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."
No comments:
Post a Comment