Tuesday, August 27, 1940

THEY’RE BOMBING BERLIN. One day after Londoners felt the blows of Nazi bombs for the first time, the Royal Air Force has responded with an air attack on the heart of Berlin. The New York Times’ C. Brooks Peters calls it Berlin’s "first real baptism of fire." According to the United Press, British warplanes hit the Nazi capital in two waves early Monday morning, causing "heavy explosions" and unspecified damage. The Germans claim the only damage was a hit on a nursery by an incendiary bomb. "It caused a fire that was quickly extinguished by a gardener," reports the Times. But C.B.S.’s William Shirer said in last night’s broadcast that at least three Berlin streets have been cordoned off, though "it was impossible to get near enough to see why." And, however much damage was done, most of Berlin’s 4,000,000 citizens were sent to shelters for over three hours by the raid.

But the Germans are still giving a lot more than they’re getting in the air war. This morning’s radio reports say the Luftwaffe was busy over London for over six hours last night. One report says there are no estimates yet of casualties and property damage, but both are considered "heavy." The Nazis have dropped dozens of bombs on cities in the industrial Midlands as well, and have blasted the naval base at Portsmouth again. Another report today surmises that the circular flight of planes in the latest raid on London suggests its purpose is to be more of a "nuisance" to the civilian population than a blow at military objectives. An editorial in Monday’s Washington Post surmises that the Germans, still not having gained mastery of the air over Britain, have turned to raids "whose sole purpose is terrorization."

One wonders to what end. Obviously the Nazi attacks over the last two weeks haven’t gained them mastery of the air, at least not yet. And terror raids aren’t going to get them any closer to this. Meanwhile, the words of German officials in this regard seem to imply a most un-Nazi hesitation. According to the Times, German officials said Sunday they "know nothing" about the initial raid on London, and failed to mention it in their daily war communique. What gives?

EYEWITNESS REPORTS FROM TWO CAPITALS. C.B.S.’s London correspondent, Edward R. Murrow, toured eleven air raid shelters in London’s West End last night, and lauded the courage of ordinary Britons in his evening broadcast -- "Tonight they’re magnificent. I’ve seen them, talked with them, and I know." He offered listeners images of ordinary life in the shelters while the bombs fell -- a Scotsman regaling some twenty-five people with a windy fish story, and two babies who "looked like well-wrapped dolls" sleeping on a hard wooden bench. Apparently the biggest dissension he found was in one shelter where a pipe smoker wanted to light up and the warden forbade him, saying it was against the rules.

William Shirer, reporting for C.B.S. from Berlin, managed in spite of Nazi censorship to get across the contrast between the official German press and what’s really going on in the streets of Berlin. While the R.A.F.’s three-hour raid on Berlin got only "a six-line news item" in the Berlin papers, the "inhabitants of the town certainly made it their main topic of conversation." For the first time they’ve lost sleep to the din of anti-aircraft fire. Mr. Shirer also noted that the British dropped leaflets along with bombs, telling Germans that the war "will last as long as Hitler does."

INVASION OF BRITAIN LESS LIKELY? Edwin L. James contends in a Sunday New York Times analysis that there might not be any Nazi invasion of Britain after all this year, and he suggests that the war could enter a relative lull with the onset of cold weather --

"If the Germans were to try landing in the first week of September, even if they could use the beaches then, the approach of bad weather would bring them in a few weeks up against inability to use the beaches for landing. The more delay there is, the more the prospect becomes a deterrent for them....If the Germans do not attempt their invasion of Britain almost immediately there will be good reason to surmise that they will not try it this year. If they have to postpone it until next year, no one can tell what the situation will be then. The British hold that time works for them, that their production of airplanes is mounting relative to the production of Germany and it is often said in London that the war with Germany will look like a different proposition in 1941. If there is to be no invasion this year, what will the Winter bring? One has often heard it said that the Germans could send 5,000 planes over Britain at one time. That is probably an exaggeration, but still it is a good surmise that they can increase the severity of their air raids. Here again one can not only offset the severe punishment the British planes have been able to inflict upon the raiders, but also calculate that the bad Winter weather will interfere with bombing raids."

CONSCRIPTION BILL PASSAGE NEAR? Senator Barkley of Kentucky, the Democratic leader of the Senate, now predicts that the Burke-Wadsworth bill will pass the Senate either Wednesday or Thursday with a "substantial majority." And according to Coleman B. Jones in the New York Herald Tribune, the House is set to pass this week an excess profits tax-defense amortization bill, judged by the Administration to be "necessary to remove one of the major obstacles encountered by the National Defense Advisory Commission in awarding aircraft and other equipment expansion contracts." Mr. Jones reports that these two developments portend "a break in the legislative log jam" on defense issues. It can’t come soon enough -- a story in Sunday’s Herald Tribune reveals that despite the millions appropriated this year for new aircraft, the U.S. actually had eighty fewer warplanes at the end of June than at the beginning of the year.

Maybe the Chicago Tribune is already bowing to the inevitable, since their Monday front page indicates a lull in their news and editorial blitzkrieg against the Burke-Wadsworth bill. The closest thing to a comment on the bill is a long story by Walter Trohan, which says that according to unnamed "responsible army and navy officers and defense experts," a nation trying to invade America would have a near-impossible time of it. According to the Tribune, an invader would need two to three years of preparation before attacking, and would have to have the following -- at least 1,000,000 men, 300,000 rifles, 100,000 pistols, 15,000 machine guns, 19,500 cannon, 445,000,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, 50,000,000 rounds of pistol ammunition, 200,000,000 rounds of machine gun ammunition, 100,000 tons of bombs, 1,500 tanks, 1,800 scout cars, 200,000 other motor vehicles, 7,500 warplanes, 1,000 transports, 2,000 freighters, 500 supply ships, 250 oil tankers, and at least 400 fighting ships. The argument seems to be that we don’t need to draft men. Or, perhaps the Tribune is really saying we don’t need to do anything. Perhaps they'd like to change the national anthem to Let Us Go on Dreaming.

WILLKIE HOLDS SLIGHT ELECTORAL LEAD. Dr. Gallup’s election survey in Sunday’s Washington Post says President Roosevelt has scored slight gains in his electoral vote total, leading slightly now in four states -- Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Connecticut -- where he had trailed Wendell Willkie in the August 4 poll. But Mr. Willkie is still ahead with twenty states in his column, totally 284 electoral votes. Moreover, Willkie’s extended his lead in four states -- Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. The President is leading in twenty-eight states with 247 electoral votes. A total of 266 electoral votes are needed for victory.

But Dr. Gallup hedges plenty on how up-to-date these findings are -- "Two major developments of the last few days are not completely reflected in the Institute’s current study....(1) Mr. Willkie’s acceptance speech at Elwood, Ind., which Republicans are counting on to boost GOP strength, and (2) the latest phases of Adolph Hitler’s blitzkrieg against Britain, which some observers have expected might cause additional voters to favor a third term for Roosevelt. The greater part of the interviewing in the present survey was completed before the possible political effects of these widely differing events had time to sink in."

I’d be inclined to label that only one major development, as far as the election is concerned. A German invasion of Britain could well swing more voters toward President Roosevelt, especially if Hitler appears to be winning and the sentiment spreads that the U.S. might be next. But news reports of bombing raids which are inconclusive in their strategic impact likely wouldn’t have that much effect on American voters. Dr. Gallup is probably right, though, when he says the election, if held today, "would probably result in the closest race since the Wilson-Hughes election of 1916." I’d be willing to bet it ends up that way. It’s hard to imagine any president, no matter how personally popular, handily winning an unprecedented third term, absent a war or a widespread feeling that our survival is at stake.