Tuesday, July 30, 1940

INVASION -- "A MATTER OF DAYS." George Axelsson writes in Monday’s New York Times that a German invasion of Britain "may be only a matter of days, if not hours." The Times notes three signs of a coming landing attempt --

(1) an acceleration in "the process of ‘softening up’ Britain by means of dive bombers, submarines, and torpedo-carrying mosquito craft";

(2) An unexplained halt in all railroad service between the Nazi-held and unoccupied sections of France, as well as a ban on travel by road, recalling "similar German moves the day before the invasion of the Low Countries on May 10";

(3) Reports from Nazi sources of "intensified air attacks on British military airdromes, ports, and rail junctions, as well as ship convoys and armament factories...that sort of activity in this war has always been a sure forerunner of a big German onslaught."

Mr. Axelsson also passes along recent German claims of British shipping losses, which if true are terrifying -- 166,000 tons allegedly lost in a two-day period. This would amount to a loss of two million tons monthly if sustained, and it is hard to see how Britain could long endure that. The Nazis, of course, claim they will not only maintain this pace but will "substantially better" it, as dive-bomber attacks on British convoys continue across the entire south of England.

INVASION -- A "DELAY"? On the other hand, Edwin L. James writes in Sunday’s New York Times that the amount of time the Nazis are taking in trying to subjugate Britain can now be called a "delay" --

"For a month now the world has been waiting for Hitler’s much-heralded attack on Britain and it has not come. Whether it represents a phase of the German dictator’s war of nerves or whether it represents something else, the delay has become remarkable. There is still no answer to the question of whether the Germans can land in Britain a force capable of conquering the country with its more than 1,500,000 armed defenders....If another month passes without a German attempt to invade Britain with land forces, there will be, in view of the bad weather which prevails over Britain after the middle of September, room for asking if, after all, Hitler intends to limit his attack on Britain to air warfare."

Mr. James notes that "it is a military axiom that a country cannot be conquered by planes," and that R.A.F. defenders seem to bring down about ten percent of the German raiders each day. But he’s probably correct in saying that the Nazi air raids so far have done considerable damage to British factories, air strips, and ports, and that "enormous damage" could be done to Britain by all-out Nazi air raids. Yet here too there is a mystery. "It would appear that the number of German planes coming over daily varies from fifty to two hundred. Suppose ten times that number came? And immediately one asks why the larger numbers do not come. The answer is not known."

AN AGREEMENT IN HAVANA? OR NOT? The Associated Press reports Monday on Secretary of State Hull’s success in getting a unanimous agreement at the foreign ministers’ conference in Havana on what to do about "orphaned" colonies in the Western Hemisphere. The final version of the "Act of Havana," says the A.P., dilutes the U.S. proposal for collectively assuming control of European colonies in the Americas in the event that an aggressor tries to change their status. But it also approves Secretary Hull’s plan for a five-nation committee to administer a threatened colony on an interim status, while a permanent arrangement is being decided.

But is it really unanimous? Radio reports this morning say that Argentina is once again balking at the pact, after her delegates proclaimed literally at the last minute that their signatures on the document would have no validity until approved by the government. In practical terms, this gives Argentina the ability to back out of the agreement at any time. And it takes a fresh poke at the U.S. desire for unanimous consent to establish the trusteeship plan. Earlier at the conference, the Argentines had earlier submitted a rival resolution on foreign colonies, emphasizing self-determination over collective security.

A NEW SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR? It’s hard to believe, but that’s what some in Fascist Spain seem to be agitating for. Maurice English reports in Monday’s Chicago Tribune that propaganda posters distributed this week in Madrid show Spanish imperial ambitions as including "the region bordering Mexico, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, as well as Louisiana and Mississippi." Spain wants the U.S. to return the Philippines to her control, too. The posters quote Generalissimo Franco’s speech of two weeks ago -- "We have made one step forward in the battle but only one step forward. We have an unfinished enterprise. We have not completed the revolution."

WORLD EVENTS LIKELY TO DECIDE THE ELECTION. Columnist Ernest K. Lindley writes in Monday’s Washington Post that with the loss of the popular and respected Louis Johnson, Assistant Secretary of War ,the political morals of the Roosevelt Administration are now at their lowest point in four years. Democrats are also demoralized at the decision by Party Chairman Jim Farley to step down from that critical job, and to leave the cabinet as well. But all of that might not matter much in the long run --

"Anxiety concerning the world situation and its possible effects on us over- and under-lies the President’s thoughts on all other subjects. It makes what a Jim Farley does, or what happens to a Louis Johnson, seem less important personally and politically, than in calmer times. Even by the hard test of practical politics the President’s focus on foreign affairs and national defense may be correct. The impact of world events -- whether England goes down or stands, whether Japan strikes at the East Indies -- may within a few weeks submerge hurt feelings, bolters, and unhappy recollections of Chicago. What he does in response to such events probably will determine whether Roosevelt is elected or defeated. Consciousness of that accounts, perhaps, for the President’s relative calmness in the presence of what, by ordinary standards, would be a baffling political mess."

Assistant Secretary Johnson had been a Roosevelt loyalist during some very tough times and is "popular among regular Democrats, New Dealers, the Washington press corp, and the American Legion." But the newly-confirmed Secretary Stimson wanted a new assistant, and the President felt honor-bound to give him one. Roosevelt tried to make it up to Johnson by asking him to stay on as "administrative assistant in charge of defense," and was taken aback when Johnson said he wanted no part of it.