Thursday, February 27, 1941

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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