BULGARIA JOINS THE AXIS. The lead sentence in the Washington Post’s lead story yesterday summed things up with dramatic simplicity -- "The long-brewing Balkan crisis has apparently come to a head." Specifically, according to the Associated Press, the Bulgarian government has agreed to sign the Axis Tripartite Pact, making Bulgaria a formal German ally and automatically inviting German troops to march into the country. And march they have, entering the capital of Sofia last night. No doubt, no question about it now. (Another A.P. story notes that Bulgaria is "the eleventh sovereign state [Germany] has overrun since 1938."). Bulgarian Premier Philoff went to Vienna to make everything official in a seven-minute ceremony, making his country the seventh member of the Axis, along with Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Rumania, and the "protectorate" of Slovakia. No doubt a British declaration of war on Bulgaria will soon follow.
There’s also no doubt Hitler is intent on protecting his Balkan flank from assault by British troops, and toward that end the Nazis have reportedly issued Greece an ultimatum – make peace now with Italy, or "suffer the consequences" two weeks from now. The United Press says the Greeks have been warned this is their "last chance" to accept peace terms, or Nazi troops will drive south from Bulgaria. There’s absolutely nothing surprising about this, but it sets new standards in Nazi gall -- Greece is at war because she was invaded by Mussolini’s forces, for goodness sake. She surely would have been quite happy to stay neutral, if the Fascists had left her alone. A war with Germany would be much tougher than anything the Greeks have faced so far, but I hope they stand their ground. Maybe, with British help on the sea and in the air, Greece’s military can once again defy outsiders’ expectations.
WHY IS RUSSIA SILENT? So far, no comment from Moscow about the German moves in Bulgaria, despite the high interest one would think the Russian government would have in a events taking place so close to her border. Professor Harold Laski’s syndicated column yesterday did a good job of putting forth some possible reasons for this --
"What is the explanation for the Soviet silence? In this country three predominant explanations are offered. One school, mainly Tory imperialists in complexion, though by no means wholly so, argues that the Soviet Union is bound to the function of a mere observer by secret clauses in the Russo-German pact. On this view, she is reconciled to the idea of a German victory in belief that the deeper enemy is Britain, behind which she sees the immense resources of America. With them, she thinks, there is no ultimate reconciliation possible....The second school of thought, among which many Socialists may be found, believes Stalin is anxious for a long drawn out war of exhaustion. This would, in his judgment, mean the undermining of the Hitler regime and the British Empire from within; there would be revolutionary uprisings throughout Europe due to the agonies of the people, and he would, as leader of the Soviet Union, then emerge as the leader of the revolutionary forces in Europe....The third school of thought takes a much simpler view of Stalin’s motives and I think its simplicity is founded on fact. Stalin is afraid of Hitler. He has seen the immensity of his victories. He is not persuaded that Hitler can be beaten. He knows of the blow Hitler could deal to the Ukraine were he to move in an anti-Nazi direction. He could count, no doubt, on a long defensive war. But he might well invite attack by Japan. He would have to desist from further aid to China and thereby add gravely to the powers of Japanese aggression."
Personally, I think the first explanation -- that Russia is bound by secret agreement with Germany not to react to the Bulgarian crisis -- sounds at least as likely a the last one, if not more so. Why? Simply because we’ve already seen it happen in regards to Poland. One could make a good case that Stalin’s pact with Hitler eighteen months ago to carve up Poland was short-sighted on the part of the Russians, since it led to the positioning of German armies right on Russia’s doorstep. Why isn’t it plausible that Stalin would cut a similar deal now, despite the fact that, as Professor Laski says, it "would bring the rich oil-bearing region of the Caucasus within striking distance of German arms"? It could well be that the Russians are winking of Germany’s march into Bulgaria in exchange for, say, Russia having a free hand in Turkey.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
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."
"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."
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Tuesday, February 25, 1941
TURKEY MIGHT DECLARE WAR ON HITLER. If German troops use Bulgaria as a staging ground for aggression, that is. The latest turn-around in the Balkan crisis comes just a week after the Turks signed a non-aggression pact with the Bulgars -- a pact that many observers took to mean Turkey was backing away from her alliance with Britain and giving Hitler a green light to move. But according to the United Press, Turkish Foreign Minister Saracoglu has now issued a statement saying his country "cannot in any way remain indifferent to foreign activities which might occur in her zone of security." The Foreign Minister also said the Turks would fight any aggression "directed against her territorial integrity or her independence" -- note the distinction. It’s widely believed Turkish officials consider a German occupation of Bulgaria and invasion of Greece to be a threat to the continued "independence" of Turkey.
They’re right to think that way, of course. Nazi occupation of the remainder of the Balkans would reduce Turkey to cowed neutrality at best. And it’s heartening that British Foreign Secretary Eden is headed for Ankara (from a visit to Cairo) to discuss what the current crisis means for the Anglo-Turkish mutual-aid pact. But is Saracoglu’s sudden attack of courage too little, too late? The Associated Press says that Bulgarian police have halted all automobile traffic in the region around Sofia, the capital, and foreigners have been barred from the border areas. "The capital was ordered to be ready for a blackout at a moment’s notice, beginning Tuesday," says the A.P.
There’s still no confirmation of whether German troops are actually inside Bulgaria or not, but the Bulgars certainly seem to think they will be shortly. They don’t seem to mind much, either.
WHAT WILL JAPAN DO? Will Japan and America remain at peace with each other? Part of the answer, according to Hugh Byas in Sunday’s New York Times, depends on Russia, which figures heavily right now in the thinking of Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka --
"Japanese strategists see two potential enemies able to engage Japan in a life or death struggle. On their north looms Soviet Russia, gigantic, distrusted, unknown. Manchuria no longer is a buffer State, for Red soldiers and soldiers of the Rising Sun can see each other’s blockhouses across the Amur River. On their south is the Pacific, where the American fleet can force Japan to throw its whole navy into a battle which, if lost, would lay the Japanese islands open to invasion from air. It follows, like a demonstration in Euclid, that Japanese strategy requires that Japanese high policy shall prevent circumstances from arising wherein Japan might have to fight these two potential enemies at once. Mr. Matsuoka belongs to that school of Japanese statesmen who hold that understanding with Russia should be a fundamental of Japanese policy. If an enduring pact with Russia materializes, Japan’s southward drive will be invigorated. But ‘no war with America’ must remain a fixed point in Japanese policy unless and until Japan is assured of Russia’s friendly neutrality. If an when Lieut. Gen. Yoshitsugu Tatekawa, Ambassador to Russia, can wire from Moscow that the Soviets have been squared, conditions will change and the pace of the Japanese southward march will be speeded."
Seen in this light, Japan’s troop movements in Southeast Asia this past week look more like a bluff than anything else -- the Japanese wouldn’t move on Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, and risk American intervention, until their position vis-a-vis Russia is secured. And one can take comfort for now in Mr. Byas’ estimation that Japan, if guided by the Foreign Minister’s hands, might not decide on war after all -- "The riddle of the Pacific is whether [Mr. Matsuoka] is skillful enough to devise and strong enough to enforce policies which can obtain by peaceful means those economic opportunities Japan asks as rightfully hers. Or will other Japanese forces, now dazzled by the results Hitler’s power policies have obtained, use their power ruthlessly and recklessly to seize the opportunity to which they believe Japan’s imperial destiny and their European ally’s might are beckoning them."
They’re right to think that way, of course. Nazi occupation of the remainder of the Balkans would reduce Turkey to cowed neutrality at best. And it’s heartening that British Foreign Secretary Eden is headed for Ankara (from a visit to Cairo) to discuss what the current crisis means for the Anglo-Turkish mutual-aid pact. But is Saracoglu’s sudden attack of courage too little, too late? The Associated Press says that Bulgarian police have halted all automobile traffic in the region around Sofia, the capital, and foreigners have been barred from the border areas. "The capital was ordered to be ready for a blackout at a moment’s notice, beginning Tuesday," says the A.P.
There’s still no confirmation of whether German troops are actually inside Bulgaria or not, but the Bulgars certainly seem to think they will be shortly. They don’t seem to mind much, either.
WHAT WILL JAPAN DO? Will Japan and America remain at peace with each other? Part of the answer, according to Hugh Byas in Sunday’s New York Times, depends on Russia, which figures heavily right now in the thinking of Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka --
"Japanese strategists see two potential enemies able to engage Japan in a life or death struggle. On their north looms Soviet Russia, gigantic, distrusted, unknown. Manchuria no longer is a buffer State, for Red soldiers and soldiers of the Rising Sun can see each other’s blockhouses across the Amur River. On their south is the Pacific, where the American fleet can force Japan to throw its whole navy into a battle which, if lost, would lay the Japanese islands open to invasion from air. It follows, like a demonstration in Euclid, that Japanese strategy requires that Japanese high policy shall prevent circumstances from arising wherein Japan might have to fight these two potential enemies at once. Mr. Matsuoka belongs to that school of Japanese statesmen who hold that understanding with Russia should be a fundamental of Japanese policy. If an enduring pact with Russia materializes, Japan’s southward drive will be invigorated. But ‘no war with America’ must remain a fixed point in Japanese policy unless and until Japan is assured of Russia’s friendly neutrality. If an when Lieut. Gen. Yoshitsugu Tatekawa, Ambassador to Russia, can wire from Moscow that the Soviets have been squared, conditions will change and the pace of the Japanese southward march will be speeded."
Seen in this light, Japan’s troop movements in Southeast Asia this past week look more like a bluff than anything else -- the Japanese wouldn’t move on Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, and risk American intervention, until their position vis-a-vis Russia is secured. And one can take comfort for now in Mr. Byas’ estimation that Japan, if guided by the Foreign Minister’s hands, might not decide on war after all -- "The riddle of the Pacific is whether [Mr. Matsuoka] is skillful enough to devise and strong enough to enforce policies which can obtain by peaceful means those economic opportunities Japan asks as rightfully hers. Or will other Japanese forces, now dazzled by the results Hitler’s power policies have obtained, use their power ruthlessly and recklessly to seize the opportunity to which they believe Japan’s imperial destiny and their European ally’s might are beckoning them."
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Sunday, February 23, 1941
ARE THE GERMANS IN BULGARIA? The New York Times’ C.L. Sulzberger says no, the stories about Nazi troops crossing the Danube River boundary line are "unfounded" and "premature." But the Reuters news agency reports from Belgrade that "German troops have been crossing the Danube into Bulgaria at the Bulgarian town of Ruse since 4 p.m....Friday." Also, Leon Kay of United Press reports that German marching troops and "heavily-loaded lorries" are said to have entered Bulgaria at Ruschuk, Mikopoi, and Vidin. And Sam Brewer writes in the Chicago Tribune that German engineer units have "pushed 60 miles into Bulgaria." I haven’t heard anything on the radio this morning to confirm or deny these stories, but there is one report that German officers in civilian clothes have established themselves in the capital, Sofia (and have been treated to student anti-Nazi demonstrations). There’s also a story that brand-new road signs -- in German -- have shown up on Bulgarian highways leading from the Rumanian border. Yet, there’s still no consensus that the Germans have arrived.
Is there any doubt they will? Unless this is all an extremely elaborate feint, it’s conceivable that the Germans would, this time at least, do what they have baldly telegraphed the world they are going to do -- drive through Bulgaria and into northeastern Greece. There’s a chance they’ll get a hot reception, if a U.P. report is accurate that the British have fortified the Greek island of Lemnos in the upper Aegean. This is a highly strategic point in the region, equidistant from the port of Salonika and the Dardanelles straits. According to the Tribune, a Turkish radio report said British forces in North Africa are holding large forces in North Africa in readiness "for an instant call to Greece." A year ago, the British were too little, too late in Norway -- this time I have a feeling it’ll be a much more even fight. It could even result in a stable Balkan front, similar to that which we saw in the World War.
HE WHO HESITATES... British author and statesman Harold J. Laski wrote in his syndicated column yesterday that Hitler is having a highly atypical attack of indecision --
"One can see the shape of a German spring offensive taking its determined form....Is it to be the long expected invasion of Britain? Is it to be an attack on the Middle East? Spain, to show its gratitude for past favors, by cooperating in an attack on Gibraltar? Is Japan to launch an attack which tests all of America to defend its interests in the Far East? Has France been pulled over to the border line of decisive subjection to the Axis? Will Turkey fight? Is the Soviet Union so fearful of a German attack that it will continue to stand aloof whatever the threat of a German advance to the Black Sea may imply? My guess...is that none of these and no combination of them at the moment is more certain than another. For the first time since the defeat of Poland, Hitler is uncertain of his next move. Axis propaganda is working overtime to find out, if it can, the weak point in the British armor. So much in the last six or seven months has proved totally unexpected that Hitler waits on the ‘feel’ of events for one of those intuitions of his which looses his barbaric savagery in a new quarter....Neutral observers who have recently been in Germany told me of conversations with sober, middle class Germans to whom now any postponement of rapid victory is the equivalent of certain defeat. They ask themselves why the Fuehrer hesitates. They begin to wonder if he is so certain of his direction. Something spectacular and determined he will no doubt attempt. The chance of a negotiated peace has disappeared. He must ruin or be ruined. But he is torn between the possibilities."
Professor Laski hastily warns that no one should underestimate the danger of a Hitler triumph ("His gambler’s chance of victory...is real and will last at least until American aid to Britain has made the sea lanes safe and has given us something approaching parity in the air."). But there does seem to be something lackadaisical about the German war machine all of a sudden – for instance, making such a big build-up about a tactical move through Bulgaria that will almost surely bring German troops into Greece, invading through the back door. It would be an offensive, yes, but limited in scope and defensive in purpose. Maybe you could say it’s still likely the Nazis will launch a "spectacular" attack on Britain this spring. Still, I’m starting to wonder if -- for whatever reason -- Hitler has suddenly opted for a careful and essentially defensive strategy of consolidation.
Is there any doubt they will? Unless this is all an extremely elaborate feint, it’s conceivable that the Germans would, this time at least, do what they have baldly telegraphed the world they are going to do -- drive through Bulgaria and into northeastern Greece. There’s a chance they’ll get a hot reception, if a U.P. report is accurate that the British have fortified the Greek island of Lemnos in the upper Aegean. This is a highly strategic point in the region, equidistant from the port of Salonika and the Dardanelles straits. According to the Tribune, a Turkish radio report said British forces in North Africa are holding large forces in North Africa in readiness "for an instant call to Greece." A year ago, the British were too little, too late in Norway -- this time I have a feeling it’ll be a much more even fight. It could even result in a stable Balkan front, similar to that which we saw in the World War.
HE WHO HESITATES... British author and statesman Harold J. Laski wrote in his syndicated column yesterday that Hitler is having a highly atypical attack of indecision --
"One can see the shape of a German spring offensive taking its determined form....Is it to be the long expected invasion of Britain? Is it to be an attack on the Middle East? Spain, to show its gratitude for past favors, by cooperating in an attack on Gibraltar? Is Japan to launch an attack which tests all of America to defend its interests in the Far East? Has France been pulled over to the border line of decisive subjection to the Axis? Will Turkey fight? Is the Soviet Union so fearful of a German attack that it will continue to stand aloof whatever the threat of a German advance to the Black Sea may imply? My guess...is that none of these and no combination of them at the moment is more certain than another. For the first time since the defeat of Poland, Hitler is uncertain of his next move. Axis propaganda is working overtime to find out, if it can, the weak point in the British armor. So much in the last six or seven months has proved totally unexpected that Hitler waits on the ‘feel’ of events for one of those intuitions of his which looses his barbaric savagery in a new quarter....Neutral observers who have recently been in Germany told me of conversations with sober, middle class Germans to whom now any postponement of rapid victory is the equivalent of certain defeat. They ask themselves why the Fuehrer hesitates. They begin to wonder if he is so certain of his direction. Something spectacular and determined he will no doubt attempt. The chance of a negotiated peace has disappeared. He must ruin or be ruined. But he is torn between the possibilities."
Professor Laski hastily warns that no one should underestimate the danger of a Hitler triumph ("His gambler’s chance of victory...is real and will last at least until American aid to Britain has made the sea lanes safe and has given us something approaching parity in the air."). But there does seem to be something lackadaisical about the German war machine all of a sudden – for instance, making such a big build-up about a tactical move through Bulgaria that will almost surely bring German troops into Greece, invading through the back door. It would be an offensive, yes, but limited in scope and defensive in purpose. Maybe you could say it’s still likely the Nazis will launch a "spectacular" attack on Britain this spring. Still, I’m starting to wonder if -- for whatever reason -- Hitler has suddenly opted for a careful and essentially defensive strategy of consolidation.
Monday, February 20, 2017
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.
"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.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Tuesday, February 18, 1941
WAR OR PEACE IN THE PACIFIC? Some contradictory indications in the papers the last couple of days over whether war is about to break out in East Asia -- either Japan vs. Britain or Japan vs. Britain and America. On the one hand, the British are mining the sea approaches to Singapore, according to an Associated Press story from yesterday. The A.P. says the action came as the British stand "on guard against the possibility of an actual Japanese campaign or a mere smokescreen to divert British attention from any European plans of the Axis." Britain had already placed troops, ships, and planes at Malaya’s border with Thailand to protect against a Japanese thrust in that direction.
There are other indications of trouble -- (1) the Japanese press is reporting rumors, datelined Bangkok, that a British-Japanese war is about to break out; (2) Japan is said to be setting up a military air base at Saigon, in southern Indo-China, which is only about 630 miles from Singapore and well within bombing range; (3) British officials have renewed their advisory of last fall that Britons evacuate Japanese-held areas of China; and (4) an official Chinese report claims the Japanese have stationed ten divisions in the vicinity of Southeast Asia.
So what does one make of Hugh Byas’s sunny article in Sunday’s New York Times reporting that a number of events the past few days have "appreciably lightened the strain" on Japan’s public, who’ve been worried about rumors of imminent war? Mr. Byas, the Times’ Tokyo correspondent, cites a statement by President Roosevelt that "minimizes" reports that war is nearer, and the words of an anonymous Australian spokesman that the situation in the Pacific is not deteriorating. Then, there are the official steps being taken by the Japanese public to reassure its citizens that an Anglo-American war isn’t on the horizon. And Mr. Byas adds that "putting these indications together and adding their own subconscious conviction that war with the United States would be a disaster that any Japanese government must try to avoid, the [Japanese] press tonight seemed considerably relieved."
Well, good for them. I hope they’re right to be relieved. But Japan’s military doesn’t much bother these days to listen to directives from their empire’s own government, much less the views of the press. And I get the nagging feeling from all this that Japan is planning to strike soon at British outposts in East Asia -- by "soon" I mean the second Hitler begins the long-awaited all-out Nazi assault on Great Britain later in the spring.
BULGARIANS WANT TO STAY OUT. Also in Sunday’s New York Times, C.L. Sulzberger writes from Sofia that rural Bulgarians don’t care a fig about this war, and are exasperated that they could end up in the middle of it --
"Eighty per cent of the population from the North Carpathians to the Marmora Sea comprises peasant farmers whose interests are crops, weather, and prices, the easiest way to live and die in conflict with the soil and not each other....The peasant does not much care whether he sells his goods to Germany or Britain, as long as he receives a price enabling him to live. He resents interference in his own affairs and he detests battles which not only kill but ruin crops, commandeer livestock and abolish fair prices. For this wish he has got nothing but war and the threat of war. The Balkan powder box is again smoking, and as usual it is some one far removed who is playing around with the fuse. The peasant says, ‘This is getting nowhere. During the war we will be occupied by Germany and possibly bombed by England. And after the war we will be occupied by Russia, and what will be left by then?’"
One can still sympathize with these sentiments while noting that neither this hypothetical peasant, or Mr. Sulzberger himself, seem to appreciate the cause-and-effect nature of the sentence, "The peasant does not much care...For this wish he has got nothing but war." Indeed, a lot of people in the neutral nations profess not to "care" about whether or not a bloodthirsty Nazi tyranny rules Europe, and a number of these neutrals have ended up occupied by the Germans. If the Bulgarians had pledged to fight, in conjunction with the Turks and the Yugoslavs, Hitler surely would be more reticent about his demands for troop passage through Bulgarian territory. But the rule seems to be is that if a nation’s people don’t care whether they sell to Germany or Britain, they’ll most assuredly end up selling to Germany. The German bayonets stabbing across their lightly-defended borders will see to that.
There are other indications of trouble -- (1) the Japanese press is reporting rumors, datelined Bangkok, that a British-Japanese war is about to break out; (2) Japan is said to be setting up a military air base at Saigon, in southern Indo-China, which is only about 630 miles from Singapore and well within bombing range; (3) British officials have renewed their advisory of last fall that Britons evacuate Japanese-held areas of China; and (4) an official Chinese report claims the Japanese have stationed ten divisions in the vicinity of Southeast Asia.
So what does one make of Hugh Byas’s sunny article in Sunday’s New York Times reporting that a number of events the past few days have "appreciably lightened the strain" on Japan’s public, who’ve been worried about rumors of imminent war? Mr. Byas, the Times’ Tokyo correspondent, cites a statement by President Roosevelt that "minimizes" reports that war is nearer, and the words of an anonymous Australian spokesman that the situation in the Pacific is not deteriorating. Then, there are the official steps being taken by the Japanese public to reassure its citizens that an Anglo-American war isn’t on the horizon. And Mr. Byas adds that "putting these indications together and adding their own subconscious conviction that war with the United States would be a disaster that any Japanese government must try to avoid, the [Japanese] press tonight seemed considerably relieved."
Well, good for them. I hope they’re right to be relieved. But Japan’s military doesn’t much bother these days to listen to directives from their empire’s own government, much less the views of the press. And I get the nagging feeling from all this that Japan is planning to strike soon at British outposts in East Asia -- by "soon" I mean the second Hitler begins the long-awaited all-out Nazi assault on Great Britain later in the spring.
BULGARIANS WANT TO STAY OUT. Also in Sunday’s New York Times, C.L. Sulzberger writes from Sofia that rural Bulgarians don’t care a fig about this war, and are exasperated that they could end up in the middle of it --
"Eighty per cent of the population from the North Carpathians to the Marmora Sea comprises peasant farmers whose interests are crops, weather, and prices, the easiest way to live and die in conflict with the soil and not each other....The peasant does not much care whether he sells his goods to Germany or Britain, as long as he receives a price enabling him to live. He resents interference in his own affairs and he detests battles which not only kill but ruin crops, commandeer livestock and abolish fair prices. For this wish he has got nothing but war and the threat of war. The Balkan powder box is again smoking, and as usual it is some one far removed who is playing around with the fuse. The peasant says, ‘This is getting nowhere. During the war we will be occupied by Germany and possibly bombed by England. And after the war we will be occupied by Russia, and what will be left by then?’"
One can still sympathize with these sentiments while noting that neither this hypothetical peasant, or Mr. Sulzberger himself, seem to appreciate the cause-and-effect nature of the sentence, "The peasant does not much care...For this wish he has got nothing but war." Indeed, a lot of people in the neutral nations profess not to "care" about whether or not a bloodthirsty Nazi tyranny rules Europe, and a number of these neutrals have ended up occupied by the Germans. If the Bulgarians had pledged to fight, in conjunction with the Turks and the Yugoslavs, Hitler surely would be more reticent about his demands for troop passage through Bulgarian territory. But the rule seems to be is that if a nation’s people don’t care whether they sell to Germany or Britain, they’ll most assuredly end up selling to Germany. The German bayonets stabbing across their lightly-defended borders will see to that.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Sunday, February 16, 1941
HITLER PRESSURES YUGOSLAVIA. And the Yugoslavs may be about to cave in, according to an Associated Press dispatch yesterday --
"A Belgrade source close to Premier Dragisa Cvetkovic said last night that Yugoslavia would accede to Adolph Hitler's wishes after the return today of her statesmen from a conference with the Fuehrer. The country is expected to accept what were described as comparatively favorable terms in order to keep out of active warfare. These terms, while not yet known, are expected to call for active participation by Yugoslavia in Hitler's 'new order' for Europe. Informed sources interpreted the Yugoslavs' journey to Germany as meaning that the government of Yugoslavia had been driven into a corner as a result of Bulgaria's bowing to German wishes and Russia's nonintervention policy in the Balkans."
If the Yugoslavs sign on the dotted line, it'll be the biggest triumph yet of Hitler's building-block strategy in the Balkans -- turn Rumania into a vassal state, use her territory to pressure Bulgaria into submission, and then use the Bulgars' acquiescence to get the necessary concessions from Yugoslavia. And what are those concessions? The Germans aren't being bashful about this, according to a Friday A.P. dispatch -- "passage for German troops through both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria in order to get at Greece and the eastern Mediterranean." The New York Times story on this, by C. Brooks Peters, says the Yugoslavs' payoff for cooperation with the Nazis would be a slice of conquered Greece, namely Salonika, which Belgrade has been interested in as a more direct route to the Mediterranean.
Isn't it screwy that at a time when the Axis' military might is being tested more than ever -- routed in Italian East Africa, in North Africa, and in Greece, and blasted by an aggressive new R.A.F. bombing campaign over German-held territory -- Hitler might be on the verge of his greatest triumph yet at aggression-by-diplomacy?
THE TRIBUNE LASHES OUT AGAIN -- AT DEWEY. What's a Republican isolationist newspaper to do, now that Thomas E. Dewey has joined Wendell Willkie in endorsing the lend-lease bill? Publish yet another bitter, carping editorial, I guess. The Chicago Tribune did so yesterday, and placed itself in the strange position of denouncing last year's G.O.P. presidential candidate and the party's second most popular public figure as traitors to Republicanism. The crime is what these two gentlemen said in their Lincoln Day speeches --
"Republicans in the midwest who made [Willkie] their favorite candidate and who regretted to the last that the Willkie hoax was put over on the convention were not prepared to have him use the occasion of a Republican anniversary to give support to the dictatorship bill opposed by the faithful members of his party. Mr. Dewey endeavored to soften the effect of what he was doing. He referred to the bill as dangerous and unwise in the form it was submitted by the administration. He remarked that at the insistence of the minority it had been carefully considered. He said that as an American he was proud of the fair hearing given to both sides by the committees of the house and of the senate....'With some necessary further reservations of power to the people thru the congress,' said Mr. Dewey, 'I am satisfied that the House bill will be adopted. Speaking for myself alone, I hope it will be. I also hope that it will be in such form that it can be adopted with the support of both parties, serving notice on the world that the American democracy in full flower is a strong and united nation.'"
Sounds like an admirable show of bipartisanship to me, and a smarter approach than the Roosevelt Administration's short-sighted indifference to passing lend-lease by more than a party-line vote. But to the Tribune it means, somehow, that Mr. Dewey is a liar -- "[He] knows that if the bill was dangerous and unwise when introduced it was dangerous and unwise when it passed the house. He knows that evil was not taken out of it by amendment." Oh? And what evidence is there that he "knows" this? The Tribune doesn't say. And how does his qualified endorsement of lend-lease make Mr. Dewey "opposed to nothing the third term incumbent wants"?
The Tribune's latest barrage is one more outburst of hyperbolic pique, typical of the isolationists, capped with a closing thought that comes close to a smear -- "If the Republican party remains an American party, it will not make Mr. Dewey a candidate for president of the United States." I doubt that too many Americans will agree that Mr. Dewey is "un-American" for urging a bipartisan approach to our war policy, any more than most people can make any sense out of isolationist wheezes about the lend-lease bill serving as President Roosevelt's bid to "Hitlerize" America.
"A Belgrade source close to Premier Dragisa Cvetkovic said last night that Yugoslavia would accede to Adolph Hitler's wishes after the return today of her statesmen from a conference with the Fuehrer. The country is expected to accept what were described as comparatively favorable terms in order to keep out of active warfare. These terms, while not yet known, are expected to call for active participation by Yugoslavia in Hitler's 'new order' for Europe. Informed sources interpreted the Yugoslavs' journey to Germany as meaning that the government of Yugoslavia had been driven into a corner as a result of Bulgaria's bowing to German wishes and Russia's nonintervention policy in the Balkans."
If the Yugoslavs sign on the dotted line, it'll be the biggest triumph yet of Hitler's building-block strategy in the Balkans -- turn Rumania into a vassal state, use her territory to pressure Bulgaria into submission, and then use the Bulgars' acquiescence to get the necessary concessions from Yugoslavia. And what are those concessions? The Germans aren't being bashful about this, according to a Friday A.P. dispatch -- "passage for German troops through both Yugoslavia and Bulgaria in order to get at Greece and the eastern Mediterranean." The New York Times story on this, by C. Brooks Peters, says the Yugoslavs' payoff for cooperation with the Nazis would be a slice of conquered Greece, namely Salonika, which Belgrade has been interested in as a more direct route to the Mediterranean.
Isn't it screwy that at a time when the Axis' military might is being tested more than ever -- routed in Italian East Africa, in North Africa, and in Greece, and blasted by an aggressive new R.A.F. bombing campaign over German-held territory -- Hitler might be on the verge of his greatest triumph yet at aggression-by-diplomacy?
THE TRIBUNE LASHES OUT AGAIN -- AT DEWEY. What's a Republican isolationist newspaper to do, now that Thomas E. Dewey has joined Wendell Willkie in endorsing the lend-lease bill? Publish yet another bitter, carping editorial, I guess. The Chicago Tribune did so yesterday, and placed itself in the strange position of denouncing last year's G.O.P. presidential candidate and the party's second most popular public figure as traitors to Republicanism. The crime is what these two gentlemen said in their Lincoln Day speeches --
"Republicans in the midwest who made [Willkie] their favorite candidate and who regretted to the last that the Willkie hoax was put over on the convention were not prepared to have him use the occasion of a Republican anniversary to give support to the dictatorship bill opposed by the faithful members of his party. Mr. Dewey endeavored to soften the effect of what he was doing. He referred to the bill as dangerous and unwise in the form it was submitted by the administration. He remarked that at the insistence of the minority it had been carefully considered. He said that as an American he was proud of the fair hearing given to both sides by the committees of the house and of the senate....'With some necessary further reservations of power to the people thru the congress,' said Mr. Dewey, 'I am satisfied that the House bill will be adopted. Speaking for myself alone, I hope it will be. I also hope that it will be in such form that it can be adopted with the support of both parties, serving notice on the world that the American democracy in full flower is a strong and united nation.'"
Sounds like an admirable show of bipartisanship to me, and a smarter approach than the Roosevelt Administration's short-sighted indifference to passing lend-lease by more than a party-line vote. But to the Tribune it means, somehow, that Mr. Dewey is a liar -- "[He] knows that if the bill was dangerous and unwise when introduced it was dangerous and unwise when it passed the house. He knows that evil was not taken out of it by amendment." Oh? And what evidence is there that he "knows" this? The Tribune doesn't say. And how does his qualified endorsement of lend-lease make Mr. Dewey "opposed to nothing the third term incumbent wants"?
The Tribune's latest barrage is one more outburst of hyperbolic pique, typical of the isolationists, capped with a closing thought that comes close to a smear -- "If the Republican party remains an American party, it will not make Mr. Dewey a candidate for president of the United States." I doubt that too many Americans will agree that Mr. Dewey is "un-American" for urging a bipartisan approach to our war policy, any more than most people can make any sense out of isolationist wheezes about the lend-lease bill serving as President Roosevelt's bid to "Hitlerize" America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)