Sunday, January 14, 1940

“ENGLAND IS NOW AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.” This startling statement came from Alfred Duff Cooper, former First Lord of the British Admiralty, and was reported Saturday by the International News Service. Though not literally true, of course, it gives another indication of how far Anglo-Russian relations have deteriorated. One week ago Ralph W. Barnes of the New York Herald Tribune reported that the British government would accept with “perfect calm” any announcement from Moscow that diplomatic relations were being broken. Moreover, Chamberlain’s government is determined to give Finland all aid possible and might even assist British volunteers who want to go fight the Russians in Finland -- the only consideration being whether it would weaken the British fight against Germany. Stalin has sternly warned the Allies to keep out of the Finnish war.

And now, says Mr. Cooper, “I consider that England is now at war with Russia, or will be shortly.” He offers some other predictions -- “Germany will have to move in the spring. I am convinced Hitler had intended to move through Holland or Belgium last fall, but was dissuaded by his army.” Ominous as that sounds, Mr. Cooper remains convinced that the British and French will eventually triumph over Hitler and Stalin -- but there is little chance for peace in 1940. This fits with Chamberlain’s remarks last week that a “grimmer” phase of the war is coming.

U.S. NAVY WANTS 2 BILLIONS FOR NEW SHIPS. If the British are trying to sound gloomy, they were topped this week by Admiral Stark, chief of U.S. naval operations. Testifying before the House Naval Affairs Committee on a bill to build 195 new warships for the Navy by 1945, the Admiral said point-blank, “We must face the possibility of an Allied defeat in the war, and then measure the strength of the powers which might combine for action against the Americas.”

As reported in John G. Norris in Friday’s Washington Post, Admiral Stark, as well as congressmen on the committee, have mentioned the possibility of a Grand Alliance of the dictators -- Germany, Russia, Japan, and Italy -- opposing the U.S. by itself. And the Admiral says that even this mammoth new appropriation, which would increase the size of the Navy by 25%, “is not sufficient to defend our home waters, the Monroe Doctrine, our possessions and our trade routes against a coalition...of Japan, Russia, Germany, and Italy. If we are attacked by the above combination, as has been asked me, something would have to be abandoned. Obviously, it cannot be our home coasts; and obviously, Hawaii, the Panama Canal and its approaches, and the Atlantic Coastal shipping are of vital interest.”

TWO MORE SOVIET ATTACKS BROKEN. In what by now seems like a broken record, the Finns have reportedly repulsed two new attacks by the Red Army, one near Salia and the other in the far north, near Petsamo. K.J. Eskelund writes in Friday’s New York Times that although small Soviet patrols have penetrated well into the country’s interior, Finnish ski troops have launched daring assaults against the 25,000 Russians in the Salia region and have greatly disrupted the invaders’ communications and supply route. Meanwhile, Walter Kerr writes in Friday’s New York Herald Tribune about how the Finns decisively won the Battle of Suomussalmi, in which the Finns “smashed one Soviet division and then crippled another.” He compares it to the historic German victory over the Russians at Tannenberg in the early days of the World War.

If the Russians have had any success at all lately, it appears to be in the air. Donald Day reports in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune that Russian warplanes made repeated raids on Finnish cities Friday, disrupting telephone communications and shutting off broadcasts from Finland’s largest radio station.

ROOSEVELT’S APPROVAL RATING IS 63%, BUT -- President Roosevelt’s continued popularity does not seem to translate into a mandate to run for a third term -- at least not yet. That is the finding of a new Gallup poll reported in Friday’s Washington Post. Dr. Gallup’s survey shows that a sizeable majority of Americans approve of the President -- 63.5%, to be exact. But only 46% of those polled say they would vote for F.D.R. if he ran for a third term.

Gallup explains the disparity by contrasting the unanimity with which Republicans oppose a third term bid (7% would vote for the President, 93% would not), with a split in the Democratic ranks (79% would vote for the President, but 21% would not).

However, there has been a notable and steady increase in support for a third term since the beginning of the European war crisis last summer. In May only 33% of those polled said they would vote for a third term -- but those numbers went up to 40% in August, 43% in October, and stand at 46% now. One wonders how much public support the President would need to feel comfortable about running. Surely he would want evidence of support from a clear majority, say 60% or so, before doing something so precedent-shattering. It’s hard to believe that he’ll get that support, barring an incredibly bad turn of events in Europe. I’m betting that he won’t do it.