“WORST DISASTER” YET FOR THE RED ARMY? As fighting continues on the frozen battlefields north of Finland’s Lake Ladoga, newspaper reports from Sunday and Monday report the Finns ever-nearer to victory -- but not yet ready to claim it. An Associated Press story from Sunday says the “beaten fragments” of four Soviet divisions in the region are “scattered in headlong flight,” while a United Press report from Monday says that the Russians have suffered between 20,000 and 25,000 casualties in the Lake Ladoga fighting, “including several thousand killed in battle and many more wounded who froze to death on the sub-zero battlefields before aid could be given to them.” The A.P.’s Monday report allows the Russians “only a bare chance” of escaping complete defeat. But the careful reader will notice that the latest dispatches no longer refer to two of the divisions being completely encircled.
“When the whole story is told, the Finns said, it will show the worst disaster of the Russian invasion.” So says the A.P. I hope it’s true.
LET SOMEBODY ELSE PROTECT THE VICTIMS. The editors of the New Republic have duly condemned Russia's aggression against Finland, but they don’t seem to care all that much what happens to the Finns themselves --
“The help that Finland needs can be provided much more quickly and in larger quantities by other nations, which are nearer and more immediately concerned. Sweden is the nearest, and Sweden apparently is helping, though not to the fullest extent of her ability -- for it must not be forgotten that Sweden has not only more manpower than Finland but the resources and plants for a considerable war industry. Britain and France come next. Did we not learn officially a few days ago that they had decided to render ‘substantial’ aid? They surely can spare enough materials and money for so crucial a campaign, in which a little help would go so long a way....And what about the Polish and Czecho-Slovak forces reorganized in France? What about even Italy, which at least pretends to fear Bolshevism? It looks decidedly as if a concerted effort were being made to play on American sympathy for the Finns to get us into the war by a back door, or at least to break down our embargo on credits to belligerents. When it is clear that Finland has received all possible help from her European friends and needs still more, it will be time -- if ever -- to consider accepting this task.”
In other words, it’s alright for the U.S. to loan the Finns $20,000,000 or so for purchase of non-military goods, as some in Congress are now proposing. But only after all possible help has been rendered to the Finns by Sweden, Britain, France, Italy, and, to top it off, the tiny remnants of the Polish and Czecho-Slovak armies. Then, if Finland still requires aid -- then we should “consider” giving the Finns a hand. I doubt if Finland’s brave fighters will hold their breath expecting any good to come from the patently counterfeit expressions of sympathy that now and then dot the New Republic.
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE SHOWS ITS BIAS AGAIN. Larry Rue of the Chicago Tribune “reports” the following in a “news story” published in Monday’s edition --
“The accusation of Winston Churchill, British first lord of the admiralty, that the neutrals were cowards trembling before the German crocodile, was followed yesterday by a statement by William S. Morrison, British minister of food, before a labor conference, that the neutrals’ aid was essential to shortening the war. These speeches gave rise to a growing indignation that has turned into a growing opinion that the war cannot be won by either side without imposing greater sacrifices of human life, suffering and money than victory could justify.”
That “opinion” wouldn’t happen to be shared by Mr. Rue, would it? And where exactly in Mr. Churchill’s text did he refer to the neutral nations as “cowards”?
GERMANY MUST WIN OR “DIE TRYING.” Anyone who thinks that “peace without victory” is still possible in the war between Germany and the Allies ought to read the excellent analysis of Hitler’s seventh anniversary in power, by Percival Knauth in Sunday’s New York Times --
“If National Socialist history has anything to tell those who would like to use it as a guide to the future it is this: ‘Either National Socialist Germany will win this war or Germany will die.’ When Hitler said ‘Capitulation -- never!’ he meant it. Specific events cannot be foretold with any degree of certainty. But, however strong may be the rumors circulating among the German people of ‘peace before next August’, it may be said with a great deal of certainty that, if the Nazis have their way, the war will not end till Germany wins it or dies trying. Germany under Adolph Hitler has been preparing for this fundamental dispute since he acquired power.”
RETURN OF THE “WAR REFERENDUM”. A new Gallup survey in Sunday’s Washington Post says the proposed constitutional amendment to put a U.S. declaration of war to a popular vote may be making a comeback. Ten months ago the idea was favored by a solid majority of voters, 61% to 39% and then, when Germany invaded Poland, Americans were almost evenly split, 51% to 49%, on the so-called “war referendum.” Now, according to Gallup, the proposal is again favored, by almost the same margin as last March -- 60% to 40%. And a bipartisan pair of congressmen, Fish of New York and Ludlow of Indiana, have announced they will press their colleagues to consider it. The amendment would not restrict the U.S. from resisting an invasion, but would apply to any presidential request to involve the U.S. in a foreign conflict. The Roosevelt administration rightfully opposes the whole business.
Dr. Gallup summarizes the most common arguments voters make for the proposal as -- “(1) that the people do the fighting and should have the right to decide such fateful decisions for themselves, (2) that there would be less chance of America entering a war if the drafting of troops were left with the public, and (3) that ‘we have no business overseas.’” Popular arguments against the idea, says the pollster, are that “a vote would take too long,” or “the other side could have us half-licked by that time.”
A BRITISH OFFENSIVE -- SOMEDAY? Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, bellowed the following in a speech excerpted in Sunday’s New York Times -- “We do not wish indefinitely to continue merely awaiting the blows which have struck us and then responding in good time. We hope the day will come when we shall hand that job over to Hitler, and when he will be wondering where he is going to be struck next.”
NOISE AND SILENCE ON THE THIRD TERM. President Roosevelt continues his silence as to whether or not he might run for a third term -- but has done nothing yet to scotch a “draft Roosevelt” movement gathering momentum in the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, two members of the President’s own cabinet, Interior Secretary Ickes and Labor Secretary Perkins, have endorsed a third term in recent days, while C.I.O. leader John L. Lewis declared the Democrats will face “ignominious defeat” if Roosevelt runs again. The most amusing comment of the last few days was printed in Sunday’s New York Herald Tribune, when they telephoned Mayor LaGuardia about rumors he might run as F.D.R.’s vice president this year. Quoting from the article --
“‘Listen to that,’ said the Mayor as the strains of the second movement of Beethoven’s symphony, played by the New York City Symphony Orchestra and broadcast by Station WNYC, came in over the radio in his home, 1274 Fifth Avenue. ‘Would you ruin my enjoyment of music by talking politics?’”
No comments:
Post a Comment