Thursday, February 20, 1941

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

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

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

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

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

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