FRANCE SURRENDERS TO GERMANY. The Nazis have officially succeeded in knocking one of their two remaining enemies out of the war. N.B.C. and C.B.S. reported in a joint broadcast yesterday afternoon that three French plenipotentiaries have signed an armistice, under terms that were handed to them by Fuehrer Hitler himself at the start of “negotiations” on Friday. C.B.S. newsman William Shirer, speaking from a clearing in Compiegne Forest where the talks were held, says the specific armistice terms have not yet been revealed. But the Associated Press reports Saturday on the general summary -- Hitler “demanded all resistance end; that the French give him ‘all guaranties necessary’ to continue his war against Great Britain, and that they accept ‘pre-conditions’ for a new European order designed above all to make ‘reparation of the wrong done to the German Reich by force.’” After Hitler finished the summary, his subordinates related the details. And apparently from what the A.P. says, the “negotiations” consisted of the German side asking the French, “Ja or nein?” On Saturday night, the French said “ja.”
The Germans displayed a petulant thirst to avenge the Allied victory of 1918 -- they insisted that the armistice meetings be held in the same railroad car in which the World War armistice was negotiated and signed in Compiegne Forest, which is some fifty miles north of Paris. And not only that, but the Nazis wanted the car taken from its nearby location as a museum exhibit and moved to the exact spot where France’s Marshall Foch accepted the German surrender nearly twenty-two years ago. The Germans believe this somehow proves their chivalry. According to the United Press, Germany’s official news agency is boasting that “the solemnity of the action toward the enemy who was honorably beaten stands in contrast to the eternal hate-sowing monuments on this scene where once Gallic vileness abused the unconquered German army.” Of course, the Nazis don’t mention that the reason French officers used this humble, remote location in 1918 was “to not make a spectacle” of German distress -- that from Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune.
WHEN DOES FRANCE’S WAR END? William Shirer also said in his C.B.S. report last night that after signing the armistice with Germany, the three French plenipotentiaries boarded a plane bound for Italy, where they will “negotiate” an end to the two-week-old Italo-French war. Once that agreement is signed, the details of the German pact will be formally made public, and it will go into effect. Judging from how quickly the French signed on to Hitler’s demands (which were surely quite tough), one can’t imagine them putting up much of a fuss against Italy. Marshal Petain’s speech Thursday has already admitted defeat -- according to the Associated Press, the once-proud officer told Frenchmen they must “take their beating and learn to live with it.”
In the meantime, Saturday’s battle map in the New York Herald Tribune shows that in a military sense it’s increasingly academic anyway – the Germans have plunged well into the southern half of France, holding a line from Brest to Tours to Vichy to Lyons and farther south. Nazi armored forces near the Rhone River are now only about two hundred miles from France’s Mediterranean coast. (But C. Brooks Peters writes in Saturday’s New York Times that French forces, though isolated in “a number of small sacks,” are still bitterly contesting Nazi gains here and there).
MYSTERY OF THE FRENCH FLEET. Sigrid Schultz writes from Berlin in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune that she can’t confirm British reports that the French navy has gotten orders to leave French ports. To the contrary, Miss Schultz writes, her understanding is that Marshal Petain has “ordered the warships to remain in French ports or to return to them if they were at sea.” Also, an Italian war communique says the Italian air force is closely monitoring all French ship movements.
On the other hand, an Associated Press dispatch from Friday quoted “reliable sources” in Cairo as saying that whatever happened in France, the French forces and French navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean would continue to fight. And the Washington Post reports Saturday that the French navy “has been taken over virtually intact by the British fleet, under whose high command it has been operating during the war, and is beyond the jurisdiction of French government officials who might be compelled to turn it over to their Nazi conquerors.” So who’s right?
A MOVE AGAINST A FRENCH COLONY? Saturday’s Chicago Tribune also reports, as an insert to Miss Schultz’s story, that Britain may be about to take abrupt action to seize a strategic asset from its now-former ally --
“Military occupation of Syria by British troops and consolidation of Syria, Palestine, and Transjordan into one state may be expected to follow France’s capitulation to Germany, according to a radio broadcast from Athens last night. The Athens radio, quoting reports from Palestine, said preparations for the occupation already are in progress and that the new combined state will be known as Greater Arabia.”
I hope it’s true. One of the biggest problems with Britain’s prosecution of the war has been her unwillingness to act decisively and pre-empt Nazi advances. No doubt Mr. Churchill realizes that if the British Army doesn’t take control of Syria very soon, the German Army will. Hitler will squeeze France like a lemon to gain Nazi access to important parts of the French Empire. That’s why it’s so disappointing that the Petain government didn’t opt to carry on the war from overseas, as Churchill has pledged to do in the event Germany occupies the British Isles.
WHAT WENT WRONG? James M. Minifie, reporting from London, offers some informed speculations in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune --
“Well informed sources who have recently returned to London from France agree that the morale of the French people began to crack when the government decided to abandon Paris without attempting to defend it. According to those observers, the decision caused a sense of defeat and hopelessness which was never overcome. In British military circles it is considered that the French general staff failed to turn to account lessons learned from the Polish campaign last September when the new German tactics of pushing forward with heavily armed units regardless of the possibility of flank attacks were clearly demonstrated. Despite this warning, according to military observers, the French continued to put their trust in ‘static’ war based on heavily fortified positions. When Gen. Maxime Weygand was appointed to the supreme command, the strategic positions was already compromised by the German break-through at the River Meuse and there was neither time, troops, nor tanks to hold the tremendous attack pouring down through Flanders.”
ROOSEVELT’S “WAR CABINET.” Yawn. Here comes yet another round of hyperbolic isolationist frenzy, in the wake of President Roosevelt’s surprise announcement naming two prominent Republicans to his cabinet. John B. Oakes writes in Friday’s Washington Post that the President’s appointment of Col. Henry L. Stimson as Secretary of War and Col. Frank Knox as Secretary of the Navy has ignited “furious debate” in the Senate. Chesly Manly collects some of the most overheated comments in the Chicago Tribune, which add up to the accusation that the President is trying to form a “war cabinet” as he plots to enter Europe’s conflict. In response, Roosevelt said the appointments were made in response to the national demand for bipartisanship and to further national defense, “and nothing else.” For his part, one of the leading isolationists, Senator Nye of North Dakota, called upon the President to resign “as a patriotic duty” and turn the government over to Vice President Garner.
What has especially stoked the isolationists’ burners is Col. Stimson’s and Col. Knox’s reputation as interventionists. Plus, Col. Stimson would replace as War Secretary Harry Woodring, who is quoted in the Topeka Capital as having claimed three weeks ago that “a small clique of international financiers” was trying to make him quit his job because he opposed “stripping our defenses to aid the Allies.” According to the Washington Post, the non-interventionist Mr. Woodring resigned only an hour before his successor was announced. The Tribune says that both Senator Nye, who is a Republican, and the isolationist Senator Clark, Democrat of Missouri, are threatening an investigation by the Senate Military Affairs Committee into the circumstances of Woodring’s resignation.
But the New York Times claims this isn’t having any long-lasting effect on the Republican Convention, which will convene in Philadelphia tomorrow. Says a front-page story in Saturday’s editions, “Republican sentiment for aid to the Allies rebounded after a brief resurgence of isolationism following the naming of Messrs. Knox and Stimson to the Cabinet.”
A BOOM FOR WILLKIE. Speaking of the Republican Convention, quite a few columnists say this week-end that this looks to be the most wide-open G.O.P. convention in twenty years. Thomas E. Dewey and Senator Robert Taft are still the leading contenders, each having about two-thirds of the 501 convention votes needed for nomination. But neither apparently have the means of getting to that 501 total on their own, and the burgeoning popularity of Wendell L. Willkie could thwart efforts by either of the two leaders to secure that nomination after the first ballot. A story in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune by Francis M. Stephenson says that a prominent Dewey supporter has formally proposed the two leaders’ camps join forces in a Dewey-Taft or a Taft-Dewey ticket, bringing together 650 to 675 delegate votes and securing the nomination. But Willkie supporters retort that neither Taft and Dewey can in reality deliver enough delegates to the other to pull this off. Quite a few of these delegates, Willkie men say, are poised to bolt toward Willkie on the second and third ballots.
Meanwhile, Friday’s Washington Post offers Dr. Gallup’s final pre-convention poll, which shows a sharp rise in Republican support for Willkie. He stands at 29% and continues to hold second place to Dewey, who has fallen to 47%. Just one week ago, the numbers stood at 53% for Dewey and 17% for Willkie. Senator Taft, despite his impressive number of delegates, was only at 13% one week ago, and has dropped to 8% this week. Gallup says war news has contributed to the volatility in Republican ranks -- “As the war in Europe developed, the number of Republicans who are undecided has grown.” In fact, when the undecided vote is included in the survey, it leads all three of the principal candidates. Those numbers are Undecided, 34%; Dewey, 31%; Willkie, 19%; and Taft, a paltry 5%.
No comments:
Post a Comment