WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST? The New York Times Paris correspondent, G.H. Archambault, lifts the curtain in Wednesday's edtions on the mysterious “Army of the Orient." The “army” is actually a series of Allied military groupings in various Near East countries. One is a French contingent principally based in Syria and Lebanon, estimated to be anywhere between 150,000 and 400,000. (French sources call the latter number “a manifest exaggeration”). It includes mechanized and air units and in recent weeks “has received reinforcements both in men and material,” the Times says. Meanwhile, the British army of the Middle East seems to be spread throughout the region. Iraq, Aden, and Egypt are locations mentioned by Mr. Archambault. The Allied commanders -- French General Weygand and British Lieutenant General Wavell -- work in close cooperation.
So what do the Allies intend to do with this force? Well, there was the talk last week about a possible Anglo-French strike on Germany through the Balkans. But the current Time magazine passes along the “notion” discussed in French newspapers of combining Weygand’s army together with Turkish forces for “a campaign directed at Russia’s rich oil fields” in the Caucasus. The New York Times cites the same theory from an Italian dispatch, which notes that the Caucasus “now represents Germany’s principal source of petroleum supplies.” And a Russian defense ministry newspaper has accused the Anglo-French of having “far-reaching strategic plans” in the region.
It’s hard to imagine Britain and France taking such a step, unless it becomes clear that Russia is about to come into the war on Germany’s side. Still, the possibility has to give both Hitler and Stalin pause -- and that’s a huge benefit of the Anglo-French-Turkish treaty. As Mr Archambault writes in the Times, the treaty “opened many possibilities for action either in the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Caucasus, or even further east. True, there is a protocol dealing with the possibility of war between Russia and the Allies, but this is not considered here to be a bar to Turkish cooperation.”
FEAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN. Meanwhile, Wednesday’s New York Times and Chicago Tribune have stories on “nervousness” in Iran and Afghanistan. Both countries are said to be taking major military preparations to oppose a rumored “Russo-German drive toward the Persian Gulf.” These tales come from Italian sources, which the Times says are considered “generally accurate.” It sounds improbable, but maybe not too much so -- both Germany and Russia tend to favor opponents who can’t fight back very well. And Hitler and Stalin surely have a common interest in taking control of the region's oil supplies.
THE DANGER FACING NORWAY. A Washington Post special correspondent, Joachim Joesten, asserts in a Tuesday column that Norway, not Sweden, is facing the biggest threat of an impending Russian attack --
“Norway is incomparably weaker in a military sense than Sweden. The difference in population is not so great (2,900,000 as compared with 6,300,000) as the disparity of resources, war potential and actual fighting strength. Secondly, Swedish territory is as yet inaccessible to the Soviet forces – except of course from the air -- while Norway now has a common frontier with Russia (along the occupied Petsamo district) over at least a hundred kilometers. And thirdly, it is becoming quite clear that the Soviet drive in the extreme north aims much more at the ice-free Atlantic harbors of that region -- which all belong to Norway -- than at its great mineral wealth -- which mostly belongs to Sweden. Moreover, Sweden’s northern frontier is heavily fortified...the tail-like stretch of Norwegian territory that touches upon the occupied ‘bottleneck’ of Petsamo is practically indefensible and hardly even fortified.”
Mr. Joesten says Norway’s armed forces have been called “a navy without ships and and army without training.” To keep the Soviets from the temptation of testing the country’s “ramshackle” defenses, Norway’s parliament has voted massive increases in military spending for the 1940-41 financial year. Will it be soon enough?
RUSSIA’S STRATEGY OF ATTRITION. Back in Finland, the fruitless Russian infantry and tank assaults on the Mannerheim Line go on – and it’s starting to look like the Red Army has opted for a very expensive strategy of wearing the Finns down to the breaking point. K.J. Eskelund writes in Wednesday’s New York Times of the latest attacks -- “As soon as one Russian wave was repulsed, a new one was launched. The battle raged all day. At nightfall the Russians did not desist as usual. Machine-gun and artillery fire continued into the night. Five violent attacks had then been repulsed by the dead-tired Finns.”
One radio report yesterday contained an estimate of 20,000 Soviet casualties in the last week. And yet there might be a method here to Stalin’s madness (this particular madness, anyway). The Russians are doing just as General Grant did against the Confederacy, albeit on a much bloodier and more ruthless scale. The Reds can make good their losses, and the Finns can’t. Not unless Sweden, Britain, France, and the U.S. get a lot more serious, a lot faster, about getting Finland some real military help.
THE NAZIS AS PEACE MEDIATORS. In Wednesday's New York Herald Tribune John Elliott quotes Paris sources as predicting German mediation to end the Russo-Finnish war. This follows the summoning to Berlin of two Reich diplomats, Dr. von Bluecher (the minister to Helsinki) and Count von der Schulenburg (the minister to Moscow). According to Paris-Soir, Germany’s Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop will announce, perhaps at the end of the month, a four-point proposal for ending hostilities. The terms are said to be --
(1) An armistice in place for one month.
(2) A plebiscite throughout Finland over which government the Finns want to have, their current democratic regime or the Soviet puppet “people’s government” backed by Stalin. There’s no doubt what the results of this vote would be, but “it would be staged to permit the Soviet Union to save its face.”
(3) The awarding of several air and naval bases to Russia, along with a portion of the Karelian Isthmus, in exchange for a chunk of Russian territory in northern Karelia.
(4) An promise between the two countries that no foreign troops would be allowed on each other’s soil.
Nazi peace-mongering seems about as unlikely as a speech by Vice President Garner endorsing the third term. But Mr. Elliott points out two good reasons why Hitler badly wants a Finnish truce --
“First, as long as this conflict goes on important Russian supplies, notably foodstuffs and oil, which otherwise would be shipped to the Reich are being diverted to the Soviet forces operating in Finland. Second, while the Russians are tied up in Finland they are prevented from undertaking or threatening to undertake a military expedition for the conquest of the Province of Bessarabia from Rumania. The Germans would like to use this menace as a means of extracting concessions from the Rumanians.”
No comments:
Post a Comment