WADSWORTH’S GALLANT STANCE. However much more mud-throwing there is to come in the lend-lease debate -- and given the regularity with which Senator Wheeler and President Roosevelt now seem to accuse each other of treason, there will assuredly be more -- at least Representative Wadsworth’s speech gave us something more uplifting. The Republican from New York electrified his fellow congressmen yesterday with a ringing appeal for national unity and a proposal to add two new amendments to the lend-lease bill which would slightly further limit the President’s new war powers. They strike a neat balance between Representative Fish’s crippling amendment package and the Administration’s glib, trust-the-President line. The limitations include a cap on the total amount of money appropriated, at maybe $2,000,000,000 or $3,000,000,000 (Samuel W. Bell’s article in the New York Herald Tribune points out that such a limitation is "usually done by Congress in bills legalizing long-range expenditures."). The other amendment would limit commitments made by the President for beyond the two-year limit of his emergency powers. Representative Wadsworth is a supporter of lend-lease, and doesn’t feel the need so much to reassure himself with these amendments. But he does see the good sense in passing a lend-lease bill by the widest possible margin, with plenty of support in both parties.
If only the White House felt this way! Henry N. Dorris’s story in yesterday’s New York Times says that Administration officials were "somewhat staggered by the apparently warm reception given to Mr. Wadsworth’s proposal on both sides of the aisle." And they’re not interested in calls for unity, from the looks of it -- according to the radio this morning, Democratic leaders in Congress are planning to fight any cap on appropriations, even if it means in the end that the President only gets a strongly partisan, narrowly-passed bill (one prominent Democrat predicted earlier this week the current bill would pass by 50 votes, which is probably optimistic). The reasoning of Administration supporters in this regard is screwy. According to the Herald Tribune’s article, Representative Luther Johnson of Texas argues that "If [a cap] is too small, it would be disastrous" -- i.e., the British wouldn’t get enough aid to survive -- and "if it is too large, it would have a bad psychological effect" -- i.e., it would exacerbate fears the President is seizing dictatorial powers. Well, by that reasoning, wouldn’t "unlimited" -- i.e., no cap be all -- be just a tad too large? Do President Roosevelt and his supporters not see partisan broadsides and cries of "Trust me!" are not going to bring America together on this critical issue?
WHAT WADSWORTH SAID. Representative Wadsworth’s own words, as transcribed in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune --
"As I look back over the history of this country, and the processes of Government under the Constitution, I do not believe that a bill of this sort spells the end of liberty in America. If we could do two or three things to this bill, such as I have suggested, it might bring about some greater degree of unity on the part of Congress and the people of the United States. As we face this hour, this menace -- and I believe it most seriously to be a menace to us primarily -- how much stronger our government will be if the world knows that that is the way America feels."
Amen.
THE REAL REASONS TO PASS LEND-LEASE. The isolationists might be right about one thing regarding lend-lease -- if Hitler really does invade Britain in the next couple of months, the bill won’t be of any practical help in her fight for survival. Yet oddly, Administration supporters have argued in favor of the bill by harping that an "all out" Nazi attack on Britain is right around the corner. Ernest Lindley notes the "queer twist" in the debate in Wednesday’s Washington Post, and gives some good, less emotional reasons why lend-lease is necessary to keep the British in the war, and put Hitler off-balance --
"Supporters of the bill have been emphasizing the critical importance of the next 60 or so days. They have sketched a dreadful picture of the all-out attack on England which they expect Hitler to launch. It is apparent, however, that the lend-lease bill, even if it were signed today, could not materially increase our flow of munitions to England during the next 60 days....The reasons why the prompt passage of the bill is important have to do with morale, diplomacy and the military strategy of the British. Without the assurance that supplies will come from this country in increased quantities, the British will have to stop fighting. Their own factories, plus those of their empire and the rest of the non-Axis world, are not a match for Germany’s. To meet the Nazi onslaught, if it comes, the British need a morale of steel. The best stiffener we can provide -- apart from the declaration of war, which the British have been told again and again not to expect -- is the lend-lease bill. The bill will also bolster the opposition to Hitler throughout Europe, including the conquered countries. Every riot, every uncertainty, in Europe is a drain on Hitler’s military strength. On the military side, the bill will also enable the British to reapportion their strength....When it is passed, they can throw into action more of their first-line strength, particularly in the air, with the confidence that equipment will be replaced."
By the way, Mr. Lindley himself isn’t convinced by the arguments of some of our own military experts that a Nazi invasion is imminent. "One of the highest men in the Government does not believe Hitler can muster the strength, either in the air or on the water, to invade Britain or to bring it down by aerial bombardment or counterblockade. For every fact that is known there are many uncertainties. But among the known facts are that the British have many more combat planes and pilots than they had last September, and that they have constructed strong and elaborate defenses against invasion. Even the most profound pessimists in the Government are much less pessimistic than they were last June, July, and August, after the fall of the Low Countries and France and the loss of near all the British army’s modern equipment."
No comments:
Post a Comment