WELLES ARRIVES IN ROME. Under Secretary of State Welles has begun talks in Europe as President Roosevelt’s personal envoy, his liner docking at Naples on Sunday afternoon. He is to gather information for the President on the war situation from the Italians, the Allies, and the German government. And he will not spill any of it for the benefit of the public in the meantime. According to James M. Minifie’s account in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune, Secretary Welles “made it clear from the outset that his motto for the next month would be, ‘I have nothing to say.’”
The Herald Tribune doesn’t paint the start of the Welles mission as especially auspicious. It notes that the controlled Italian press didn’t say anything of the Secretary’s arrival and has “rigorous refrained” from any comment on the trip. There is also a “growing conviction in Rome that the object of Mr. Welles’ safari is the symbolical elephant of the Republican party -- that it is, in short, nothing but a move in American election-year politics.” And it might even net the President any usable information, says Mr. Minifie. “Western Europe’s plans and projects depend on events which are expected to move so rapidly that by the time Mr. Welles returns to Washington his information and his conclusions alike may be obsolete.”
The New York Times calls the Italian greeting for Secretary Welles “mild”, and the Associated Press says he was received with “non-committal courtesy” by Mussolini’s men.
A NAZI INVASION OF NORWAY & SWEDEN? One problem with the Allies sending troops or other direct military aid to Finland is that Norway and Sweden won’t allow it to be sent across their territory. But Harold Callender writes in Sunday’s New York Times that if the Germans decide to strike northward, the Allies would be in a much better position to defend Scandinavia --
“If Sweden and Norway were brought into the war by Germany’s action the Allies would land forces, perhaps at Narvik, to support the Swedish and Norwegian armies in resisting the Germans....With Sweden and Norway belligerents in spite of themselves, Britain would be free to seize or destroy iron cargoes bound to Germany or to occupy the mining areas as the ally of the Swedes. Norway’s mountains and Sweden’s forests make the region difficult for military operations. While the Allies brought troops by sea Sweden could put some half million men in the field. Her air force has some 400 planes, though not of the newest types. Her navy is rated second to Germany’s in the Baltic. Norway, like Sweden, has universal military service, though her army and navy are small.”
Mr Callender notes along the way one reason it is so important to help the Finns resist the Red Army -- “If Russia conquered Finland a grave crisis would face Scandinavia. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would be unable to face Russia – it would then be too late.” However, of all the northern neutrals Denmark just might stand the best chance of being left alone -- “Germany could seize Denmark at any time she liked, but Denmark is more valuable to her as a neutral supplying foodstuffs than as a vassal. For Danish agriculture is dependent on imported fodder, which the British blockade would cut off completely if Denmark were in German hands.”
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE GOES OFF THE DEEP END. An absolutely eye-popping editorial in Monday’s Chicago Tribune. In it, the editors ascribe the last few months’ worth of murder, carnage, betrayal, and aggression in Europe to the work of one man -- Neville Chamberlain. Yes, you heard right. It wasn’t Germany’s invasion of Poland that started the European war, it was Britain’s insane notion of going to the aid of countries which so insolently dared to stand up to threats of Hitlerian aggression. The Tribune says that things might be just ducky right now if only Chamberlain had never given Poland that silly guarantee --
“If Mr. Chamberlain had made a different decision there might now still be a Polish state, even if reduced in area and and apprehensive of the future. There might have been no Nazi-communist treaty and no advance of the Reds into Poland and the Baltic states. Finland might be at peace and Germany and Russia still professedly hostile. Great Britain and France probably would be in almost as active a state of military preparation as they are now, but the western front would not be considering the imminence of great battles in the spring. A different decision than the one Mr. Chamberlain made could not have produced worse than the present conditions, and now the question is, how can better conditions be created? Only two methods can be considered. There will either be a war of exhaustion, with the victor forcing his will on the defeated, or a peace by compromise and conciliation which undertakes to make the best possible arrangement for all the people concerned.”
All the people, that is, except for the Poles, Czechs, Finns, and any other nationalities that the dictators subsequently decide to rule by force. The Tribune mentions in passing Hitler’s “betrayal” of the Munich agreement -- just what makes “the world’s greatest newspaper” think that another round of “peace by compromise and conciliation” would work any better?
The Tribune editors have said some crazy things in the past, but this takes the cake. Are they really suggesting, as they seem to be, that nations such as Poland do not have the right to defend themselves against aggression? Or that “peace” is such a supreme value that it justifies begging dictators for mercy? And that Fuehrer Hitler has broken all his promises, torn up his treaties, destroyed three countries (so far) and murdered countless numbers of men, women, and children because Neville Chamberlain forced him to?
There’s only one word for people who actually believe such things. Idiots.
ACTUAL, REAL NEWS ABOUT THE THIRD TERM. There’s been so much guesswork and speculation about whether or not President Roosevelt will run for a third term that it was startling to open the Sunday papers and find some honest-to-goodness news on the subject. And there it is, on the front page of the Washington Post -- the President has by inaction allowed his name to stand as a candidate in the Illinois Democratic primary on April 9. He will be contending on the ballot with Vice President Garner, who unlike the President is a declared candidate. It’s widely believed that by his silence in declining to order the removal of his name from the ballot, President Roosevelt is tacitly indicating that he “will seek a third term under certain circumstances.”
Coincidentally or not, the Sunday Post also prints a new Gallup survey which shows the President still dominating his party. When Democrats were asked in the latest poll who they’d like to see elected President this year, 78% answered Roosevelt, while only 10% went with Vice President Garner and 6% chose Secretary of State Hull. The Vice President did much better with Roosevelt’s name omitted from the choices, as he no doubt hopes it will be. In that second survey, 40% of Democrats went with Garner, 25% chose Hull, and 11% voted for Security Administrator Paul V. McNutt.
No comments:
Post a Comment