“THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE.” That’s what a Sunday Washington Post headline calls the fighting in northern France, where the German “bulge” in the front lines now extends down from Maubeuge near the Belgian-French border, to St. Quentin in the west, and through Laon to Montmedy in the south. Inside the bulge Nazi heavy tanks, aircraft and infantry are driving -- but where? St. Quentin is seventy-six miles from Paris and eighty miles from the English Channel. John Elliott writes in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune that as of yesterday it was “not clear whether the German high command was aiming for the French capital or for the Channel ports, with the object of separating the Allied forces fighting in Belgium from those in France.”
But on the same Herald Tribune front page a dispatch from Berlin by Ralph W. Barnes says the Nazi attack has definitely swung westward toward the Channel. David Darrah writes in the Chicago Tribune that “for the moment, at least,” Hitler’s armies “are concentrating their main push in a westwardly direction toward the English Channel.” Mr. Darrah writes that the main German effort right now is centered in the area west of Avesnes, Guise, and Vervins. The Germans have thrown a tank corp, comprising some 60,000 troops, into the St. Quentin battle, but French units reinforced by the British are putting up “stiff resistance” and have counterattacked at some points. Still, radio reports this morning say the Allies continue to fall back on the road to Paris and in the St. Quentin region.
THE FRENCH CLAIM A SUCCESS. The most heartening news in days is a French counter-attack which recaptured the towns of Le Cateau and Landrecies on the northern side of the German bulge, along the Oise River. According to a Monday United Press report, seventy-ton French tanks “with blazing cannon” have pushed the Nazis back nine miles in the area, the first German retreat since the offensive began. The U.P. dispatch also says the French advance was made possible by point-blank artillery fire on German tanks from French 75s, the big guns which caused the German military so much grief in the World War.
The only disheartening aspect of this report is that apparently, judging from other news, the breach in the German lines doesn’t appear to be serious enough to stop the Nazi advance in other sectors.
GAMELIN OUT, WEYGAND IN. The biggest casualty of the German break-through in northern France so far is General Gamelin, who was replaced Sunday as commander in chief of the Allies armies by General Weygand. David Darrah writes in the Chicago Tribune that the promotion of Weygand is being trumpeted by Premier Reynaud as a change in war strategy -- “When German troops broke thru the French lines...public opinion was stirred deeply, and the premier promised that to handle the situation ‘new methods and new men’ would be used.” An Associated Press story on Monday says the seventy-three-year-old Weygand “undoubtedly will launch a plan of bold initiative in contrast with Gamelin’s extreme caution.”
It just so happens that the current Life magazine has an expansive cover story on General Weygand, obviously written well in advance of his promotion and focusing on his command of the Allies’ Near East army, which has been estimated elsewhere at a quarter of a million men. Major George Fielding Eliot writes that World War hero Weygand is known as the “Savior of Poland” for driving the Russians back from the gates of Warsaw in 1920 after the Poles were nearing a catastrophic defeat. Now, he has put together a tough army in the Near East, in spite of General Gamelin’s hesitancy -- “The armament and equipment of all these forces is first-rate. There is plenty of mechanization, plenty of modern weapons and ammunition, strong and well-based air forces. As to the latter, General Gamelin is said to have shown some hesitations when confronted with Weygand’s requirements. Weygand insisted he could not accept a command of this sort unless given the tools he needed, and he had his way.” Major Eliot also describes Weygand’s strategy as informed by the doctrine of “attaque, attaque, attaque,” learned from his mentor Marshal Foch.
Weygand could well be the man the Allies desperately need to stop the German flood across northern France. So -- why wasn’t he put in charge there in the first place? Why was he posted to Beirut and put in charge of an army that, at this crucial moment, isn’t doing much of anything?
AN “ALLIED COUNTER-STROKE” ON THE WAY? Major George Fielding Eliot also writes in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune that Prime Minister Churchill’s radio speech on Sunday calling for “total war” could well be inspired by Weygand’s ascension to command. Major Eliot also considers the likelihood of an Allied asasult --
“It is impossible to suppose that Mr. Churchill’s speech...was not inspired in part by Weygand -- or at the very least by Churchill’s knowledge of Weygand’s trend of thought.. Thus we may be sure that a powerful Allied counter-stroke is in preparation, and will be delivered at the time and place Weygand selects. The only thing that could prevent it would be such continuous and violent pressure by the Germans that the sheer need for driving to check them would draw in too many troops to allow a mass of maneuver to be collected. The question, therefore, is whether the Germans can keep going and keep feeding in more troops, more armored fighting vehicles, more planes.”
Major Eliot estimates the French still have “in hand, and unused, two to three armored divisions, the British anywhere from one to three, and the Belgians two ‘light’ divisions containing armored elements.” He says this is enough for a “formidable” armored spearhead, but that it will take time to put these units together and assemble the soldiers to follow them up, “especially when all marches must be made by night, and concealment sought by day from the eyes of German scout pilots.” Is there still time for this?
CHURCHILL PUTS A BRAVE FACE ON IT. I thought Churchill’s speech Sunday offered as much hope as can be reasonably given in light of the Nazi break-through. From the New York Herald Tribune’s transcript on Monday -- “If the French army and our army are well handled, as I believe they will be, and if the French retain that genius in recovery and counter-attack for which they have so long been famous, and if the British Army shows the dogged endurance and solid fighting power of which there have been so many examples in the past, then a sudden transformation of the scene might spring into being....it would be foolish, however, to disguise the gravity of the hour. It would be still more foolish to lose heart and courage or to suppose that well-trained, well-equipped armies numbering three or four millions of men can be overcome in the space of a few weeks, or even months, by a swoop, or raid, of mechanized vehicles, however formidable. We will look forward with confidence to the stabilization of the front in France.”
ATROCITY AT ROTTERDAM. A brief story from the Associated Press Monday gives some ghastly statistics of what the Germans accomplished when they bombed Rotterdam into surrender -- 100,000 civilians killed, one-third of the city gone, buildings over an area of five square miles destroyed. The murderous effects of massive air bombardment, discussed with such worry one year ago, are now reality. And perhaps next week, any of England’s principal cities might be getting the same treatment.
THE FOLLY OF NEUTRALITY. Edwin L. James writes in Sunday’s New York Times that Belgium’s young King Leopold doomed his country by taking Hitler at his word --
“When the historians pen the pages of the present war, they will have to go back four years to make a complete picture of what now has happened in Belgium. In 1936 King Leopold cut loose from his protective alliance with France and reverted to the old neutrality status of Belgium. It was a status which had failed her once, but he thought it better to try again. Germany had promised him not to attack Belgium in a new war and he trusted Germany again. He knows the sad result now. The King refused the suggestions of the British and French, right up to a few months ago, that the Belgian General Staff consult with the General Staffs of London and Paris to work out a plan of defense in case of an attack on Belgium. That, the King said, would be a violation of his perfect neutrality. He refused the aid of the French to build a stronger defense line which would have amounted to an extension of the Maginot Line. He had promised the Germans to be neutral and he would be neutral.”
THE FOLLY OF NEUTRALITY (II). The message of Charles Lindbergh’s national radio address Sunday night sounded like something that King Leopold might have approved of. From the transcript printed in Monday’s Chicago Tribune --
“We need not fear a foreign invasion unless American peoples bring it on through their own quarreling and meddling with affairs abroad....Above all, let us stop the hysterical chatter of calamity and invasion which has been running rife these past few days. It is not befitting to the people who built this nation....If we desire peace, we only need to stop asking for war. No one wishes to attack us, and no one is in a position to do so.”
Who, one might ask, is running around America “asking for war”? Here Colonel Lindbergh turns vague, complaining that “powerful elements in America...desire us to take part.” He does not say who these elements are, but claims they are a “small minority” and hints they are treasonous, alleging that “they seize every opportunity to push us closer to the edge.” Colonel Lindbergh also says flat-out that it’s too late for us to help the Allies, and that it doesn’t matter if the Nazis triumph anyway -- “regardless of which side wins the war, there is no reason...to prevent a continuation of peaceful relationships between America and the countries of Europe.” He fails to note that if Hitler wins, there might be hardly any European countries left to be peaceful with.
THE FOLLY OF NEUTRALITY (III). What Colonel Lindbergh also failed to make clear in his radio talk is that he appears to have little use for the Monroe Doctrine. He favors defense of America’s borders, and only those other nations on the hemisphere that agree to follow his definition of strict neutrality (tough luck, Canada). But Barnet Nover points out in his Washington Post column on Monday that a Nazi victory in Europe could have disastrous consequences for America’s immediate neighbors, and thus for the U.S. too --
“The United States can afford a complacent attitude toward Europe only as long as the European balance of power is not disturbed to the point where it can affect developments overseas. But it is only because the European balance of power has not been upset from the Napoleonic era to the present time that we have been able to enjoy our peace and safety....A victory for Germany would involve a tremendous change in the European balance of power. It would place a good part of South America at the mercy of the conqueror and his allies....Aside from the fact that Fifth Column activities could produce a state or turmoil in more than one country of this hemisphere there is the circumstance that economically many of these countries would be at the mercy of a totalitarian despotism established astride Europe’s prostate democracies. In the event of a German victory Hitler’s salesmen could be as effective in overthrowing pro-United States governments and setting up governments amenable to his will as Hitler’s planes or mechanized troops might be.”
No comments:
Post a Comment