asia -- either Japan vs. Britain or Japan vs. Britain and America. On the one hand, the British are mining the sea approaches to Singapore, according to an Associated Press story from yesterday. The A.P. says the action came as the British stand "on guard against the possibility of an actual Japanese campaign or a mere smokescreen to divert British attention from any European plans of the Axis." Britain had already placed troops, ships, and planes at Malaya’s border with Thailand to protect against a Japanese thrust in that direction.

There are other indications of trouble -- (1) the Japanese press is reporting rumors, datelined Bangkok, that a British-Japanese war is about to break out; (2) Japan is said to be setting up a military air base at Saigon, in southern Indo-China, which is only about 630 miles from Singapore and well within bombing range; (3) British officials have renewed their advisory of last fall that Britons evacuate Japanese-held areas of China; and (4) an official Chinese report claims the Japanese have stationed ten divisions in the vicinity of Southeast Asia.

So what does one make of Hugh Byas’s sunny article in Sunday’s New York Times reporting that a number of events the past few days have "appreciably lightened the strain" on Japan’s public, who’ve been worried about rumors of imminent war? Mr. Byas, the Times’ Tokyo correspondent, cites a statement by President Roosevelt that "minimizes" reports that war is nearer, and the words of an anonymous Australian spokesman that the situation in the Pacific is not deteriorating. Then, there are the official steps being taken by the Japanese public to reassure its citizens that an Anglo-American war isn’t on the horizon. And Mr. Byas adds that "putting these indications together and adding their own subconscious conviction that war with the United States would be a disaster that any Japanese government must try to avoid, the [Japanese] press tonight seemed considerably relieved."

Well, good for them. I hope they’re right to be relieved. But Japan’s military doesn’t much bother these days to listen to directives from their empire’s own government, much less the views of the press. And I get the nagging feeling from all this that Japan is planning to strike soon at British outposts in East Asia -- by "soon" I mean the second Hitler begins the long-awaited all-out Nazi assault on Great Britain later in the spring.

BULGARIANS WANT TO STAY OUT. Also in Sunday’s New York Times, C.L. Sulzberger writes from Sofia that rural Bulgarians don’t care a fig about this war, and are exasperated that they could end up in the middle of it --

"Eighty per cent of the population from the North Carpathians to the Marmora Sea comprises peasant farmers whose interests are crops, weather, and prices, the easiest way to live and die in conflict with the soil and not each other....The peasant does not much care whether he sells his goods to Germany or Britain, as long as he receives a price enabling him to live. He resents interference in his own affairs and he detests battles which not only kill but ruin crops, commandeer livestock and abolish fair prices. For this wish he has got nothing but war and the threat of war. The Balkan powder box is again smoking, and as usual it is some one far removed who is playing around with the fuse. The peasant says, ‘This is getting nowhere. During the war we will be occupied by Germany and possibly bombed by England. And after the war we will be occupied by Russia, and what will be left by then?’"

One can still sympathize with these sentiments while noting that neither this hypothetical peasant, or Mr. Sulzberger himself, seem to appreciate the cause-and-effect nature of the sentence, "The peasant does not much care...For this wish he has got nothing but war." Indeed, a lot of people in the neutral nations profess not to "care" about whether or not a bloodthirsty Nazi tyranny rules Europe, and a number of these neutrals have ended up occupied by the Germans. If the Bulgarians had pledged to fight, in conjunction with the Turks and the Yugoslavs, Hitler surely would be more reticent about his demands for troop passage through Bulgarian territory. But the rule seems to be is that if a nation’s people don’t care whether they sell to Germany or Britain, they’ll most assuredly end up selling to Germany. The German bayonets stabbing across their lightly-defended borders will see to that.

Sunday, February 16, 1941

HITLER PRESSURES YUGOSLAVIA. And the Yugoslavs may be about to cave in, according to an Associated Press dispatch yesterday --

"A Belgrade source close to Premier Dragisa Cvetkovic said last night that Yugoslavia would accede to Adolph Hitler's wishes after the return today of her statesmen from a conference with the Fuehrer. The country is expected to accept what were described as comparatively favorable terms in order to keep out of active warfare. These terms, while not yet known, are expected to call for active participation by Yugoslavia in Hitler's 'new order' for Europe. Informed sources interpreted the Yugoslavs' journey to Germany as meaning that the government of Yugoslavia had been driven into a corner as a result of Bulgaria's bowing to German wishes and Russia's nonintervention policy in the Balkans."

If the Yugoslavs sign on the dotted line, it'll be the biggest triumph yet of Hitler's building-block strategy in the Balkans -- turn Rumania into a vassal state, use her territory to pressure Bulgaria into submission, and then use the Bulgars' acquiescence to get the necessary concessions from Yugoslavia. And what are those concessions? The Germans aren't being bashful about this, according to a Friday A.P. dispatch -- "passage for German troops through both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria in order to get at Greece and the eastern Mediterranean." The New York Times story on this, by C. Brooks Peters, says the Yugoslavs' payoff for cooperation with the Nazis would be a slice of conquered Greece, namely Salonika, which Belgrade has been interested in as a more direct route to the Mediterranean.

Isn't it screwy that at a time when the Axis' military might is being tested more than ever -- routed in Italian East Africa, in North Africa, and in Greece, and blasted by an aggressive new R.A.F. bombing campaign over German-held territory -- Hitler might be on the verge of his greatest triumph yet at aggression-by-diplomacy?

THE TRIBUNE LASHES OUT AGAIN -- AT DEWEY. What's a Republican isolationist newspaper to do, now that Thomas E. Dewey has joined Wendell Willkie in endorsing the lend-lease bill? Publish yet another bitter, carping editorial, I guess. The Chicago Tribune did so yesterday, and placed itself in the strange position of denouncing last year's G.O.P. presidential candidate and the party's second most popular public figure as traitors to Republicanism. The crime is what these two gentlemen said in their Lincoln Day speeches --

"Republicans in the midwest who made [Willkie] their favorite candidate and who regretted to the last that the Willkie hoax was put over on the convention were not prepared to have him use the occasion of a Republican anniversary to give support to the dictatorship bill opposed by the faithful members of his party. Mr. Dewey endeavored to soften the effect of what he was doing. He referred to the bill as dangerous and unwise in the form it was submitted by the administration. He remarked that at the insistence of the minority it had been carefully considered. He said that as an American he was proud of the fair hearing given to both sides by the committees of the house and of the senate....'With some necessary further reservations of power to the people thru the congress,' said Mr. Dewey, 'I am satisfied that the House bill will be adopted. Speaking for myself alone, I hope it will be. I also hope that it will be in such form that it can be adopted with the support of both parties, serving notice on the world that the American democracy in full flower is a strong and united nation.'"

Sounds like an admirable show of bipartisanship to me, and a smarter approach than the Roosevelt Administration's short-sighted indifference to passing lend-lease by more than a party-line vote. But to the Tribune it means, somehow, that Mr. Dewey is a liar -- "[He] knows that if the bill was dangerous and unwise when introduced it was dangerous and unwise when it passed the house. He knows that evil was not taken out of it by amendment." Oh? And what evidence is there that he "knows" this? The Tribune doesn't say. And how does his qualified endorsement of lend-lease make Mr. Dewey "opposed to nothing the third term incumbent wants"?

The Tribune's latest barrage is one more outburst of hyperbolic pique, typical of the isolationists, capped with a closing thought that comes close to a smear -- "If the Republican party remains an American party, it will not make Mr. Dewey a candidate for president of the United States." I doubt that too many Americans will agree that Mr. Dewey is "un-American" for urging a bipartisan approach to our war policy, any more than most people can make any sense out of isolationist wheezes about the lend-lease bill serving as President Roosevelt's bid to "Hitlerize" America.

Thursday, February 13, 1941

IS ITALY LOOKING FOR AN ARMISTICE? A volley of rumors in the last forty-eight hours offer a couple of tantalizing possibilities -- is Mussolini trying to find a way out of the war? Would Hitler actually let him quit? The front-page story in the Washington Post says that American correspondents in Rome have been trying to get a "big story" past the censors, and quotes a dispatch from the New York Times’ Herbert Matthews -- "It is not permitted to write a word from Rome tonight about the big story (section censored)...American newspapermen have already been sanctioned for writing about (section censored)....It is hoped a communique will be issued...(section censored)..." All we really know is that President Petain was set to meet with Generalissimo Franco, who in turn would confer with Mussolini. C.B.S.’s Vichy correspondent, Courtenay Terrett, said flatly in a broadcast Tuesday night that "the visit of Generalissimo Francisco Franco to France is likely to result tomorrow in an armistice between England and Italy." I can’t believe that Germany would allow that, but an N.B.C. report from London claims that, simultaneously, the Nazis are trying to negotiate, on Italy’s behalf, an immediate truce with Greece that would allow the Greeks to hold on to all the territory they’ve taken from the Italians in Albania.

If that’s true, it suggests that Hitler would go very, very far and swallow a lot of Axis pride to end at least for now the fighting on his southern flank, which has gone so badly for the Duce since November. British troops in eastern Libya haven’t let up a bit -- they’ve already covered a third of the distance from Bengazi, captured just last Friday, to what the United Press calls the "great Fascist base" at Tripoli, possibly the last place where the Italians could make a major stand. Advance British tank units have taken El Aghelia, the last town in eastern Libya and 170 miles south of Bengazi on the coast. The Fuehrer might be betting that taking Italy out of the conflict would free up more German forces to attack England that it would British units to defend the home islands.

David Darrah of the Chicago Tribune gets downright giddy about these reports, writing that they might portend "a general cessation of hostilities" -- though he doesn’t explain how meetings among senior French, Spanish, and Italian officials could bring about peace between Germany and Britain. But it’s certainly reasonable to suspect that Mussolini wants out, and would actively exploring the possibility. There was nothing Wednesday or this morning to follow up on these reports, save for a bland communique of the Franco-Mussolini meeting, saying the pair had "a complete identity of views" on European matters. But if something comes of all this, we should hear about by this week-end.

SOMETHING’S UP IN BULGARIA. On the other hand, the persistent and ominous reports coming from Bulgaria raise another possibility -- the peace rumors are Nazi bluff. Russell Hill of the New York Herald Tribune writes that Bulgarian statesmen consider themselves "powerless to alter the course of events" and would not oppose the expected Nazi "request" to move troops through their nation. Meanwhile, Reuters says that over 1,000 German warplanes have landed in Bulgaria and that Bulgarian airdromes have been taken over by the Nazis. An Associated Press dispatch from Belgrade says German troop transport planes are flying towards the Balkans. Another A.P. report says those transport planes are landing at Bulgarian airports. A radio report this morning says that Hitler has amassed 600,000 troops in nearby Rumania, and that the ice in the Danube River, which has prevented a German crossing into Bulgaria during the winter, is breaking up in a premature thaw.

In a way these moves point up how much things have changed since last fall, when there were numerous press stories about plans for a grandiose Nazi sweep through the Balkans that would move on through Turkey to seize the oil fields of Irak, then join in a pincer with then-advancing Italian troops in Egypt to take the Suez Canal. The latest alarms of German troop movements do not raise any extravagant fears. This time, Hitler’s purpose is considered to be far more modest -- to get German troops into Greece before the British can move up forces from their African campaign to aid the Greeks and pose a threat to German interests in Rumania.

HOW BRITAIN COULD BEAT GERMANY. Colonel Lindbergh went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a few days, repeating his message that "Britain can’t win the war." His argument is based mainly on comparative numbers of troops, tanks, planes, etc., which show what a daunting task it would be for a British invasion force to dislodge the Germans from their conquests. But Lindbergh makes no account for issues such as strategy and troop morale, and indeed, as we’ve just seen in North Africa, a numerically-inferior British force has routed a well-trained, well-equipped Italian army. Could the British do the same thing to the Nazis? Obviously it is a much greater task, but Ernest K. Lindley set forth in his Washington Post column yesterday some ways it could be done --

"Roughly, there are two theories as to how the British could destroy the Nazi regime. By the first theory, they must invade the European continent and defeat the German armies in the field. This would be an immense undertaking, even from a base as close to Europe as England is, if the morale of the Germany army had not been undermined. By the second theory, the Nazis will begin to wane when the British become able to punish severely from the air military targets in Germany. When the British become able to do this, the Nazis will know the British are on the upgrade, from a military viewpoint. The Germans have nothing to fall back on. The British will have our immense resources to reply upon, and justifiably it will be supposed that their strength will continue to increase. Somewhere on this rising scale of British strength, it is supposed, German morale will begin to crack. This is especially likely to happen if the British assert convincingly that their aim is the destruction of the Nazi regime, not of the German people. By this second theory, the British will not need to invade the continent at all, or at least until the morale of the Germany army has been sapped. There are variations of these theories. For example, one is that if Hitler attempts to invade England and fails, at heavy cost in life, there may be a revolution in Germany, engineered by leaders in the army who openly or covertly were against the attempt at invasion."

There’s already evidence that the Royal Air Force is capable of dealing punishing blows to Nazi targets, such as the six-hour attack Monday on the industrial district of Hanover, which left the area "a sea of blazing fires," according to the New York Times. It’s this and the possibilities Mr. Lindley mentions that help illuminate Prime Minister Churchill’s renunciation of aid from an American expeditionary force. And there are more practical issues that would keep the British from desiring U.S. troops -- "Even through 1942, [Churchill] says, large numbers of new ships will be needed to carry supplies to Great Britain. There will be no shipping space left to transport and supply American troops.....Anyone who attempts to forecast the course of the war is only guessing. But Churchill’s speech shows that he realizes the British must not rely on us for more than weapons and ships. In turn, he is making the British people and their Allies realize this."

Tuesday, February 11, 1941

JAPAN’S THREAT TO THE PHILIPPINES. A long article in this week’s Time magazine goes into the chilling possibility of a Japanese attack on the Philippines, the U.S.’s ability to counter it, and just why such an attack, launched sooner rather than later, might well fit into Japan’s overall strategy for dominating East Asia --

"The Philippines’ danger is that the islands are a threat to Japan’s flank if she moves on The Netherlands Indies. To prepare for such a move, the Japanese may well make a sudden assault on the islands. The archipelago’s first line of defense would be Admiral Thomas John Hart’s thin Asiatic fleet (two cruisers, 13 destroyers, 12 submarines, as of June 1940). In a prolonged attack the Japanese would also have to meet the full might of the Pacific Fleet, now based on Honolulu. But what worries Filipinos is the problem of immediate defense against an invasion. Although there are only 10,000 U.S. regulars stationed in the islands (mostly in Luzon), U.S. Army men say: The Philippines can be defended....The core of this defense sector is Luzon. For on Luzon is not only the Philippines’ capital, but their only Navy Yard (at Cavite), their only naval repair station (Olongapo), most of their fortifications and military airdromes. So long as Manila is in U.S. hands, no Japanese drive to the south could safely by-pass the islands. Hence the U.S. Army has centered its defenses around Manila. Here the defenders of the Philippines would make their last stand against an invasion. Most officers think they could hold on until help came from Honolulu."

The Philippines aren’t scheduled to become independent of the U.S. until 1946, but Filipino officials aren’t waiting until then to create a national military, which could represent the joker in the deck -- "Back of the primary defenses stands a newer and more questionable one: the Filipino army. Preparing for independence, the Commonwealth hired (reputedly at $50,000 a year)a crack professional soldier to raise and train an army. The job went to General Douglas MacArthur, one-time Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and son of an Army general officer who once bossed the Philippines as military governor. The result of Philippine Field Marshall MacArthur’s four years of hard work is still a tactical question mark. The Filipino army consists of 20,000 regular troops and 130,000 reservists....The army is still short of modern equipment, a shortage that is dependent, like the rest of the U.S. war effort, on production in the U.S. Question mark though it is, the Philippine native army may well be the deciding factor, if invasion should come to the islands."

CHURCHILL WARNS THAT BULGARIA’S NEXT. The Prime Minister’s first radio speech in more than five months covered a lot of territory, most prominently the Balkans. The British now believe that some of Hitler’s vast army is headed southeast, and are sounding off about it -- according to Churchill, "a considerable German army" in Rumania has begun moving into Bulgaria, "with what we must suppose is the acquiescence of the Bulgarian government." Surely more than one listener got a deja vu feeling listing to the Prime Minister urge the Bulgarians to resist Nazi encroachments, since it was so similar to the message he gave the Netherlands and Belgium, about this time a year ago, warning that Hitler would not leave them alone. The Dutch and Belgians ignored Churchill’s words and, alas, the Bulgarians seem intent on doing so too. According to an Associated Press story yesterday, the Bulgarian government’s official reply to Churchill amounts to saying, "What Germans?" Only "a few officers and men" from the Reich are in their country, say Bulgarian officials, and that’s normal -- Germany has supplied Bulgaria with all of its military training and weapons.

But the A.P. also cites "usually reliable" sources in Sofia as saying that "a special soviet envoy had arrived...to discuss the question of passage of German troops thru Bulgaria." And the British are sure enough of their information that they’ve publicly warned the Bulgarians that "military objectives in that nation will be subject to bombardment" if the Germans come in, says another A.P. report printed Sunday. Passage through Bulgaria would allow German troops to drive toward the Greek port of Salonika, outflanking the Greek troops who’ve been battering Mussolini’s forces farther west. Yesterday’s Chicago Tribune has a page-one dispatch reporting that Britain’s dramatic capture of Bengazi has caught the Nazis off-guard, "giving rise to the fear British troops may be available to counter Nazi Balkan invasion plans sooner than they expected." A German ultimatum demanding right of passage through Bulgaria for a Nazi attack on Greece might come "within a few days," the Tribune reports.

Lest anyone feel relieved that a Nazi move into the Balkans makes an invasion of Britain less imminent, there’s a school of thought right now that argues it might actually herald a coming attack on the British Isles. An article in this week’s Time magazine describes a possible Hitler strategy of "diversion before invasion." British experts, Time says, "suspect that a southern campaign would be a sure indication of an imminent attempt at invasion."

"GIVE US THE TOOLS." Another great moment of Churhillian rhetoric, and an inspiring pledge to Americans, from the Washington Post’s transcription --

"The other day President Roosevelt gave his opponent in the late Presidential election a letter of introduction to me, and in it he wrote out a verse in his own handwriting from Longfellow which he said, ‘Applies to you people as it does us.’ Here is the verse: ‘Sail on, O ship of state; sail on, O Union strong and great. Humanity with all its fears, with all its hopes of future years, is hanging breathless on thy fate.’ What is the answer that I shall give in your name to this great man, this thrice-chosen head of a Nation of 130,000,000? Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt: Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and under Providence all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us out. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

Sunday, February 9, 1941

THE HOUSE APPROVES LEND-LEASE. By nearly a hundred votes, too. Last night’s large margin of victory, 260 to 165, will of course be seen as a big victory for President Roosevelt, but ironically it serves as another example -- as if we needed one more -- of how ham-handed the Administration and the Democratic House leadership have been in pushing this legislation. That’s because, according to Robert C. Albright’s article in Friday’s Washington Post, a decent number of those "yea" votes came at the last minute, as the result of a common-sense amendment that the President’s men hadn’t counted on and initially tried to swat down --

"The House...unexpectedly overrode its leadership, 148 to 141, to reserve for Congress the right to terminate at will President Roosevelt’s proposed powers to lend or lease arms. The supposed Administration defeat was immediately capitalized by the Democratic forces as an answer to charges of ‘dictatorship.’ Caught napping by the amendment, leaders first studied means to remove it from the bill. But that effort was abandoned last night when it became apparent that the change was winning G.O.P. votes for the aid-England bill. ‘I wish I had thought of it myself,’ said one Administration spokesman."

Really fills one with confidence that the White House sees national unity as a high priority, doesn’t it? The President could have cut the legs out from under the isolationists weeks ago if he’d offered as amendment like this in response to the widespread skepticism provoked by his original, sweeping lend-lease proposal. But he did little except heckle the opposition, with the apparent assurance that the Democratic leaders could successfully put across a partisan bill -- not minding that we are in a national crisis, and this is one of the most important measures ever considered by Congress. The Administration did have a stroke of sanity yesterday, when they agreed to a compromise amendment that limited to about $1,300,000,000 the amount of existing U.S. military equipment that could be transferred to Britain under lend-lease. Here’s hoping they show further signs of wising up as the Senate debate goes forward.

A STUNNING BRITISH VICTORY AT BENGAZI. If you happened to be strolling through the North African deserts this week-end, you might have seen a flash of light speed by -- the British army. According to the Associated Press, the armored formation of British troops who conquered Bengazi yesterday drove 150 miles westward in only thirty hours. They destroyed sixty Italian tanks in fighting south of the city and captured a large number of prisoners, including an army commander and several other senior officers. The A.P. says a numerically-superior formations of Italians tried to cut through a British cordon in the Bengazi area, but the attempt ended in "disaster." So now, Britain has effectively taken control of all of eastern Libya, though there are still pockets of Italian resistance to be mopped up, in Cyranaica and at Jarajub on the Egyptian border, as well as probably at oases here and there.

Anyone who listens to war news on the radio is probably immune to words such as "stunning" and "spectacular" by now. But the superlatives seem justified this time, especially if the British continue their march westward. Bengazi itself is a big, big fish -- the biggest base taken by the British in their North African offensive, a city with a peacetime population of over 50,000 and described by the A.P. as "one of the gems of the Italian Empire." And while this in itself is great news, I’m even more excited by what might be yet to come. The A.P. dispatch makes it sound like a complete British victory in Libya might not be far off -- "Between Bengazi and Tripoli -- 500 miles by road to the west -- there are only a few inconsequential coastal towns. The British expect the Italians to fall back to that ancient city with whatever men can survive to make their next, and, perhaps, last stand." Sounds promising.

BENGAZI -- "A STARTLING CONQUEST." Hanson W. Baldwin’s analysis in yesterday’s New York Times makes it clear just how much the Tommies have accomplished so far in their eight-week North African campaign, why the victory at Bengazi is so significant, and what opportunities it offers for the fighting ahead --

"Marshal Rodolpho Graziani’s Libyan armies have lost about 114,000 men (killed, captured, or wounded), or almost half their strength, and the British have fought and marched 490 miles beyond their railhead at Matruh in Egypt. Here is a ‘blitz’ campaign that rivals the speedy German victories in Poland and the West. The tactics of the North African triumph were leaves taken from the German book of war. The British have waged a campaign of mobility. Since the attack on Sidi Barrani, seventy miles inside Egypt and high-water mark of the Italian invasion, they have seized the initiative and held it, giving the harried enemy little time to reorganize....The capture of Bangazi is of military importance not only as the climax of a swift military campaign but also because it plants the Union Jack on the easily defensible line of the Gulf of Sidra, gives the British control of all roads and desert tracks that lead toward the Egyptian frontier and puts under British hands ports and air fields that will strengthen their control of the Mediterranean area."

Mr. Baldwin cautions that "distance and terrain and the tremendous problem of supply rather than the Italian opposition are now the chief obstacles to a further British advance." But if they can overcome these problems (and they should, since Royal Navy ships can now bring supplies to their desert army through Bengazi’s port), they can exploit their triumph by continuing westward, or in one of two other ways -- "They may take the long, hard road toward Tripoli and complete domination of Italian North Africa with perhaps a greater reward in a rapproachment with the French North African Armies. They may detach some of their forces to press the campaign in Italian East Africa or they may send more troops to Greece, perhaps risking bringing Germany down."

Personally, I hope Britain continues to press the Libyan attack, at full strength. The remaining Italian forces in Ethiopia and Eritrea are outnumbered, lack air support, and are too remote to have a meaningful impact on the war -- they could be left to subdue at a later date. But a new British drive that chased the reeling Italians completely out of North Africa would have an electric effect on the morale of every Briton, not to mention every anti-Axis citizen, diplomat, and soldier in Europe now looking for a reason to hope that the Nazis, too, can one day be chased out of the lands they’ve crushed.

Thursday, February 6, 1941

WADSWORTH’S GALLANT STANCE. However much more mud-throwing there is to come in the lend-lease debate -- and given the regularity with which Senator Wheeler and President Roosevelt now seem to accuse each other of treason, there will assuredly be more -- at least Representative Wadsworth’s speech gave us something more uplifting. The Republican from New York electrified his fellow congressmen yesterday with a ringing appeal for national unity and a proposal to add two new amendments to the lend-lease bill which would slightly further limit the President’s new war powers. They strike a neat balance between Representative Fish’s crippling amendment package and the Administration’s glib, trust-the-President line. The limitations include a cap on the total amount of money appropriated, at maybe $2,000,000,000 or $3,000,000,000 (Samuel W. Bell’s article in the New York Herald Tribune points out that such a limitation is "usually done by Congress in bills legalizing long-range expenditures."). The other amendment would limit commitments made by the President for beyond the two-year limit of his emergency powers. Representative Wadsworth is a supporter of lend-lease, and doesn’t feel the need so much to reassure himself with these amendments. But he does see the good sense in passing a lend-lease bill by the widest possible margin, with plenty of support in both parties.

If only the White House felt this way! Henry N. Dorris’s story in yesterday’s New York Times says that Administration officials were "somewhat staggered by the apparently warm reception given to Mr. Wadsworth’s proposal on both sides of the aisle." And they’re not interested in calls for unity, from the looks of it -- according to the radio this morning, Democratic leaders in Congress are planning to fight any cap on appropriations, even if it means in the end that the President only gets a strongly partisan, narrowly-passed bill (one prominent Democrat predicted earlier this week the current bill would pass by 50 votes, which is probably optimistic). The reasoning of Administration supporters in this regard is screwy. According to the Herald Tribune’s article, Representative Luther Johnson of Texas argues that "If [a cap] is too small, it would be disastrous" -- i.e., the British wouldn’t get enough aid to survive -- and "if it is too large, it would have a bad psychological effect" -- i.e., it would exacerbate fears the President is seizing dictatorial powers. Well, by that reasoning, wouldn’t "unlimited" -- i.e., no cap be all -- be just a tad too large? Do President Roosevelt and his supporters not see partisan broadsides and cries of "Trust me!" are not going to bring America together on this critical issue?

WHAT WADSWORTH SAID. Representative Wadsworth’s own words, as transcribed in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune --

"As I look back over the history of this country, and the processes of Government under the Constitution, I do not believe that a bill of this sort spells the end of liberty in America. If we could do two or three things to this bill, such as I have suggested, it might bring about some greater degree of unity on the part of Congress and the people of the United States. As we face this hour, this menace -- and I believe it most seriously to be a menace to us primarily -- how much stronger our government will be if the world knows that that is the way America feels."

Amen.

THE REAL REASONS TO PASS LEND-LEASE. The isolationists might be right about one thing regarding lend-lease -- if Hitler really does invade Britain in the next couple of months, the bill won’t be of any practical help in her fight for survival. Yet oddly, Administration supporters have argued in favor of the bill by harping that an "all out" Nazi attack on Britain is right around the corner. Ernest Lindley notes the "queer twist" in the debate in Wednesday’s Washington Post, and gives some good, less emotional reasons why lend-lease is necessary to keep the British in the war, and put Hitler off-balance --

"Supporters of the bill have been emphasizing the critical importance of the next 60 or so days. They have sketched a dreadful picture of the all-out attack on England which they expect Hitler to launch. It is apparent, however, that the lend-lease bill, even if it were signed today, could not materially increase our flow of munitions to England during the next 60 days....The reasons why the prompt passage of the bill is important have to do with morale, diplomacy and the military strategy of the British. Without the assurance that supplies will come from this country in increased quantities, the British will have to stop fighting. Their own factories, plus those of their empire and the rest of the non-Axis world, are not a match for Germany’s. To meet the Nazi onslaught, if it comes, the British need a morale of steel. The best stiffener we can provide -- apart from the declaration of war, which the British have been told again and again not to expect -- is the lend-lease bill. The bill will also bolster the opposition to Hitler throughout Europe, including the conquered countries. Every riot, every uncertainty, in Europe is a drain on Hitler’s military strength. On the military side, the bill will also enable the British to reapportion their strength....When it is passed, they can throw into action more of their first-line strength, particularly in the air, with the confidence that equipment will be replaced."

By the way, Mr. Lindley himself isn’t convinced by the arguments of some of our own military experts that a Nazi invasion is imminent. "One of the highest men in the Government does not believe Hitler can muster the strength, either in the air or on the water, to invade Britain or to bring it down by aerial bombardment or counterblockade. For every fact that is known there are many uncertainties. But among the known facts are that the British have many more combat planes and pilots than they had last September, and that they have constructed strong and elaborate defenses against invasion. Even the most profound pessimists in the Government are much less pessimistic than they were last June, July, and August, after the fall of the Low Countries and France and the loss of near all the British army’s modern equipment."