MORE GRIM PROPHECIES FOR SPRING. Another frightening prediction of what the British will face when the warm winds blow, this one based in part on General Marshall’s closed-door testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and distilled by Turner Catledge in yesterday’s New York Times –
"The best indications are that the blow will come in early Spring, and that by then Germany will have thirty-one divisions, composed of 1,200 squadrons of bombers and fighters which could keep 18,000 planes in action at one time if necessary. Back of this, it was believed, would be a 100 per cent reserve, making a total strength of some 36,000 planes in immediate combat force and reserves. The information leaves little room to believe, moreover, that Germany will lack enough trained pilots of a sufficient supply of fuel to operate its large air force. Some time ago she had 42,000 trained combat pilots and this figure is thought to have greatly increased since. In the cold statistics of the case, as figured here, Britain’s deficiency in the air, which is reckoned as the all-important arena in the expected battle, will be around 1 to 4 in April or May, the likely time of the expected invasion."
The "mosaic of information" compiled by Mr. Catledge says zero-hour for the invasion will be "unparalleled in world history, with every sort of destructive device sent across the English Channel," including poison gas. No doubt some will dismiss this as more pro-Administration propaganda for lend-lease -- but the seeming unanimity among the best-informed observers that this is coming is pretty sobering. I’m still wary of the timing. Hitler might not wait until "April or May," simply because so many people seem to expect him to.
THE TRAGEDY OF ITALY. The riots in Milan, Turin, and elsewhere northern Italy have been successfully put down, with a lot of help from German troops. But the handwriting is on the wall -- Italy is dying as an independent nation. Barnett Nover wrote an obituary of sorts in his Washington Post column yesterday --
"The Italians are an earthy, practical people who long ago lost whatever delusions of grandeur they may have possessed in the past. Mussolini tried to make them into first century Romans. In the process he destroyed Italy’s freedom, shed the blood of thousands of Italians, wasted the national substance. And now because the Italians suffered his rule, they face the loss of even their independence. The choice that faces Italy today is not a pleasant one. She is being ground between a powerful enemy and a ruthless and merciless ally. To abandon the struggle against Great Britain and Greece would only mean a further loss of the prestige that Italy can no longer regain anyhow and the possible loss of territory which has been far more of a liability than an asset to the kingdom. Yet to abandon the struggle abroad would only mean to invite a struggle at home. Already the German occupation is under way. And there can be no question that Mussolini would not hesitate to use Germans to shoot down his fellow countrymen if he found it necessary to do so to save the shadow of power he once exercised."
It all bodes, writes Mr. Nover, a future even darker for Italy than her present -- "The German legions who...are moving into the Italian peninsula are there only because Hitler has failed to win that victory over Great Britain which loomed so close last June and July. In occupying Italy he will only intensify the unwillingness of Italians to continue fighting. He will not be able to make them fight any harder or any better than they have done. But at least he may save the country from being used as a base of operations against him. Yet, whatever happens, Italy bids fair to become a battlefield. That is the legacy of 18 years of Fascist rule. That is the price Italians are paying for Mussolini."
GOOD NEWS FOR THE DUCE? Writing from Rome in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune, Allen Raymond notes Hitler’s intervention in Italy’s military affairs, but casts it in much more positive terms for Mussolini and makes it sound like the war in the south might soon take an abrupt turn --
"New life, vigorous and confident, is flowing into the Axis’s war machine in the Mediterranean zone, and while neither the daily communiques of the high command nor the Italian press gives any hint of it, a mighty counter-offensive against the Greco-British forces in Albania is being carefully prepared....Although the general public of Italy is still gloomy because of the serious reverses and great loss of men and material in North Africa, the Fascist regime has more reason now to be confident that the tide of battle may shortly turn against the British in the Mediterranean region than it had before the recent meeting between Fuehrer Adolf Hitler and Premier Benito Mussolini in Germany."
Sounds like more wishful thinking from Italian officials, given much more prominence in the Herald Tribune than the truth merits. But we’ll see.
ANOTHER WELCOME NOTE OF BIPARTISANSHIP. Thomas W. Lamont, vice chairman of J.P. Morgan and a life-long Republican who fought vigorously against the Third Term, has added his voice to calls for unity, at a speech yesterday to the Merchants Association of New York. From the Associated Press transcription --
"The [presidential] campaign is over. We are in the midst of a world crisis. As a nation we cannot and must not be divided. I am doing everything in my power to help the present Administration and I will continue to do so. And again I urge national unity in support of the President and of plans for material aid to England and for our defense....All Americans loathe war and a vast majority of us hope to avoid it...At the same time, we are not going to keep out of war just because we say we are going to keep out. The issue of war rests not with us, but with Hitler. He makes war when he pleases, how he pleases and against whom he pleases."
Mr. Lamont supports "whatever amendments may be essential" to the lend-lease bill, and it looks like there’s been a bit more progress on that front, too. According to Jack Beall in the New York Herald Tribune, House supporters of the bill appear now to have the votes to approve lend-lease with four amendments -- (1) a time limit of two years on special presidential powers; (2) a prohibition against using any powers granted in the bill to order convoying of British vessels by the U.S. Navy; (3) a requirement that the President report to Congress all operations and transactions under the act, and (4) a requirement that the President consult with the Army Chief of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations before ordering war materials sent to other nations. Willard Edwards’ story in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune listed the seven isolationist-backed amendments, but these -- including a cap of $2,000,000,000 of goods allowed to be shipped under the bill, and a demand that Britain put up security for aid sent to her -- don’t appear to be going anywhere.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Tuesday, January 28, 1941
A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. The best news to come out of the lend-lease battle so far are the radio reports on the bipartisan "seminar" held last night at the White House to seriously discuss the bill -- and possible changes to it. For the first time, President Roosevelt and leading Administration supporters actually went over the bill, section by section, with congressional foes of lend-lease, a welcome contrast to their running battle in the press over the last couple of weeks. The guest list included the President, Secretary Morgenthau, State Department legal advisors, the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House. No agreements were "reached or sought," according to reports, but two amendments under discussion will almost certainly be in the final bill. One is a time limit on the President’s special powers under lend-lease. (The isolationists want one year, Administration supporters want two). Also, the President will be required to issue reports to Congress on administration of the law on a regular basis, perhaps every sixty to ninety days. It’s not clear what will happen to isolationist demands that the final law bar U.S. Navy convoying of British merchant ships and limit the amount of money appropriated. Agreement on those and other amendments might come this week, although there’s no chance the President will accept the severe limitations imposed by Representative Fish’s seven proposed amendments.
As heartening as this all is, one wonders -- why on earth didn’t the White House do this before now? Why did President Roosevelt spend two weeks pooh-poohing opposition to his requests for sweeping new authority, even though some of the criticisms came from Democrats who’ve otherwise supported him on war issues? In fact, if last night’s reports are accurate in this respect, the impetus for this meeting didn’t come from the White House at all -- it was the work of House Speaker Rayburn, who wanted a unity gesture ahead of the House vote.
WILL HITLER TRY TO SEIZE THE UKRAINE? C.L. Sulzberger wrote an excellent summary in Sunday’s New York Times of what the Nazis have been up to in the Balkans these past months, particularly in Rumania. There, German troops and support personnel have been engaged in a lot of still-mysterious activity --
"Since September Germany has been dispatching a ‘military mission’ to rump Rumania. This mission is constantly growing in size. It is now believed to comprise about ten divisions of the Wehrmacht, with supporting anti-aircraft and ground crews. Cadres for a far larger army have been in Rumania since November. Equipment has been pouring across Hungary’s railway systems and came down the Danube until it was choked by ice. German engineers have improved main traffic lines and highways. German sappers are supervising the construction of fortifications along the Siret Valley. German aerial technicians are building new airdromes. German naval experts have enlarged the old Rumanian submarine base and repair station at Galati. German anti-aircraft units have been stationed at strategically important points, particularly along the Danube and around the oil wells and refineries. German oil men are building new pipe lines...."
To what end? Perhaps a military campaign, within the next few weeks, to bolster Germany’s efforts against Britain and the U.S. -- "There are many who think Germany will try and grab the Ukraine and Caucasus from Russia this Spring to build up her resources for a long war in which the United States is taking an increasingly active part. In order to do this, perhaps Herr Hitler would like to seize Salonika and European Turkey to guard his right flank and prevent the British from rushing naval aid through the Dardanelles to the Black Sea. It is also possible that Herr Hitler is visualizing a long war of attrition and would like to grab Salonika to prevent the British from ever again forcing a passage up the Varda Valley toward the Reich."
COMMON SENSE ON LEND-LEASE. Torrents of words have been printed in the last two weeks on the wisdom, and/or the dangers, of lend-lease. But nothing has struck me as stating the case for all-out aid to Britain as calmly as straightforwardly as an editorial in the current New Republic --
"Is all-out aid to Britain a step toward participation in the war? This is not a question, the answer to which can be taken for granted, as supporters of both sides have been doing. We certainly do not have to assume that the moment we depart from complete objective impartiality, we are automatically at war. Nor are the niceties of the international law of neutrality pertinent in the present world. ‘Non-belligerency’ is too widespread for that. The stock answer of administration supporters, on the other hand, that to aid Britain economically is to keep hostilities away from our shores, though true so far as it goes, does not answer the question what Hitler and Mussolini may do under sufficient provocation. We do not at present intend to declare war against them, but may they not choose to regard some aspect of our aid as an act of war? Such questions ought frankly to be faced. It seems to us the best answer can be only a guess, and that there are considerable risks on both sides. But it also seems to us some very good guesses can be made, and that there is more risk advocated by enemies of the lend-lease plan."
Indeed, the editors make it crystal-clear why the Axis powers won’t make war on the United States as long as Britain stays afloat, and that the real war danger to America comes from standing by and watching the British collapse -- "Nothing is clearer than that Hitler could do the United States little damage in war as long as Britain stands in the way. His navy is bottled up; his submarines and planes are busy sinking the ships that carry supplies to her. Italy certainly is not to be feared, and Japan would scarcely take the offensive against our superior fleet. On the other hand, if he started hostilities he would redouble our efforts, completely unify the country behind the President, and call into action our navy, air force, and even our army. Certainly, his aim of minimizing our aid to Britain would be checkmated by any act of war on his part – unless or until Britain is completely humbled....Hitler’s obvious course is to try and delay and reduce our help by threatening war, thus giving the President’s opponents material for their arguments....The course for this country if it wants to incur the least possible risk of war is clearly the exact opposite of that which Hitler desires."
As heartening as this all is, one wonders -- why on earth didn’t the White House do this before now? Why did President Roosevelt spend two weeks pooh-poohing opposition to his requests for sweeping new authority, even though some of the criticisms came from Democrats who’ve otherwise supported him on war issues? In fact, if last night’s reports are accurate in this respect, the impetus for this meeting didn’t come from the White House at all -- it was the work of House Speaker Rayburn, who wanted a unity gesture ahead of the House vote.
WILL HITLER TRY TO SEIZE THE UKRAINE? C.L. Sulzberger wrote an excellent summary in Sunday’s New York Times of what the Nazis have been up to in the Balkans these past months, particularly in Rumania. There, German troops and support personnel have been engaged in a lot of still-mysterious activity --
"Since September Germany has been dispatching a ‘military mission’ to rump Rumania. This mission is constantly growing in size. It is now believed to comprise about ten divisions of the Wehrmacht, with supporting anti-aircraft and ground crews. Cadres for a far larger army have been in Rumania since November. Equipment has been pouring across Hungary’s railway systems and came down the Danube until it was choked by ice. German engineers have improved main traffic lines and highways. German sappers are supervising the construction of fortifications along the Siret Valley. German aerial technicians are building new airdromes. German naval experts have enlarged the old Rumanian submarine base and repair station at Galati. German anti-aircraft units have been stationed at strategically important points, particularly along the Danube and around the oil wells and refineries. German oil men are building new pipe lines...."
To what end? Perhaps a military campaign, within the next few weeks, to bolster Germany’s efforts against Britain and the U.S. -- "There are many who think Germany will try and grab the Ukraine and Caucasus from Russia this Spring to build up her resources for a long war in which the United States is taking an increasingly active part. In order to do this, perhaps Herr Hitler would like to seize Salonika and European Turkey to guard his right flank and prevent the British from rushing naval aid through the Dardanelles to the Black Sea. It is also possible that Herr Hitler is visualizing a long war of attrition and would like to grab Salonika to prevent the British from ever again forcing a passage up the Varda Valley toward the Reich."
COMMON SENSE ON LEND-LEASE. Torrents of words have been printed in the last two weeks on the wisdom, and/or the dangers, of lend-lease. But nothing has struck me as stating the case for all-out aid to Britain as calmly as straightforwardly as an editorial in the current New Republic --
"Is all-out aid to Britain a step toward participation in the war? This is not a question, the answer to which can be taken for granted, as supporters of both sides have been doing. We certainly do not have to assume that the moment we depart from complete objective impartiality, we are automatically at war. Nor are the niceties of the international law of neutrality pertinent in the present world. ‘Non-belligerency’ is too widespread for that. The stock answer of administration supporters, on the other hand, that to aid Britain economically is to keep hostilities away from our shores, though true so far as it goes, does not answer the question what Hitler and Mussolini may do under sufficient provocation. We do not at present intend to declare war against them, but may they not choose to regard some aspect of our aid as an act of war? Such questions ought frankly to be faced. It seems to us the best answer can be only a guess, and that there are considerable risks on both sides. But it also seems to us some very good guesses can be made, and that there is more risk advocated by enemies of the lend-lease plan."
Indeed, the editors make it crystal-clear why the Axis powers won’t make war on the United States as long as Britain stays afloat, and that the real war danger to America comes from standing by and watching the British collapse -- "Nothing is clearer than that Hitler could do the United States little damage in war as long as Britain stands in the way. His navy is bottled up; his submarines and planes are busy sinking the ships that carry supplies to her. Italy certainly is not to be feared, and Japan would scarcely take the offensive against our superior fleet. On the other hand, if he started hostilities he would redouble our efforts, completely unify the country behind the President, and call into action our navy, air force, and even our army. Certainly, his aim of minimizing our aid to Britain would be checkmated by any act of war on his part – unless or until Britain is completely humbled....Hitler’s obvious course is to try and delay and reduce our help by threatening war, thus giving the President’s opponents material for their arguments....The course for this country if it wants to incur the least possible risk of war is clearly the exact opposite of that which Hitler desires."
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Sunday, January 26, 1941
RIOTING BREAKS OUT IN ITALY. Could it be that Mussolini’s regime, buffeted by military defeat, is starting to crack up? One can infer that tantalizing possibility from a couple of C.B.S. broadcasts last night, reporting on uprisings in Milan and movements toward Italy by Nazi troops. C.B.S. Belgrade correspondent Winston Burdett says that rioting is going on this week-end in several cities in the Po Valley, including Milan and Turin. Three Italian generals have been killed, and "several hundred" civilians wounded. The information comes from diplomatic sources in Belgrade. who also say three generals were killed by German troops who had intervened to put down street riots. Italian soldiers have taken part in street fighting -- but it’s not clear whose side they’re on. The disorders are "grave and far-reaching," according to C.B.S. -- and they’re continuing. German military units have occupied key positions in Milan, and another report by Henry Flannery, C.B.S.’s man in Berlin, claims that "endless trains with units of the German air force" are heading southward into Italy through the Brenner Pass.
Of course, the most hopeful thing about these bulletins, if they pan out, is that Hitler might have to make a dramatic and unanticipated move southward to bail out the Duce, committing military resources he might have planned to use against Britain. And that could once again postpone an all-out invasion.
INVASION OF BRITAIN "WITHIN THREE MONTHS." One can only hope for anything that delays the Germans from trying an invasion. As horrifying as the current air campaign has been, Drew Middleton writes in an Associated Press dispatch that when Hitler sends his troops onto the British beaches, it’ll get unbelievably worse. It will be, according to military and diplomatic circles in London --
"...the mightiest onslaught in history, with bombing on an unimaginable scale and the use of every modern weapon, including flame-throwers and gas, to be launched upon the British Isles within three months....Britain, these informants believe, will beat off the German invasion attempt, but only after sacrificing half of her airforce, three-quarters of her battle fleet and at least 250,000 troops. Along the beaches and behind them tonight Britain tightened the lines of preparation for the expected assault, particularly the threat of gas. Authorities considered requiring a gas mask as an admission ‘ticket’ to bomb shelters and the Ministry of Home Security weighed plans for civilian gas alarm practices to shake Britons back into consciousness of this menace."
The Germans, naturally, hope that merely by spreading the fear of such an attack, they can reap the benefits of it by deterring their enemies from defending themselves. That won’t work with Churchill, or the British people as a whole. Here’s hoping it won’t work with Americans, either.
LINDBERGH’S GLOOM AND DOOM. The House Foreign Affairs Committee heard another round of isolationist argument Thursday, this time from Colonel Lindbergh himself. And the Colonel outdid himself, with a series of eye-popping remarks that demonstrate his vision of what it’s like to be, in his words, "perfectly neutral." His most dramatically-stated reason for opposing lend-lease aid to Britain was his most dour -- namely, there’s no practical way we can defeat Hitler -- ever. He told the congressmen that only through a "coincidence of miracles" could the United States and Britain, now or even years from now, subdue the Nazi empire through invasion. In terms of what’s politically advisable to say out loud, that was too much for Representative Fish, the arch-isolationist New York congressman, who tried to get Lindbergh to back off -- "You do not want the impression to go out to the country that England couldn’t win the war if it went on a long time and if we were willing to send 20 million men, we couldn’t wear the Germans down?" Lindbergh moderated his defeatist impulses only slightly, replying that it’s "possible but not probable."
Yet even if it were possible, Colonel Lindbergh made it clear he doesn’t want to see a victory over Hitler -- he mused that victory by either side would be a "disaster" and endorsed the long-discarded notion of a negotiated peace. But why should the Colonel want a victory for the democracies, since he feels passionately, to the point of ignoring inconvenient facts, that the war is largely our fault? Says Willard Edwards’ account in the Chicago Tribune -- "Lindbergh placed part of the blame for the European war on this nation. If England and France had been put on notice in advance that the United States would not supply arms or take part, the war would not have started, he contended. When he was reminded that the arms embargo had not been lifted when the war started, he replied that he believed England and France expected it would be." Finally, while the Colonel has never forgone an opportunity to condemn the Administration for moving us "away from democracy," he’s meek as a mouse on the subject of the world’s most dangerous dictator. When asked if by Representative Luther Johnson of Texas if he’d ever criticized Hitler, Lindbergh replied, "Yes...but not publicly."
One wishes that this kind of "Blame America, but Not the Dictators" guff was considered beyond the pale by more responsible isolationists. Alas, it doesn’t seem to be. When General Hugh Johnson testified Thursday, he repeated the notion that the Germans are impregnable and asserting that U.S. policy should be one of cynical calculation ("We should...not get into this thing until we know which way the cat’s going to jump."). Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune runs Lindbergh’s words now as if they’re Holy Scripture, and Mr. Edwards’ story on the Colonel’s committee appearance contains the usual drippy phrases ("With fire and sincerity, he preached...", "statements of the airman who thrilled the world...") that are routinely seen these days in the biased "anti-war" press.
HUTCHINS -- THE U.S. ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH. Further evidence that the isolationist side is collectively staggering right over a cliff, from a speech delivered over the N.B.C. Red Network by Dr. Robert Maynard Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago. Like Colonel Lindbergh, President Hutchins is alarmed that the Roosevelt Administration seeks to help the anti-Hitler forces achieve "victory," since that might be too much trouble in the long run. He takes an incoherent stand, claiming to support aid to Britain if it’s "extended on the basis most likely to keep us at peace" (but not "one dime more," and not enough to give the British a chance to win). And he assails the Administration because -- get this -- its stance on the war isn’t selfish and cold-blooded enough to suit him --
"If we go to war, what are we going to war for? This is to be a crusade, a holy war. Its object is moral. We are seeking, the President tells us, ‘a world founded on freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.’ We are to intervene to support the moral order. We are to fight for ‘the supremacy of human rights everywhere.’...I hold that the United States can better serve suffering humanity by staying out....The chances of accomplishing the high moral purposes which the President has stated for America, even if we stay out of war, are not bright. The world is in chaos....What we have of high moral purpose is likely to suffer dilution at home and a cold reception abroad."
Astonishingly, President Hutchins then explains that the U.S. falls short of some arbitrary, insanely high level of moral standing which would be required of us to battle Hitlerism -- "We are morally and intellectually unprepared to execute the moral mission to which the President calls us. A missionary, even a missionary to the cannibals, must have clear and defensible convictions....It is surely not too much to ask of such a missionary that his own life and works reflect the virtues which he seeks to compel others to adopt. If we stay out of war, we may perhaps some day understand and practice freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We may even be able to comprehend and support justice, democracy, the moral order, and the supremacy of human rights. Today we have barely begun to grasp the meaning of the words. Those beginnings are important....They leave us, however, a good deal short of the level of excellence which entitles us to convert the world by force of arms."
WIDE MAJORITY FAVORS AID, SAYS GALLUP. Despite all the noise they’ve made in Congress and in this press this past week, the isolationists appear to be losing the battle for public opinion, if a new Gallup poll is to be believed. The survey, published in yesterday’s Washington Post, show a dramatic switch this past year in the number of Americans willing to send war material to Britain "even at the risk of getting into the war." Last May, 64% of Americans said it was more important for the U.S. to stay out of the war, while only 36% favored helping England. Now, the numbers have flip-flipped -- 68% for helping England, no matter what, and only 32% saying it’s more important to stay out of the war. Gallup says President Roosevelt’s fireside chat last month and his defense message to Congress have had a dramatic impact on public sentiment, and again the surveys seem to bear that out -- as recently as October, the public was split 50-50 on aid to Britain.
Also interesting is a Gallup survey issued a week ago which seems to show strong bipartisanship for lend-lease aid to the British. Some 74% of Democrats favor aid, and 62% of Republicans do -- which means the G.O.P. rank-and-file is much closer to Wendell Willkie’s position than to Colonel Lindbergh’s.
Of course, the most hopeful thing about these bulletins, if they pan out, is that Hitler might have to make a dramatic and unanticipated move southward to bail out the Duce, committing military resources he might have planned to use against Britain. And that could once again postpone an all-out invasion.
INVASION OF BRITAIN "WITHIN THREE MONTHS." One can only hope for anything that delays the Germans from trying an invasion. As horrifying as the current air campaign has been, Drew Middleton writes in an Associated Press dispatch that when Hitler sends his troops onto the British beaches, it’ll get unbelievably worse. It will be, according to military and diplomatic circles in London --
"...the mightiest onslaught in history, with bombing on an unimaginable scale and the use of every modern weapon, including flame-throwers and gas, to be launched upon the British Isles within three months....Britain, these informants believe, will beat off the German invasion attempt, but only after sacrificing half of her airforce, three-quarters of her battle fleet and at least 250,000 troops. Along the beaches and behind them tonight Britain tightened the lines of preparation for the expected assault, particularly the threat of gas. Authorities considered requiring a gas mask as an admission ‘ticket’ to bomb shelters and the Ministry of Home Security weighed plans for civilian gas alarm practices to shake Britons back into consciousness of this menace."
The Germans, naturally, hope that merely by spreading the fear of such an attack, they can reap the benefits of it by deterring their enemies from defending themselves. That won’t work with Churchill, or the British people as a whole. Here’s hoping it won’t work with Americans, either.
LINDBERGH’S GLOOM AND DOOM. The House Foreign Affairs Committee heard another round of isolationist argument Thursday, this time from Colonel Lindbergh himself. And the Colonel outdid himself, with a series of eye-popping remarks that demonstrate his vision of what it’s like to be, in his words, "perfectly neutral." His most dramatically-stated reason for opposing lend-lease aid to Britain was his most dour -- namely, there’s no practical way we can defeat Hitler -- ever. He told the congressmen that only through a "coincidence of miracles" could the United States and Britain, now or even years from now, subdue the Nazi empire through invasion. In terms of what’s politically advisable to say out loud, that was too much for Representative Fish, the arch-isolationist New York congressman, who tried to get Lindbergh to back off -- "You do not want the impression to go out to the country that England couldn’t win the war if it went on a long time and if we were willing to send 20 million men, we couldn’t wear the Germans down?" Lindbergh moderated his defeatist impulses only slightly, replying that it’s "possible but not probable."
Yet even if it were possible, Colonel Lindbergh made it clear he doesn’t want to see a victory over Hitler -- he mused that victory by either side would be a "disaster" and endorsed the long-discarded notion of a negotiated peace. But why should the Colonel want a victory for the democracies, since he feels passionately, to the point of ignoring inconvenient facts, that the war is largely our fault? Says Willard Edwards’ account in the Chicago Tribune -- "Lindbergh placed part of the blame for the European war on this nation. If England and France had been put on notice in advance that the United States would not supply arms or take part, the war would not have started, he contended. When he was reminded that the arms embargo had not been lifted when the war started, he replied that he believed England and France expected it would be." Finally, while the Colonel has never forgone an opportunity to condemn the Administration for moving us "away from democracy," he’s meek as a mouse on the subject of the world’s most dangerous dictator. When asked if by Representative Luther Johnson of Texas if he’d ever criticized Hitler, Lindbergh replied, "Yes...but not publicly."
One wishes that this kind of "Blame America, but Not the Dictators" guff was considered beyond the pale by more responsible isolationists. Alas, it doesn’t seem to be. When General Hugh Johnson testified Thursday, he repeated the notion that the Germans are impregnable and asserting that U.S. policy should be one of cynical calculation ("We should...not get into this thing until we know which way the cat’s going to jump."). Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune runs Lindbergh’s words now as if they’re Holy Scripture, and Mr. Edwards’ story on the Colonel’s committee appearance contains the usual drippy phrases ("With fire and sincerity, he preached...", "statements of the airman who thrilled the world...") that are routinely seen these days in the biased "anti-war" press.
HUTCHINS -- THE U.S. ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH. Further evidence that the isolationist side is collectively staggering right over a cliff, from a speech delivered over the N.B.C. Red Network by Dr. Robert Maynard Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago. Like Colonel Lindbergh, President Hutchins is alarmed that the Roosevelt Administration seeks to help the anti-Hitler forces achieve "victory," since that might be too much trouble in the long run. He takes an incoherent stand, claiming to support aid to Britain if it’s "extended on the basis most likely to keep us at peace" (but not "one dime more," and not enough to give the British a chance to win). And he assails the Administration because -- get this -- its stance on the war isn’t selfish and cold-blooded enough to suit him --
"If we go to war, what are we going to war for? This is to be a crusade, a holy war. Its object is moral. We are seeking, the President tells us, ‘a world founded on freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.’ We are to intervene to support the moral order. We are to fight for ‘the supremacy of human rights everywhere.’...I hold that the United States can better serve suffering humanity by staying out....The chances of accomplishing the high moral purposes which the President has stated for America, even if we stay out of war, are not bright. The world is in chaos....What we have of high moral purpose is likely to suffer dilution at home and a cold reception abroad."
Astonishingly, President Hutchins then explains that the U.S. falls short of some arbitrary, insanely high level of moral standing which would be required of us to battle Hitlerism -- "We are morally and intellectually unprepared to execute the moral mission to which the President calls us. A missionary, even a missionary to the cannibals, must have clear and defensible convictions....It is surely not too much to ask of such a missionary that his own life and works reflect the virtues which he seeks to compel others to adopt. If we stay out of war, we may perhaps some day understand and practice freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We may even be able to comprehend and support justice, democracy, the moral order, and the supremacy of human rights. Today we have barely begun to grasp the meaning of the words. Those beginnings are important....They leave us, however, a good deal short of the level of excellence which entitles us to convert the world by force of arms."
WIDE MAJORITY FAVORS AID, SAYS GALLUP. Despite all the noise they’ve made in Congress and in this press this past week, the isolationists appear to be losing the battle for public opinion, if a new Gallup poll is to be believed. The survey, published in yesterday’s Washington Post, show a dramatic switch this past year in the number of Americans willing to send war material to Britain "even at the risk of getting into the war." Last May, 64% of Americans said it was more important for the U.S. to stay out of the war, while only 36% favored helping England. Now, the numbers have flip-flipped -- 68% for helping England, no matter what, and only 32% saying it’s more important to stay out of the war. Gallup says President Roosevelt’s fireside chat last month and his defense message to Congress have had a dramatic impact on public sentiment, and again the surveys seem to bear that out -- as recently as October, the public was split 50-50 on aid to Britain.
Also interesting is a Gallup survey issued a week ago which seems to show strong bipartisanship for lend-lease aid to the British. Some 74% of Democrats favor aid, and 62% of Republicans do -- which means the G.O.P. rank-and-file is much closer to Wendell Willkie’s position than to Colonel Lindbergh’s.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Thursday, January 23, 1941
MORE AXIS TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH. This morning’s radio bulletins confirm that Tobruk has fallen to the British after a thirty-hour assault that overpowered the 20,000 to 30,000 Italian troops besieged within. This brings the British now eighty miles inside Libya in three weeks of fighting. They’ve killed, wounded, or taken prisoner an estimated 83,500 Fascist troops in that time, almost one-third of Marshal Graziani’s Libyan army, according to the Associated Press. According to one especially ghastly report this morning, a column of thousands of Italian prisoners was raked by Fascist artillery, blasting many of their own men to bits. And significantly, says the A.P., "There was no indication that German planes were aiding the Italians at Tobruk. No German planes have been reported over Libya."
Germany’s got her own problems in the Balkans, as it turns out. Widespread civil disorders in Rumania sparked by the Iron Guard, a nominally pro-Nazi militia, have forced General Antonescu to put the Army in charge of the country’s law enforcement and industry. And the latest rumors say the fighting has brought up to 200,000 German troops streaming into the country, ready to take control. Even timid old Marshal Petain has gotten up some courage as a result of the latest Axis woes -- Allen Raymond writes in the New York Herald Tribune that the Marshal "has stiffened perceptively toward the Germans" and has warned them that unless "greater deference is paid to French public opinion" by the Nazis, Vichy won’t be responsible for any "actions" taken by French forces in Africa now under General Weygand’s command.
Hitler needs a dramatic victory, quickly -- a keen demonstration of his power -- to calm his restive empire. In the meantime, you’ve got to imagine that morale within Italy has sunk about as low as can be. How many more of these dramatic, ignoble defeats can Mussolini’s people take before the braver ones begin talking about getting Italy out of the war?
THE DUCE WORRIES ABOUT U.S. "INTERVENTION." More evidence of the effect America’s lend-lease debate had on the latest Axis summit meeting, as reported from Rome by Camille M. Cianfarra in Wednesday’s New York Times --
"How to defeat Great Britain before what is here regarded as likely American intervention in the European conflict was the main topic of the Mussolini-Hitler conversation, press and officially inspired comment made clear today....‘Since his re-election Roosevelt has assumed a bellicose attitude,’ said the Rome radio.... ‘The possibility of an American intervention cannot have been ignored by Mussolini and Hitler during their meeting.’....[The two dictators know] that in the next few months, the United States could give no appreciable aid to Britain and that the real weight of United States military support would be felt in the latter part of the present year. It is only logical to assume [according to the Italian press] that before United States intervention can make itself felt, the Axis will have to devise means with which to give the United States as few chances as possible of direct participation in the conflict. One way to do this, it is said, is to beat Britain in the Mediterranean. Should Greece and Egypt be conquered, the Axis, it is argued, would remove two battlefields where Americans might fight."
Sounds like more wishful thinking on the part of the Italians, who desperately want Hitler’s troops to bail them out in Africa and Albania. The obvious comeback is that should Britain be conquered by Axis arms, it would prevent large-scale American aid from making the British Isles impregnable to Nazi assault, and a base for wholesale bombing campaigns against German targets on the European continent. This has got to concern Hitler much more right now than anything that happens in Egypt, or even Greece. It lends credence to the continuing rumors that Hitler’s agents are trying to secretly negotiate with the Greek government for an end to the fighting in Albania. And that’s another reason why an "all out" invasion of Britain will almost surely be Hitler’s next move.
KENNEDY VERSUS KENNEDY. Interventionists and isolationists alike find something to admire in Ambassador Kennedy’s public pronouncements on the lend-lease bill. Turner Catledge reports in yesterday’s New York Times that in addressing the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Kennedy "threw in his lot...with those urging greater executive powers to enable President Roosevelt to aid the foes of the Axis." But according to Willard Edwards in the Chicago Tribune, the Ambassador warned "that American blood would be shed on foreign shores if the United States allies herself with Great Britain." Who’s right? According to Dorothy Thompson in the New York Herald Tribune, they both are! Miss Thompson’s latest column describes Mr. Kennedy’s radio speech last week-end on the subject an "open forum of the air, in which Mr. Kennedy debated Mr. Kennedy." She adds --
"It seemed to me in reading Mr. Kennedy’s speech that he had out-Hamleted Hamlet...Mr. Kennedy spoke in connection with the bill...to give the President power -- to quote Mr. Kennedy -- to decide where the line is to be drawn in sending aid to Britain. Mr. Kennedy said it ought to be ‘determined by the President, acting with our trained experts of the Army and Navy. They know best what we can spare.’ To give the President that power, to unify, that is to say, the command and control of policy vis-a-vis Britain and the rest of the world, is the sole purpose of the bill now being debated....If every move we make is to be subjected to all the cross-currents of Congress, debated before the whole world, and delayed in the debating, we shall not do anything effectively. Furthermore, the very lag in passing the bill is holding up action that might be effective tomorrow and ineffective a week from now. Yet, under the guise of presenting impartially both sides of the question, Mr. Kennedy urged that the bill should not be passed, because the situation was not yet serious enough to call for it, although if Mr. Kennedy’s speech proved anything...it proved that the situation is as serious as it can possibly be! For though he would like peace, he said, categorically, that from his observation peace was impossible...that, although Germany was 3,000 miles away, Hitler wages total war for a new world order; that...he would be in favor of declaring war this moment if he was sure that Germany could be defeated quickly."
I didn’t hear Ambassador Kennedy’s radio speech. But although it’s true his testimony to Congress yesterday was excessively nuanced, the main problem for me was his lack of specific counter-proposals. Amen to those who are wary of the lend-lease bill in its present form, but how should it be amended? Mr. Kennedy hinted that he disagreed with one or two of the seven toughly-worded amendments offered by Representative Fish, but beyond that, and had few concrete recommendations beyond implying that the emergency powers be time-limited and a cap be placed on the funds available for military aid. It’s refreshing to hear someone in the Foreign Affairs Committee hearings take strong issue with the President while praising his patriotism, as Mr. Kennedy did. But more precision would have been welcome on his part. We need a workable bill, specifically amended in a way that can attract the broadest possible support, give the President the authority he needs, and preserve the constitutional separation of powers. And we need it quicky. A rambling analysis doesn’t help much.
THE INAUGURAL PARADE, PLUS ONE. As part of its coverage of President Roosevelt’s inaugural parade, the New York Herald Tribune reported Tuesday on an unplanned marcher who followed a platoon of W.P.A. workers as they strode past the President’s reviewing stand -- "The front ranks evoked smiles and ripples of applause when they abandoned all formal ‘eyes left’ tribute and waved their painters’ caps at the President. The President smiled his broadest smile and waved back. But in the rear rank -- in fact, in a rank all to himself, ten to twenty feet from the others -- came a lone W.P.A. worker who was, frankly, very, very drunk. He took no note of the President and continued his staggering way, with a cigarette between his lips. The President’s smile froze quickly and he shifted his glance down the avenue to the next approaching unit."
Germany’s got her own problems in the Balkans, as it turns out. Widespread civil disorders in Rumania sparked by the Iron Guard, a nominally pro-Nazi militia, have forced General Antonescu to put the Army in charge of the country’s law enforcement and industry. And the latest rumors say the fighting has brought up to 200,000 German troops streaming into the country, ready to take control. Even timid old Marshal Petain has gotten up some courage as a result of the latest Axis woes -- Allen Raymond writes in the New York Herald Tribune that the Marshal "has stiffened perceptively toward the Germans" and has warned them that unless "greater deference is paid to French public opinion" by the Nazis, Vichy won’t be responsible for any "actions" taken by French forces in Africa now under General Weygand’s command.
Hitler needs a dramatic victory, quickly -- a keen demonstration of his power -- to calm his restive empire. In the meantime, you’ve got to imagine that morale within Italy has sunk about as low as can be. How many more of these dramatic, ignoble defeats can Mussolini’s people take before the braver ones begin talking about getting Italy out of the war?
THE DUCE WORRIES ABOUT U.S. "INTERVENTION." More evidence of the effect America’s lend-lease debate had on the latest Axis summit meeting, as reported from Rome by Camille M. Cianfarra in Wednesday’s New York Times --
"How to defeat Great Britain before what is here regarded as likely American intervention in the European conflict was the main topic of the Mussolini-Hitler conversation, press and officially inspired comment made clear today....‘Since his re-election Roosevelt has assumed a bellicose attitude,’ said the Rome radio.... ‘The possibility of an American intervention cannot have been ignored by Mussolini and Hitler during their meeting.’....[The two dictators know] that in the next few months, the United States could give no appreciable aid to Britain and that the real weight of United States military support would be felt in the latter part of the present year. It is only logical to assume [according to the Italian press] that before United States intervention can make itself felt, the Axis will have to devise means with which to give the United States as few chances as possible of direct participation in the conflict. One way to do this, it is said, is to beat Britain in the Mediterranean. Should Greece and Egypt be conquered, the Axis, it is argued, would remove two battlefields where Americans might fight."
Sounds like more wishful thinking on the part of the Italians, who desperately want Hitler’s troops to bail them out in Africa and Albania. The obvious comeback is that should Britain be conquered by Axis arms, it would prevent large-scale American aid from making the British Isles impregnable to Nazi assault, and a base for wholesale bombing campaigns against German targets on the European continent. This has got to concern Hitler much more right now than anything that happens in Egypt, or even Greece. It lends credence to the continuing rumors that Hitler’s agents are trying to secretly negotiate with the Greek government for an end to the fighting in Albania. And that’s another reason why an "all out" invasion of Britain will almost surely be Hitler’s next move.
KENNEDY VERSUS KENNEDY. Interventionists and isolationists alike find something to admire in Ambassador Kennedy’s public pronouncements on the lend-lease bill. Turner Catledge reports in yesterday’s New York Times that in addressing the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Kennedy "threw in his lot...with those urging greater executive powers to enable President Roosevelt to aid the foes of the Axis." But according to Willard Edwards in the Chicago Tribune, the Ambassador warned "that American blood would be shed on foreign shores if the United States allies herself with Great Britain." Who’s right? According to Dorothy Thompson in the New York Herald Tribune, they both are! Miss Thompson’s latest column describes Mr. Kennedy’s radio speech last week-end on the subject an "open forum of the air, in which Mr. Kennedy debated Mr. Kennedy." She adds --
"It seemed to me in reading Mr. Kennedy’s speech that he had out-Hamleted Hamlet...Mr. Kennedy spoke in connection with the bill...to give the President power -- to quote Mr. Kennedy -- to decide where the line is to be drawn in sending aid to Britain. Mr. Kennedy said it ought to be ‘determined by the President, acting with our trained experts of the Army and Navy. They know best what we can spare.’ To give the President that power, to unify, that is to say, the command and control of policy vis-a-vis Britain and the rest of the world, is the sole purpose of the bill now being debated....If every move we make is to be subjected to all the cross-currents of Congress, debated before the whole world, and delayed in the debating, we shall not do anything effectively. Furthermore, the very lag in passing the bill is holding up action that might be effective tomorrow and ineffective a week from now. Yet, under the guise of presenting impartially both sides of the question, Mr. Kennedy urged that the bill should not be passed, because the situation was not yet serious enough to call for it, although if Mr. Kennedy’s speech proved anything...it proved that the situation is as serious as it can possibly be! For though he would like peace, he said, categorically, that from his observation peace was impossible...that, although Germany was 3,000 miles away, Hitler wages total war for a new world order; that...he would be in favor of declaring war this moment if he was sure that Germany could be defeated quickly."
I didn’t hear Ambassador Kennedy’s radio speech. But although it’s true his testimony to Congress yesterday was excessively nuanced, the main problem for me was his lack of specific counter-proposals. Amen to those who are wary of the lend-lease bill in its present form, but how should it be amended? Mr. Kennedy hinted that he disagreed with one or two of the seven toughly-worded amendments offered by Representative Fish, but beyond that, and had few concrete recommendations beyond implying that the emergency powers be time-limited and a cap be placed on the funds available for military aid. It’s refreshing to hear someone in the Foreign Affairs Committee hearings take strong issue with the President while praising his patriotism, as Mr. Kennedy did. But more precision would have been welcome on his part. We need a workable bill, specifically amended in a way that can attract the broadest possible support, give the President the authority he needs, and preserve the constitutional separation of powers. And we need it quicky. A rambling analysis doesn’t help much.
THE INAUGURAL PARADE, PLUS ONE. As part of its coverage of President Roosevelt’s inaugural parade, the New York Herald Tribune reported Tuesday on an unplanned marcher who followed a platoon of W.P.A. workers as they strode past the President’s reviewing stand -- "The front ranks evoked smiles and ripples of applause when they abandoned all formal ‘eyes left’ tribute and waved their painters’ caps at the President. The President smiled his broadest smile and waved back. But in the rear rank -- in fact, in a rank all to himself, ten to twenty feet from the others -- came a lone W.P.A. worker who was, frankly, very, very drunk. He took no note of the President and continued his staggering way, with a cigarette between his lips. The President’s smile froze quickly and he shifted his glance down the avenue to the next approaching unit."
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Tuesday, January 21, 1941
"DEMOCRACY IS NOT DYING." America’s first-ever third term inaugural address was one of President Roosevelt’s best speeches, a call to arms containing even more hopeful notes than his first address during the dark hours of depression eight years ago. To an audience of 125,000, he said after taking the oath of office yesterday --
"The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in Magna Carta....Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower compact, into the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the United States, into the Gettysburg Address...The destiny of America was proclaimed in words of prophecy spoken by our first President in his first inaugural in 1789 -- words almost directed, it would seem, to this year of 1941: ‘The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered....deeply...finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people.’ If we lose that sacred fire -- if we let it be smothered with doubt and fear -- then we shall reject the destiny which Washington strove so valiantly and so triumphantly to establish. The preservation of the spirit and the faith of the nation does, and will, furnish the highest justification for every sacrifice that we may make in the cause of national defense. In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy....We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God."
THE DICTATORS FACE A QUANDARY. Here is what’s swung me over to the view that Hitler is going to attempt an invasion of Britain very soon, regardless of whether or not the Luftwaffe ever gains superiority over the R.A.F. -- Germany must knock Britain out of the war, before Britain knocks Italy out of the war. (By "knockout", I don’t mean a British march on Rome, but merely the extinguishment of Mussolini’s "empire" and military strength outside of Italian shores.) If Britain can provoke an Italian collapse in Africa and fuel a new Greek breakthrough in Albania, a massive Nazi intervention would be needed to protect the Axis’ south flank and keep the British away from Italy proper, or from other critical German resources such as the Rumanian oilfields. If Italy were to falter quickly enough, it could distract the German military to the point that major new Nazi aggression elsewhere would become exceedingly difficult. And that means that Britain survives and grows in strength, as enormous new shipments of war materials from the U.S. pour in. The prospect of massive American aid, and Italy’s military woes, combine to make a German invasion of Britain a now-or-never proposition.
No doubt the mood at Sunday’s secret conference between Hitler and Mussolini was much grimmer than last time, in light of the dictators' current pickle. The Associated Press cites "Axis sources" as saying the purpose of the conference was for the two men to "put the finishing touches on a new surprise attack," but it’s more likely Mussolini was a spectator, and a supplicant. "Observers agreed generally that Mussolini was eager to learn whether Hitler could promise military support for Italy in Albania and North Africa, and, if so, how much." I’ll bet he wasn’t real happy with the answer.
FIVE POSSIBLE NAZI MOVES THIS YEAR. Hanson W. Baldwin argues in Sunday’s New York Times that Italy, even with her recent wave of defeats, is still performing a useful service to the Axis by engaging a third of Britain’s fleet, eight to twelve divisions of troops and hundreds of planes. And this gives Germany time to launch a "climactic struggle" to win the war in the coming months. The Nazi offensive could consist of one, or more likely more than one, of the following five possibilities --
"(1) Intensified aerial assaults upon Britain, her ports and her shipping, possibly to pave the way for attempted invasion, possibly to attempt to win the war by establishing an effective blockade...An attempted direct invasion of Britain might be successful only if Germany first won local air superiority above Britain, but it might be tried with our without such superiority....(2) Invasion of Ireland. This seems in some ways less likely than direct invasion of Britain. It is initially easier, but in the long run perhaps even harder, since British bases are far closer than German bases, there are considerable British forces in Northern Ireland, and the British Navy could cut the German supply lines....(3) A German move into Spain toward Gibraltar, possibly toward Portugal....However, it would also still further extend the German strength without bringing about a decision....(4) A German move against Greece through Bulgaria, against the Dardanelles toward Turkey...[but] there could be no gain commensurate with the risk...unless Germany also undertook, in conjunction with Italy, a pincers campaign against Suez....(5) German attempts to extend the war to Northwest Africa, perhaps by bringing in Spain, perhaps by coercing French forces into the conflict....While increasing Britain’s difficulties, it probably would not be decisive."
As rife with difficulties as the choices facing Hitler are, Mr. Baldwin notes the Fuehrer retains one major advantage -- "Germany knows, and Britain knows, that Britain’s strength will not permit launching a decisive offensive in the decisive theatre this year. Germany knows, and Britain knows, that this year -- probably this Spring and this Summer, before the wheels of American industrial production are turning at their fullest -- Germany may be at her peak strength, ready for an attempt to end the war."
NO ROSES FROM THE HERALD TRIBUNE. In a spirit of bipartisan good-will to President Roosevelt upon his third inauguration, the Washington Post ran a full-page house advertisement Monday containing salutary quotations, especially solicited for the occasion, from the opinion columnists who appear in the Post's pages -- Dorothy Thompson, Mark Sullivan, Barnet Nover, Walter Lippmann, Westbrook Pegler, and others. But no such bouquets from the New York Herald Tribune, which, though consistently interventionist in its beliefs (even to the point of calling for a declaration of war on Germany), commemorated Inauguration Day with a blistering editorial on the President’s judgement in asking Congress for emergency powers --
"As [the President] stands up to take the oath of office for this term without a precedent in the country’s history, what can be said of his post-election actions? Nothing, it must be agreed, that tends remotely to justify the breaking of the third-term tradition....In his first important approach to the new Congress, Mr. Roosevelt made the capital error of asking for a grant of power unlimited as to period and excessive in its scope. This newspaper begrudges no power to the Executive which the present crisis makes desirable. It urges a spirit of co-operation with the Republicans in Congress lest, in removing the excesses from the bill, the power of swift action in an emergency be compromised. But here again the President has shown no slightest change of heart, no first sign that he respected either the prerogative of Congress or the will of the people. The revolt in both houses -- and throughout the nation -- is a healthy and hopeful sign. It is a clear hint that the voters, in ignoring the third term tradition, were by no means resolved to destroy either the tradition or the democratic spirit which it embodied. We hope that the revolt continues until the bill has been reduced to proper proportions. If only the President could learn from his blunder a new respect for the American way of governing! As he takes his oath today may he ponder upon the tradition which he is breaking and the great democratic faith which created it and which still, praise be, lives in the hearts of Americans."
CAN’T BE TOO CAREFUL NOWADAYS. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting a news item in the Cincinnati Times-Star -- "Police were summoned late Saturday to the home of Harold C. Eustis, vice-president of the H. and S. Pogue Company, 6 Elmhurst Place, when Mrs. Eustis discovered a dog playing in her front yard with what appeared to be a bomb....The dog was released after questioning."
"The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the Middle Ages. It was written in Magna Carta....Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower compact, into the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the United States, into the Gettysburg Address...The destiny of America was proclaimed in words of prophecy spoken by our first President in his first inaugural in 1789 -- words almost directed, it would seem, to this year of 1941: ‘The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered....deeply...finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people.’ If we lose that sacred fire -- if we let it be smothered with doubt and fear -- then we shall reject the destiny which Washington strove so valiantly and so triumphantly to establish. The preservation of the spirit and the faith of the nation does, and will, furnish the highest justification for every sacrifice that we may make in the cause of national defense. In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy....We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God."
THE DICTATORS FACE A QUANDARY. Here is what’s swung me over to the view that Hitler is going to attempt an invasion of Britain very soon, regardless of whether or not the Luftwaffe ever gains superiority over the R.A.F. -- Germany must knock Britain out of the war, before Britain knocks Italy out of the war. (By "knockout", I don’t mean a British march on Rome, but merely the extinguishment of Mussolini’s "empire" and military strength outside of Italian shores.) If Britain can provoke an Italian collapse in Africa and fuel a new Greek breakthrough in Albania, a massive Nazi intervention would be needed to protect the Axis’ south flank and keep the British away from Italy proper, or from other critical German resources such as the Rumanian oilfields. If Italy were to falter quickly enough, it could distract the German military to the point that major new Nazi aggression elsewhere would become exceedingly difficult. And that means that Britain survives and grows in strength, as enormous new shipments of war materials from the U.S. pour in. The prospect of massive American aid, and Italy’s military woes, combine to make a German invasion of Britain a now-or-never proposition.
No doubt the mood at Sunday’s secret conference between Hitler and Mussolini was much grimmer than last time, in light of the dictators' current pickle. The Associated Press cites "Axis sources" as saying the purpose of the conference was for the two men to "put the finishing touches on a new surprise attack," but it’s more likely Mussolini was a spectator, and a supplicant. "Observers agreed generally that Mussolini was eager to learn whether Hitler could promise military support for Italy in Albania and North Africa, and, if so, how much." I’ll bet he wasn’t real happy with the answer.
FIVE POSSIBLE NAZI MOVES THIS YEAR. Hanson W. Baldwin argues in Sunday’s New York Times that Italy, even with her recent wave of defeats, is still performing a useful service to the Axis by engaging a third of Britain’s fleet, eight to twelve divisions of troops and hundreds of planes. And this gives Germany time to launch a "climactic struggle" to win the war in the coming months. The Nazi offensive could consist of one, or more likely more than one, of the following five possibilities --
"(1) Intensified aerial assaults upon Britain, her ports and her shipping, possibly to pave the way for attempted invasion, possibly to attempt to win the war by establishing an effective blockade...An attempted direct invasion of Britain might be successful only if Germany first won local air superiority above Britain, but it might be tried with our without such superiority....(2) Invasion of Ireland. This seems in some ways less likely than direct invasion of Britain. It is initially easier, but in the long run perhaps even harder, since British bases are far closer than German bases, there are considerable British forces in Northern Ireland, and the British Navy could cut the German supply lines....(3) A German move into Spain toward Gibraltar, possibly toward Portugal....However, it would also still further extend the German strength without bringing about a decision....(4) A German move against Greece through Bulgaria, against the Dardanelles toward Turkey...[but] there could be no gain commensurate with the risk...unless Germany also undertook, in conjunction with Italy, a pincers campaign against Suez....(5) German attempts to extend the war to Northwest Africa, perhaps by bringing in Spain, perhaps by coercing French forces into the conflict....While increasing Britain’s difficulties, it probably would not be decisive."
As rife with difficulties as the choices facing Hitler are, Mr. Baldwin notes the Fuehrer retains one major advantage -- "Germany knows, and Britain knows, that Britain’s strength will not permit launching a decisive offensive in the decisive theatre this year. Germany knows, and Britain knows, that this year -- probably this Spring and this Summer, before the wheels of American industrial production are turning at their fullest -- Germany may be at her peak strength, ready for an attempt to end the war."
NO ROSES FROM THE HERALD TRIBUNE. In a spirit of bipartisan good-will to President Roosevelt upon his third inauguration, the Washington Post ran a full-page house advertisement Monday containing salutary quotations, especially solicited for the occasion, from the opinion columnists who appear in the Post's pages -- Dorothy Thompson, Mark Sullivan, Barnet Nover, Walter Lippmann, Westbrook Pegler, and others. But no such bouquets from the New York Herald Tribune, which, though consistently interventionist in its beliefs (even to the point of calling for a declaration of war on Germany), commemorated Inauguration Day with a blistering editorial on the President’s judgement in asking Congress for emergency powers --
"As [the President] stands up to take the oath of office for this term without a precedent in the country’s history, what can be said of his post-election actions? Nothing, it must be agreed, that tends remotely to justify the breaking of the third-term tradition....In his first important approach to the new Congress, Mr. Roosevelt made the capital error of asking for a grant of power unlimited as to period and excessive in its scope. This newspaper begrudges no power to the Executive which the present crisis makes desirable. It urges a spirit of co-operation with the Republicans in Congress lest, in removing the excesses from the bill, the power of swift action in an emergency be compromised. But here again the President has shown no slightest change of heart, no first sign that he respected either the prerogative of Congress or the will of the people. The revolt in both houses -- and throughout the nation -- is a healthy and hopeful sign. It is a clear hint that the voters, in ignoring the third term tradition, were by no means resolved to destroy either the tradition or the democratic spirit which it embodied. We hope that the revolt continues until the bill has been reduced to proper proportions. If only the President could learn from his blunder a new respect for the American way of governing! As he takes his oath today may he ponder upon the tradition which he is breaking and the great democratic faith which created it and which still, praise be, lives in the hearts of Americans."
CAN’T BE TOO CAREFUL NOWADAYS. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting a news item in the Cincinnati Times-Star -- "Police were summoned late Saturday to the home of Harold C. Eustis, vice-president of the H. and S. Pogue Company, 6 Elmhurst Place, when Mrs. Eustis discovered a dog playing in her front yard with what appeared to be a bomb....The dog was released after questioning."
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Sunday, January 19, 1941
THAT "GRAVE CRISIS" COULD COME...TODAY. I’m not alarmed that War Secretary Stimson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee there might be a "grave crisis" or a "climax" in the European war within sixty to ninety days. What worries me is the possibility it might come much sooner. Indeed, what reason does Hitler have to wait? Won’t Britain be better armed in April than she is now? Plus the Fuehrer prefers to strike at times other than when his enemies expect him. (Then again, despite the late focus in the press on Britain as Nazi Target No. 1, it’s still possible that Germany might attack next in the Balkans toward the Near East -- according to the Associated Press, the people of southeastern Europe have been "forced to eat stale black bread and pay exorbitant prices for essential foodstuffs" because Nazi troop movements and shipments of war materials to the region have tied up the railroads. Something’s going on down there, but what?)
Contrary to Senator Wheeler’s sensational accusations that Prime Minister Churchill is secretly demanding an immediate U.S. declaration of war, the most startling remarks of the last few days come from Secretary Stimson, who indicated just how far the Administration might seek to go without getting a formal declaration from Congress. As reported by Robert C. Albright in Saturday’s Washington Post, Stimson told the House Committee almost casually that the U.S. had the right under international law to "assist Britain with armed forces," and would feel free to do so if necessary under the lend-lease bill. He didn’t urge the use of armed force, but left that little nugget dangling in the air. Would President Roosevelt sanction American naval action against German vessels? Would he send U.S. planes, flown by American pilots, into action over the skies of Europe? Would he send an A.E.F. to provide support British troops? All while speciously claiming this country is still at "peace"?
Once again the isolationists are focusing their fire on the wrong targets -- alleged British perfidy, "dictatorship," etc. -- while having less to say about the most troublesome aspect of the Administration’s case. A decision to go to war must be a solemn national consensus, reflected in an act of Congress, not the cumulative effect of numerous arbitrary executive acts. And, the only thing accomplished right now by loose talk about "armed forces" is to further egg Hitler on to invade Britain now, while his chances are best. As if the tyrant needed any further encouragement.
'
WILLKIE AND THE RADIO DEBATE. I don’t know if Wendell Willkie’s "impromptu" appearance Thursday night on the N.B.C. Red Network’s Town Hall of the Air really was as off-the-cuff as the moderators proclaimed. Certainly his comments sounded prepared in advance. But it was his best statement yet of sensible bipartisanship, smashingly delivered on the air, and a sober reminder that we only have one President we can count on to defend the nation --
"We shall not keep America out of war by mere strong statements. We will keep America out of war if we supply to the fighting men of Britain the resources they need to defeat and crush the ruthless dictators. We shall not preserve this great standard of living in America by withdrawing within ourselves...I, who opposed Franklin Roosevelt with all my resources, I call upon all Americans to give him such power in this crisis that we can save America so that we can debate with him again in another election."
Unfortunately, an article in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, by Arthur Sears Henning, flogs the question of whether Mr. Willkie’s comments might have been prepared in advance as if they were a major scandal, proving somehow that the former Republican presidential nominee is now a shadowy figure in "a propaganda organization reaching into every community in the country, the like of which the capital has never seen before....noiselessly operating to put across President Roosevelt’s war dictatorship bill." (Mind you, this is the lead paragraph in a news story). The Tribune’s source for this accusation? Norman Thomas, veteran Socialist, who carried the banner for the isolationists on the hour-long broadcast. So, suddenly the Tribune finds an old enemy, Mr. Thomas, to be eminently trustworthy, while their former best friend Mr. Willkie is acidly dismissed on the editorial page -- "He was a Republican by name for less than a year and that period was much too long." This was the same paper which headlined its election-eve editions with the words "Prosperity! No War! Willkie!", seemingly in some other century.
HOW HITLER COULD SUBDUE THE AMERICAS. Not necessarily with armies, writes Barnet Nover in his Friday Washington Post column, but with "less open and less obvious acts of aggression successfully designed to ‘soften’ the victim." In particular the Latin America countries could be made into Nazi satellites if Britain is defeated, Mr. Nover writes, and this would tremendously complicate the task of protecting North America from German conquest --
"To bring about internal disintegration in Latin America, Hitler would not have to send troops at all. In some instances he might find it sufficient to apply economic pressure to which those nations that depend for their livelihood on the export of their surpluses to Europe would be particularly subject. In other instances, Hitler might supply arms to the disgruntled Outs to enable the latter to stage a rebellion against the Ins. Following a successful war he would have arms aplenty to sell or give away to Latin America. Indeed, he might find it wiser for a time to give away those arms rather than sell them as the Standard Oil Co. used to give away lamps in China to create a market for kerosene. For such arms...could also be used to foment civil war....The defense of this hemisphere, in the event of a British defeat, would be a staggering task. It could be done. Indeed, it would have to be done by us regardless of the difficulties and the expense involved. But the probable cost is something we could hardly view with equanimity. As rich as is this Nation it might not be rich enough to do the job adequately. All the time we were spending our substance on one gigantic rearmament program after another Hitler, we may be sure, would be preparing, too. And he would have at his disposal the agricultural and mineral resources of three continents with the labor of hundreds of millions of individuals reduced to a slave status, the industrial plants and the shipbuilding facilities and armament capacity of all Europe."
Contrary to Senator Wheeler’s sensational accusations that Prime Minister Churchill is secretly demanding an immediate U.S. declaration of war, the most startling remarks of the last few days come from Secretary Stimson, who indicated just how far the Administration might seek to go without getting a formal declaration from Congress. As reported by Robert C. Albright in Saturday’s Washington Post, Stimson told the House Committee almost casually that the U.S. had the right under international law to "assist Britain with armed forces," and would feel free to do so if necessary under the lend-lease bill. He didn’t urge the use of armed force, but left that little nugget dangling in the air. Would President Roosevelt sanction American naval action against German vessels? Would he send U.S. planes, flown by American pilots, into action over the skies of Europe? Would he send an A.E.F. to provide support British troops? All while speciously claiming this country is still at "peace"?
Once again the isolationists are focusing their fire on the wrong targets -- alleged British perfidy, "dictatorship," etc. -- while having less to say about the most troublesome aspect of the Administration’s case. A decision to go to war must be a solemn national consensus, reflected in an act of Congress, not the cumulative effect of numerous arbitrary executive acts. And, the only thing accomplished right now by loose talk about "armed forces" is to further egg Hitler on to invade Britain now, while his chances are best. As if the tyrant needed any further encouragement.
'
WILLKIE AND THE RADIO DEBATE. I don’t know if Wendell Willkie’s "impromptu" appearance Thursday night on the N.B.C. Red Network’s Town Hall of the Air really was as off-the-cuff as the moderators proclaimed. Certainly his comments sounded prepared in advance. But it was his best statement yet of sensible bipartisanship, smashingly delivered on the air, and a sober reminder that we only have one President we can count on to defend the nation --
"We shall not keep America out of war by mere strong statements. We will keep America out of war if we supply to the fighting men of Britain the resources they need to defeat and crush the ruthless dictators. We shall not preserve this great standard of living in America by withdrawing within ourselves...I, who opposed Franklin Roosevelt with all my resources, I call upon all Americans to give him such power in this crisis that we can save America so that we can debate with him again in another election."
Unfortunately, an article in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, by Arthur Sears Henning, flogs the question of whether Mr. Willkie’s comments might have been prepared in advance as if they were a major scandal, proving somehow that the former Republican presidential nominee is now a shadowy figure in "a propaganda organization reaching into every community in the country, the like of which the capital has never seen before....noiselessly operating to put across President Roosevelt’s war dictatorship bill." (Mind you, this is the lead paragraph in a news story). The Tribune’s source for this accusation? Norman Thomas, veteran Socialist, who carried the banner for the isolationists on the hour-long broadcast. So, suddenly the Tribune finds an old enemy, Mr. Thomas, to be eminently trustworthy, while their former best friend Mr. Willkie is acidly dismissed on the editorial page -- "He was a Republican by name for less than a year and that period was much too long." This was the same paper which headlined its election-eve editions with the words "Prosperity! No War! Willkie!", seemingly in some other century.
HOW HITLER COULD SUBDUE THE AMERICAS. Not necessarily with armies, writes Barnet Nover in his Friday Washington Post column, but with "less open and less obvious acts of aggression successfully designed to ‘soften’ the victim." In particular the Latin America countries could be made into Nazi satellites if Britain is defeated, Mr. Nover writes, and this would tremendously complicate the task of protecting North America from German conquest --
"To bring about internal disintegration in Latin America, Hitler would not have to send troops at all. In some instances he might find it sufficient to apply economic pressure to which those nations that depend for their livelihood on the export of their surpluses to Europe would be particularly subject. In other instances, Hitler might supply arms to the disgruntled Outs to enable the latter to stage a rebellion against the Ins. Following a successful war he would have arms aplenty to sell or give away to Latin America. Indeed, he might find it wiser for a time to give away those arms rather than sell them as the Standard Oil Co. used to give away lamps in China to create a market for kerosene. For such arms...could also be used to foment civil war....The defense of this hemisphere, in the event of a British defeat, would be a staggering task. It could be done. Indeed, it would have to be done by us regardless of the difficulties and the expense involved. But the probable cost is something we could hardly view with equanimity. As rich as is this Nation it might not be rich enough to do the job adequately. All the time we were spending our substance on one gigantic rearmament program after another Hitler, we may be sure, would be preparing, too. And he would have at his disposal the agricultural and mineral resources of three continents with the labor of hundreds of millions of individuals reduced to a slave status, the industrial plants and the shipbuilding facilities and armament capacity of all Europe."
Monday, January 16, 2017
Thursday, January 16, 1941
BOYS BRAWLING ON THE PLAYGROUND. If anyone’s holding out hope that Congress and the White House would debate the "Lend-Lease" Bill in a thoughtful and respectful way, you can forget it. The Congressional isolationists and President Roosevelt seem equally bent on turning it into a brawl. In one corner you have the President, who threw a temper tantrum at his press conference Tuesday over Senator Wheeler’s vicious remark Sunday night that the Administration’s bill would "plow under every fourth American boy." Yes, the President has a right to take offense, but according to the press accounts, he completely flew off the handle, calling the Senator’s remarks "the most untruthful...the most dastardly, unpatriotic thing that has ever been said." He even broke his own rule about not allowing reporters to directly quote his press-conference remarks. According to Frank L. Kluckhohn in Wednesday’s New York Times, the President’s "voice rose as he spoke and he burst forth: ‘Quote me on that. That really is the rottenest thing that has been said in public life in my generation.’"
In the other corner you have men like Representative Hamilton Fish, who plan on dragging the Congressional debate as long as possible while filling the air with clouds of rhetorical smoke. The House Foreign Affairs Committee hearings on the bill were supposed to last only three days, but that was before Representative Fish announced he’d invited to testify (deep breath now) Alf Landon, President Hoover, Colonel Lindbergh, Thomas Dewey, Ambassador Kennedy, Ambassador Bullitt, Ambassador Wilson, Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, Vice President Dawes, General Wood (chair of the America First Committee), Hugh Johnson, the Socialist Party’s Norman Thomas, Hanford MacNider (former American Legion commander), Cardinal O’Connell, Henry MacCracken (president of Vassar), and...others. Not surprisingly, most of these men are arch opponents of giving the President emergency powers and tend to be careless in their use of the word "dictatorship" when talking about the Administration. Jack Beall estimates in the New York Herald Tribune that Fish’s guest list might drag out the committee's hearings for an extra ten days.
At least Representative Fish also invited Wendell Willkie, who is being a model of sober non-partisanship on "lend-lease." Mr. Willkie is going to Britain soon to look at conditions first-hand. He might do himself a favor by leaving immediately to insure he'll miss all the yelling and punching in the nation's capital..
THE "FIRSTERS" SAY A TIME LIMIT WON’T HELP. In a Wednesday editorial, the Chicago Tribune doesn’t buy Wendell Willkie’s suggestion for a time limit on the President's proposed emergency war powers --
"Speaker Sam Rayburn said he wouldn’t oppose a time limitation on Mr. Roosevelt’s war bill ‘if the time limit ran concurrently with the emergency.’ This concession is nothing but a trap, however it is intended. Emergency has been trap bait from the start of Mr. Roosevelt’s administration. He began his career in the White House by asking for extraordinary authority for limited periods. The acts passed by congress contained expiration dates for the near future. The chief executive was to be stripped of his excessive powers as soon as the country recovered. Mr. Roosevelt has never willingly relinquished any authority and he has steadily pressed forward with demands for more, culminating in this war bill with which he could seal the fate of the American republic, give it a war of incalculable duration, and set up a system of government which we are supposed to be opposing in Europe. No doubt he would accept a time limitation as vaguely phrased as Mr. Rayburn puts it if by that means opposition in congress could be soothed....The character of the bill will not be changed by any such pretenses. If the powers granted by it are to be used as its proponents intend them to be, the republican form of government will with difficulty if at all survive the dictatorship thus established."
The Tribune tops off this hysterical screed with a front-page cartoon that implicitly compares Congress’s consideration of the "Lend-Lease" Bill to the Reichstag’s passage in 1933 of an Enabling Law which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. Sheesh. Will somebody please explain to me, in plain language, just how this bill would turn America into a "dictatorship"? As far as I know the Bill of Rights will continue to function even if Congress were to pass the Administration’s bill unanimously with no changes whatsoever. Congressional elections will be held next year as usual. The America First folks will continue to agitate against increased aid to Britain. No doubt Congress will keep a close eye on how President Roosevelt makes use of his emergency powers, and the Supreme Court, which has limited his authority before, could do so again. Yes, the White House has been careless in the way it has gone about this, and hasn’t handled detractors with class or tact. But putting a President of the United States on par with Hitler is beneath contempt.
GERMANY’S NO. 1 TARGET IS STILL BRITAIN. Barnet Nover’s Washington Post column yesterday aptly summed up the state of the war right now as "a triangular race between German preparations for an all-out attack on Great Britain, British and Greek efforts to eliminate Italy as a combatant, and American production of planes and war material." There seems to be an emerging consensus in the press that Hitler’s focus has returned to his plans for the conquest of Britain, and that any forthcoming Nazi activity in the Balkans or the Mediterranean wouldn’t amount to more than a feint. And reporters increasingly believes an attack is coming any time now -- the current Time magazine and the New Republic both use the term "zero hour" in their assessment of the German threat. Mr. Nover explains why he believes Hitler won’t offer more than minimal help to the Duce in the coming critical days --
"With Italy staggering under the blows she has suffered in Albania and Africa, Hitler must now reckon with the possibility of Italy’s ultimate elimination from the war as an active combatant. It is obviously to Germany’s interest to prevent that from happening or, if it proves inevitable, to postpone it as long as possible. It is not to Germany’s interest to pull Mussolini’s chestnuts out of the fire if, in so doing, the Reich’s strength is depleted to the point where she could not hope to carry out a successful blitzkrieg against Great Britain....So long as Italy continues to have a nuisance value, so long as Italy remains a combatant, though a diminishingly effective one, and thus compels the British to divide their forces between the home sector and the Mediterranean front, Germany is in a position to round out her preparations for the assault on the British citadel in relative leisure. We can be sure that these preparations are being made with the greatest care and with full use of the resources of the nations Germany has conquered."
One hopes that in the debate over "lend-lease" Congress keeps in mind Mr. Nover’s warning -- "The balance in the war of attrition is not to Britain’s advantage. It may be that the destruction of military objectives in Great Britain has been far less in proportion to the total destruction produced by German bombers than anyone had a right to expect when the assault began. Nonetheless, there is no denying that the British are suffering, and suffering seriously, from that continuous attack. The deficit in British production...can only be made good from American sources. And if it is to be made good in time to help Great Britain fend off the German thrust the aid must come soon."
In the other corner you have men like Representative Hamilton Fish, who plan on dragging the Congressional debate as long as possible while filling the air with clouds of rhetorical smoke. The House Foreign Affairs Committee hearings on the bill were supposed to last only three days, but that was before Representative Fish announced he’d invited to testify (deep breath now) Alf Landon, President Hoover, Colonel Lindbergh, Thomas Dewey, Ambassador Kennedy, Ambassador Bullitt, Ambassador Wilson, Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune, Vice President Dawes, General Wood (chair of the America First Committee), Hugh Johnson, the Socialist Party’s Norman Thomas, Hanford MacNider (former American Legion commander), Cardinal O’Connell, Henry MacCracken (president of Vassar), and...others. Not surprisingly, most of these men are arch opponents of giving the President emergency powers and tend to be careless in their use of the word "dictatorship" when talking about the Administration. Jack Beall estimates in the New York Herald Tribune that Fish’s guest list might drag out the committee's hearings for an extra ten days.
At least Representative Fish also invited Wendell Willkie, who is being a model of sober non-partisanship on "lend-lease." Mr. Willkie is going to Britain soon to look at conditions first-hand. He might do himself a favor by leaving immediately to insure he'll miss all the yelling and punching in the nation's capital..
THE "FIRSTERS" SAY A TIME LIMIT WON’T HELP. In a Wednesday editorial, the Chicago Tribune doesn’t buy Wendell Willkie’s suggestion for a time limit on the President's proposed emergency war powers --
"Speaker Sam Rayburn said he wouldn’t oppose a time limitation on Mr. Roosevelt’s war bill ‘if the time limit ran concurrently with the emergency.’ This concession is nothing but a trap, however it is intended. Emergency has been trap bait from the start of Mr. Roosevelt’s administration. He began his career in the White House by asking for extraordinary authority for limited periods. The acts passed by congress contained expiration dates for the near future. The chief executive was to be stripped of his excessive powers as soon as the country recovered. Mr. Roosevelt has never willingly relinquished any authority and he has steadily pressed forward with demands for more, culminating in this war bill with which he could seal the fate of the American republic, give it a war of incalculable duration, and set up a system of government which we are supposed to be opposing in Europe. No doubt he would accept a time limitation as vaguely phrased as Mr. Rayburn puts it if by that means opposition in congress could be soothed....The character of the bill will not be changed by any such pretenses. If the powers granted by it are to be used as its proponents intend them to be, the republican form of government will with difficulty if at all survive the dictatorship thus established."
The Tribune tops off this hysterical screed with a front-page cartoon that implicitly compares Congress’s consideration of the "Lend-Lease" Bill to the Reichstag’s passage in 1933 of an Enabling Law which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. Sheesh. Will somebody please explain to me, in plain language, just how this bill would turn America into a "dictatorship"? As far as I know the Bill of Rights will continue to function even if Congress were to pass the Administration’s bill unanimously with no changes whatsoever. Congressional elections will be held next year as usual. The America First folks will continue to agitate against increased aid to Britain. No doubt Congress will keep a close eye on how President Roosevelt makes use of his emergency powers, and the Supreme Court, which has limited his authority before, could do so again. Yes, the White House has been careless in the way it has gone about this, and hasn’t handled detractors with class or tact. But putting a President of the United States on par with Hitler is beneath contempt.
GERMANY’S NO. 1 TARGET IS STILL BRITAIN. Barnet Nover’s Washington Post column yesterday aptly summed up the state of the war right now as "a triangular race between German preparations for an all-out attack on Great Britain, British and Greek efforts to eliminate Italy as a combatant, and American production of planes and war material." There seems to be an emerging consensus in the press that Hitler’s focus has returned to his plans for the conquest of Britain, and that any forthcoming Nazi activity in the Balkans or the Mediterranean wouldn’t amount to more than a feint. And reporters increasingly believes an attack is coming any time now -- the current Time magazine and the New Republic both use the term "zero hour" in their assessment of the German threat. Mr. Nover explains why he believes Hitler won’t offer more than minimal help to the Duce in the coming critical days --
"With Italy staggering under the blows she has suffered in Albania and Africa, Hitler must now reckon with the possibility of Italy’s ultimate elimination from the war as an active combatant. It is obviously to Germany’s interest to prevent that from happening or, if it proves inevitable, to postpone it as long as possible. It is not to Germany’s interest to pull Mussolini’s chestnuts out of the fire if, in so doing, the Reich’s strength is depleted to the point where she could not hope to carry out a successful blitzkrieg against Great Britain....So long as Italy continues to have a nuisance value, so long as Italy remains a combatant, though a diminishingly effective one, and thus compels the British to divide their forces between the home sector and the Mediterranean front, Germany is in a position to round out her preparations for the assault on the British citadel in relative leisure. We can be sure that these preparations are being made with the greatest care and with full use of the resources of the nations Germany has conquered."
One hopes that in the debate over "lend-lease" Congress keeps in mind Mr. Nover’s warning -- "The balance in the war of attrition is not to Britain’s advantage. It may be that the destruction of military objectives in Great Britain has been far less in proportion to the total destruction produced by German bombers than anyone had a right to expect when the assault began. Nonetheless, there is no denying that the British are suffering, and suffering seriously, from that continuous attack. The deficit in British production...can only be made good from American sources. And if it is to be made good in time to help Great Britain fend off the German thrust the aid must come soon."
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Tuesday, January 14, 1941
IS HITLER ABOUT TO MAKE HIS MOVE? The New Republic’s editors believe that zero hour is nearly here --
"Germany has sent great armies in all directions. Everything is ready for invasion of Britain. Many divisions and fighting planes have gone into Italy. A huge army is in Rumania on the Bulgarian border; Wednesday the 8th, as we write, is said to be Der Tag for a peaceful conquest of Soviet Russia’s ally, preparatory to a move against Greece or Turkey. Former dispatches have told of German concentrations in the northeast and in Norway. Some say the Soviet Union is about to be attacked, or about to resist further Balkan penetration by Hitler. Some say Turkey will fight if Bulgaria is absorbed by the Axis. Some say Hitler is about to rescue Mussolini from the stunning series of British successes in Egypt and Libya, which, if not reversed, bid fair to menace Italy herself, release British naval forces for the Atlantic, and become the turning point in the war. And others have said that Hitler, with the enforced connivance of Vichy, will counter with an attack through Spain on Gibraltar."
The editors don’t pick which alternative is most likely, though they discount the chances of any big push in the Balkans. Generally the current scare-of-the-week appears to be focused on Bulgaria, although Monday’s New York Times reflects some skepticism about these latest rumors "that once more Chancellor Hitler has set a ‘deadline’, expiring at noon tomorrow, for Bulgarian permission for German troops to cross that country to go to the aid of Italy in Albania." The Turks are saying they will declare war if German troops cross the Rumanian border into Bulgaria. On the other hand, Bulgaria offers Hitler’s best route to pour Nazi forces into Albania and Greece – and it’s becoming increasingly evident that Hitler must do something fast to shore up Mussolini before he can gamble on an invasion of Britain. The surprising thing to me is that the Germans have waited this long to come to Italy’s rescue. It’s increasingly obvious, in the wake of the British seizure of Bardia and the shelling of Tobruk, that the Duce’s armies are on the ropes.
WILLKIE’S STATESMANSHIP. Wendell Willkie’s endorsement of the "all out" Aid-to-Britain bill includes two important caveats -- (1) President Roosevelt’s emergency authority should be "for a fixed term, not too far in the future," and that Congress should not be "harried" to approve the bill without thoughtful debate and amendment. Further, Mr. Willkie correctly perceives that Congress’s "fundamental power to declare war" must not be compromised by the bill’s grant of sweeping presidential powers. His 1,200-word statement reprinted in many of today’s papers is a model of prudence and common sense -- he understands better than the Administration does that the need for swift action doesn’t require us to take reckless action. There are other hopeful signs that moderation will carry the day. According to Coleman B. Jones in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune, the President’s own supporters now believe the "lend-lease" bill "could be put through Congress with little delay, though probably with a number of amendments to modify the sweeping ‘blank check’ scope of the draft presented to the Senate and House on Friday." This implicit willingness to accept amendments, and the friendly reception Willkie’s message reportedly received from Hyde Park, are promising developments.
Contrast Mr. Willkie’s statesmanship with some of the ugly rhetoric coming from those the isolationist camp, many of whom sang his praises only a short time ago. It’s one thing to merely allege the President has a "war policy," as Alf Landon does, and another entirely to engage in the plug-ugly rhetoric of Senator Wheeler’s radio talk Sunday night ("This bill is the New Deal’s Triple A foreign policy -- plow under every fourth American boy."). Thomas Dewey claims, outlandishly, that the bill would "abolish Congress." The Chicago Tribune’s "news" stories routinely refer to the President’s "war dictatorship bill," as if Republicans are going to snatched up and thrown into camps upon passage. At least Chesly Manly’s story in Monday’s Tribune acknowledges, several paragraphs in, that the bill’s probably going to pass and that there’s serious discussion about amendments -- a prohibition on giving away arms, a prohibition on transfer of current Army and Navy property, a specification of the nations eligible for "lend-lease" aid, and the time provision. Fine. Let’s cut the name-calling and do what Mr. Willkie advises -- craft a bill that gives the President the powers he needs to get us through the crisis, but reins in the wilder New Deal impulses to operate under arbitrary authority.
IS THE TIDE RUNNING AGAINST THE AXIS? Even through Axis threats still beckon, G.E.R. Gedye writes from Istanbul in Sunday’s New York Times that trained eyes perceive that the trend is running against Hitler and his allies right at the moment --
"As observers here see it, the Axis is badly out of symmetry. At the Berlin end there is little motion and the rapid revolution of past Blitzkrieg days has been slowed up by the lagging battle of Britain. Tokyo, noticing the firmness of President Roosevelt’s declaration, had prudently refrained from revolving at all; the Rome end is revolving backward with increasing rapidity, as Sidi Barrani is followed by Solum, Bardia and Tobruk. With Italy flung out of Greece and only clinging to Africa when he would -- in the Turkish view, at least -- be wiser to get back home to face a pending German occupation, and with the tremendous moral reinforcement (presaging others of a more material nature) afforded by Mr. Roosevelt’s challenging speeches, the Axis has lost ground in the past few weeks."
The Turks seem a little too hopeful. A year ago people were talking about the "lagging" war in France until German troops and tanks charged across the Somme. As welcome as Italian defeats are, they do nothing to weaken Hitler’s power to cross the Channel. On the other hand, Mr. Gedye cautions that Nazi might still has the power to intimidate on other fronts as well -- "The old fear of Germany’s mechanized forces still holds Soviet Russia in check -- and this fear has, it is known, led her to speed up deliveries recently, deliveries that the Nazis need."
GOLFING UNDER GUNFIRE. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting a United Press dispatch -- "A golf club near London has posted the following wartime rules: 1. The position of known delayed-action bombs will be marked by red flags placed at reasonably but not guaranteed safe distance. 2. A ball removed by enemy action may be replaced as near as possible to where it lay, or if lost and destroyed, another ball may be dropped not nearer the hole without penalty. 3. Competitors during gunfire or while bombs are falling may take cover without penalty."
"Germany has sent great armies in all directions. Everything is ready for invasion of Britain. Many divisions and fighting planes have gone into Italy. A huge army is in Rumania on the Bulgarian border; Wednesday the 8th, as we write, is said to be Der Tag for a peaceful conquest of Soviet Russia’s ally, preparatory to a move against Greece or Turkey. Former dispatches have told of German concentrations in the northeast and in Norway. Some say the Soviet Union is about to be attacked, or about to resist further Balkan penetration by Hitler. Some say Turkey will fight if Bulgaria is absorbed by the Axis. Some say Hitler is about to rescue Mussolini from the stunning series of British successes in Egypt and Libya, which, if not reversed, bid fair to menace Italy herself, release British naval forces for the Atlantic, and become the turning point in the war. And others have said that Hitler, with the enforced connivance of Vichy, will counter with an attack through Spain on Gibraltar."
The editors don’t pick which alternative is most likely, though they discount the chances of any big push in the Balkans. Generally the current scare-of-the-week appears to be focused on Bulgaria, although Monday’s New York Times reflects some skepticism about these latest rumors "that once more Chancellor Hitler has set a ‘deadline’, expiring at noon tomorrow, for Bulgarian permission for German troops to cross that country to go to the aid of Italy in Albania." The Turks are saying they will declare war if German troops cross the Rumanian border into Bulgaria. On the other hand, Bulgaria offers Hitler’s best route to pour Nazi forces into Albania and Greece – and it’s becoming increasingly evident that Hitler must do something fast to shore up Mussolini before he can gamble on an invasion of Britain. The surprising thing to me is that the Germans have waited this long to come to Italy’s rescue. It’s increasingly obvious, in the wake of the British seizure of Bardia and the shelling of Tobruk, that the Duce’s armies are on the ropes.
WILLKIE’S STATESMANSHIP. Wendell Willkie’s endorsement of the "all out" Aid-to-Britain bill includes two important caveats -- (1) President Roosevelt’s emergency authority should be "for a fixed term, not too far in the future," and that Congress should not be "harried" to approve the bill without thoughtful debate and amendment. Further, Mr. Willkie correctly perceives that Congress’s "fundamental power to declare war" must not be compromised by the bill’s grant of sweeping presidential powers. His 1,200-word statement reprinted in many of today’s papers is a model of prudence and common sense -- he understands better than the Administration does that the need for swift action doesn’t require us to take reckless action. There are other hopeful signs that moderation will carry the day. According to Coleman B. Jones in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune, the President’s own supporters now believe the "lend-lease" bill "could be put through Congress with little delay, though probably with a number of amendments to modify the sweeping ‘blank check’ scope of the draft presented to the Senate and House on Friday." This implicit willingness to accept amendments, and the friendly reception Willkie’s message reportedly received from Hyde Park, are promising developments.
Contrast Mr. Willkie’s statesmanship with some of the ugly rhetoric coming from those the isolationist camp, many of whom sang his praises only a short time ago. It’s one thing to merely allege the President has a "war policy," as Alf Landon does, and another entirely to engage in the plug-ugly rhetoric of Senator Wheeler’s radio talk Sunday night ("This bill is the New Deal’s Triple A foreign policy -- plow under every fourth American boy."). Thomas Dewey claims, outlandishly, that the bill would "abolish Congress." The Chicago Tribune’s "news" stories routinely refer to the President’s "war dictatorship bill," as if Republicans are going to snatched up and thrown into camps upon passage. At least Chesly Manly’s story in Monday’s Tribune acknowledges, several paragraphs in, that the bill’s probably going to pass and that there’s serious discussion about amendments -- a prohibition on giving away arms, a prohibition on transfer of current Army and Navy property, a specification of the nations eligible for "lend-lease" aid, and the time provision. Fine. Let’s cut the name-calling and do what Mr. Willkie advises -- craft a bill that gives the President the powers he needs to get us through the crisis, but reins in the wilder New Deal impulses to operate under arbitrary authority.
IS THE TIDE RUNNING AGAINST THE AXIS? Even through Axis threats still beckon, G.E.R. Gedye writes from Istanbul in Sunday’s New York Times that trained eyes perceive that the trend is running against Hitler and his allies right at the moment --
"As observers here see it, the Axis is badly out of symmetry. At the Berlin end there is little motion and the rapid revolution of past Blitzkrieg days has been slowed up by the lagging battle of Britain. Tokyo, noticing the firmness of President Roosevelt’s declaration, had prudently refrained from revolving at all; the Rome end is revolving backward with increasing rapidity, as Sidi Barrani is followed by Solum, Bardia and Tobruk. With Italy flung out of Greece and only clinging to Africa when he would -- in the Turkish view, at least -- be wiser to get back home to face a pending German occupation, and with the tremendous moral reinforcement (presaging others of a more material nature) afforded by Mr. Roosevelt’s challenging speeches, the Axis has lost ground in the past few weeks."
The Turks seem a little too hopeful. A year ago people were talking about the "lagging" war in France until German troops and tanks charged across the Somme. As welcome as Italian defeats are, they do nothing to weaken Hitler’s power to cross the Channel. On the other hand, Mr. Gedye cautions that Nazi might still has the power to intimidate on other fronts as well -- "The old fear of Germany’s mechanized forces still holds Soviet Russia in check -- and this fear has, it is known, led her to speed up deliveries recently, deliveries that the Nazis need."
GOLFING UNDER GUNFIRE. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting a United Press dispatch -- "A golf club near London has posted the following wartime rules: 1. The position of known delayed-action bombs will be marked by red flags placed at reasonably but not guaranteed safe distance. 2. A ball removed by enemy action may be replaced as near as possible to where it lay, or if lost and destroyed, another ball may be dropped not nearer the hole without penalty. 3. Competitors during gunfire or while bombs are falling may take cover without penalty."
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Sunday, January 12, 1941
AMERICA STANDS AT A PRECIPICE. Like a lot of people, I’m taken aback by the sweeping nature of the arbitrary powers President Roosevelt proposes to take upon himself in the new Aid-to-Britain bill. "Lend-lease" aid to Britain is a smart idea, and the President’s fireside chat two weeks ago calling for America to become an "arsenal of democracy" was inspiring and frightening in its baldly-worded summation of the Axis threat. But as Joseph Driscoll writes in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune, the measure before Congress now is "without precedent in the history of the United States." Turner Catledge in the New York Times notes it would grant the President "practically unlimited personal power." Specifically, the President would be allowed unlimited peace-time authority to "sell, transfer, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of" any amount of U.S. war materials to Britain or any other foreign country he wishes to help. The President could place any or all of America’s current and future defense production at the disposal of those countries. He could give secret defense information to other countries if he feels is in our interest to do so. And he could do any of these things without requesting permission from Congress, or anyone else. Theoretically, the President could even transfer the entire resources of the Army and Navy to other countries, with the stroke of a pen.
And the Times’ story offers no consolation in this regard -- "Administration spokesmen scouted as ‘ridiculous’ any suggestion that the President would use the bill’s powers to these possible limits." Well, if it’s so "ridiculous," why ask for such power to begin with? Yes, the Chicago Tribune’s usual accusations (the bill will lead to "the creation of a totalitarian dictatorship") are absurd. If the Administration really did anything with these powers that lacked broad popular support, Congress would act quickly to rein the President in. But the bill further erodes the principle that America is governed by laws, not by men. The bill’s language gives the President authority to proceed "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law" -- in effect allowing the President to singlehandedly repeal any provisions of the Johnson Act, the Neutrality Act, or any other statute that gets in his way. Theoretically, he could use these new powers to bring the U.S. into a de facto state of war with Germany, subverting Congress’s sole authority to declare war.
HOPE FOR A COMPROMISE. In light of all this, it’s a relief for a change to hear the usual barrage from the isolationist lobby promising to put up a stiff fight against the bill in both the House and the Senate. And they’re not alone this time -- Saturday’s New York Times reports that "some conservative Democrats who usually have supported the Administration’s foreign policy questioned the wisdom...of granting to the President" the bill’s broad authority. According to the Times, congressmen will consider adding an "ironclad requirement" to the bill that the Chief of Staff or the Chief of Naval Operations certify specific plans to transfer military equipment abroad. Robert C. Albright writes in the Washington Post that there will be a "major modifying effort" in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Ultimately, I think most Americans want to see a bill which streamlines America’s defense effort and allows us to truly give all aid to Britain short of war. But I know I’ll feel better if such a bill is hammered out co-equally between President Roosevelt and Congress, and not dictated -- for want of a better word -- to a supine legislature by an imperial executive. To give even the appearance of the latter, in this era of unprecedented crisis for democracy, is to set a terribly poor example for the rest of the world.
WHAT THE PRESS HAS TO SAY. Some excerpts from newspaper editorials around the nation, many of them showing some healthy skepticism toward the Aid-to-Britain bill --
Hartford Courant -- "The United States...has passed from neutrality to non-belligerency and now to full participation with Great Britain in its war aims, the first of which is to crush Hitlerism. To implement his policy of ‘all out’ aid to Britain, Greece, China and any other nations that may find themselves involved in a struggle with totalitarian powers, the President has asked Congress for the broadest grant of authority ever made in the history of this nation. Whether or not Congress gives him this authority we are definitely in the war. If selling, lending, leasing or otherwise transferring implements of war to Britain at the President’s discretion fails to defeat Hitler, then, in all likelihood, we shall not refuse our man power. Our commitments are already such as seemingly to make that course inevitable."
San Francisco Chronicle -- "This is what we have been waiting for. The thing to do is to put this plan into effect at once without further argument....It is of little use to make the guns and planes and tanks if they cannot get to England. It is of little use to make them to be sunk on the way. If this problem can only be met by sending our warships and our warplanes to protect these shipments across the ocean, that will have to be done. We are in this fight now up to our necks, since we realize it is our fight."
Cleveland Plain Dealer -- "This legislation has the possibility of making the President of the United States the greatest war lord of all time....We are willing to trust President Roosevelt with this tremendous amount of power. We believe he will use it wisely."
Los Angeles Times -- "If the Lend Act is to be criticized, it is on the ground of its extreme broadness -- one certain to result in time-losing controversy. What objection is there to naming specifically the countries to which aid may be leased or loaned? Why does the President need the discretion to aid all and sundry? Let it provide for all-out aid to Britain, and damn the torpedoes. Congress will do well to amend the measure so that it must be consulted when the President deems the situation has changed. And quickly too; if the law is to do any good, it must be in operation soon. Hitler will not wait on ponderous Congressional deliberations; rather the contrary."
Baltimore Sun -- "In finance and in foreign policy, we must exert every energy to be effectual. But if this democracy is as intelligent as it professes to believe a democracy should be and may be, we can be effectual without being reckless....Let [Congress] give Mr. Roosevelt full authority to act. But let Congress also impose limits upon the duration of his powers and require knowledge of the use to which he currently puts those powers."
Dallas News -- "In granting the authority wisely asked by the White House, the legislative branch must act today with greater wisdom perhaps than it has ever before been called upon to use. The representative government must not restrict too much and must not grant too much. Congress cannot, for instance, give blanket financial power to the President. That it cannot do lawfully. Still more, that it cannot do safely. For whatever Mr. Roosevelt’s good qualities may be, he has but one idea of money. He knows only how to spend it."
And the Times’ story offers no consolation in this regard -- "Administration spokesmen scouted as ‘ridiculous’ any suggestion that the President would use the bill’s powers to these possible limits." Well, if it’s so "ridiculous," why ask for such power to begin with? Yes, the Chicago Tribune’s usual accusations (the bill will lead to "the creation of a totalitarian dictatorship") are absurd. If the Administration really did anything with these powers that lacked broad popular support, Congress would act quickly to rein the President in. But the bill further erodes the principle that America is governed by laws, not by men. The bill’s language gives the President authority to proceed "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law" -- in effect allowing the President to singlehandedly repeal any provisions of the Johnson Act, the Neutrality Act, or any other statute that gets in his way. Theoretically, he could use these new powers to bring the U.S. into a de facto state of war with Germany, subverting Congress’s sole authority to declare war.
HOPE FOR A COMPROMISE. In light of all this, it’s a relief for a change to hear the usual barrage from the isolationist lobby promising to put up a stiff fight against the bill in both the House and the Senate. And they’re not alone this time -- Saturday’s New York Times reports that "some conservative Democrats who usually have supported the Administration’s foreign policy questioned the wisdom...of granting to the President" the bill’s broad authority. According to the Times, congressmen will consider adding an "ironclad requirement" to the bill that the Chief of Staff or the Chief of Naval Operations certify specific plans to transfer military equipment abroad. Robert C. Albright writes in the Washington Post that there will be a "major modifying effort" in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Ultimately, I think most Americans want to see a bill which streamlines America’s defense effort and allows us to truly give all aid to Britain short of war. But I know I’ll feel better if such a bill is hammered out co-equally between President Roosevelt and Congress, and not dictated -- for want of a better word -- to a supine legislature by an imperial executive. To give even the appearance of the latter, in this era of unprecedented crisis for democracy, is to set a terribly poor example for the rest of the world.
WHAT THE PRESS HAS TO SAY. Some excerpts from newspaper editorials around the nation, many of them showing some healthy skepticism toward the Aid-to-Britain bill --
Hartford Courant -- "The United States...has passed from neutrality to non-belligerency and now to full participation with Great Britain in its war aims, the first of which is to crush Hitlerism. To implement his policy of ‘all out’ aid to Britain, Greece, China and any other nations that may find themselves involved in a struggle with totalitarian powers, the President has asked Congress for the broadest grant of authority ever made in the history of this nation. Whether or not Congress gives him this authority we are definitely in the war. If selling, lending, leasing or otherwise transferring implements of war to Britain at the President’s discretion fails to defeat Hitler, then, in all likelihood, we shall not refuse our man power. Our commitments are already such as seemingly to make that course inevitable."
San Francisco Chronicle -- "This is what we have been waiting for. The thing to do is to put this plan into effect at once without further argument....It is of little use to make the guns and planes and tanks if they cannot get to England. It is of little use to make them to be sunk on the way. If this problem can only be met by sending our warships and our warplanes to protect these shipments across the ocean, that will have to be done. We are in this fight now up to our necks, since we realize it is our fight."
Cleveland Plain Dealer -- "This legislation has the possibility of making the President of the United States the greatest war lord of all time....We are willing to trust President Roosevelt with this tremendous amount of power. We believe he will use it wisely."
Los Angeles Times -- "If the Lend Act is to be criticized, it is on the ground of its extreme broadness -- one certain to result in time-losing controversy. What objection is there to naming specifically the countries to which aid may be leased or loaned? Why does the President need the discretion to aid all and sundry? Let it provide for all-out aid to Britain, and damn the torpedoes. Congress will do well to amend the measure so that it must be consulted when the President deems the situation has changed. And quickly too; if the law is to do any good, it must be in operation soon. Hitler will not wait on ponderous Congressional deliberations; rather the contrary."
Baltimore Sun -- "In finance and in foreign policy, we must exert every energy to be effectual. But if this democracy is as intelligent as it professes to believe a democracy should be and may be, we can be effectual without being reckless....Let [Congress] give Mr. Roosevelt full authority to act. But let Congress also impose limits upon the duration of his powers and require knowledge of the use to which he currently puts those powers."
Dallas News -- "In granting the authority wisely asked by the White House, the legislative branch must act today with greater wisdom perhaps than it has ever before been called upon to use. The representative government must not restrict too much and must not grant too much. Congress cannot, for instance, give blanket financial power to the President. That it cannot do lawfully. Still more, that it cannot do safely. For whatever Mr. Roosevelt’s good qualities may be, he has but one idea of money. He knows only how to spend it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)