WILL THE U.S. SEIZE FRENCH COLONIES? Last summer’s Havana Agreement might be invoked before long. This is the treaty by which U.S. and other hemisphere nations agreed to seize and administer "orphaned colonies" belonging to countries occupied by the Nazis, if it looked like German infiltration of those colonies might threaten the security of the Americas. Now, says the Associated Press, the Roosevelt administration is alleged to have "plans ready for occupying French territory in the Caribbean area in case such a step is deemed necessary from a hemisphere defense viewpoint."
The sparks were, of course, provided by Hitler’s conferences this past week with Marshal Petain and Vice Premier Laval. "Informed quarters" tell the A.P. that the Hitler-Petain talks are evidence that "France has finally agreed to limited cooperation with Germany against Britain in return for an easing of the Nazi yoke." Just what does "limited cooperation" entail? If it means granting Nazi troops and ships the use of Casablanca, Dakar, and the Syrian port of Beirut, it could be a huge blow to Britain, since Germany would then be in a much better position to harass British merchant vessels in the Atlantic and seize Near East oil supplies. (Saturday’s New York Times points out, though, that British naval superiority would make it hard for the Germans to make use of French-held ports on the Mediterranean or the Atlantic, even if Vichy gave "permission.").
Petain’s regime is being obtuse about what agreements have been made, if any. The Chicago Tribune’s David Darrah quotes a French newspaper as saying Petain is working for "certain reorientations in international relations which were in conformance with new circumstances." Couldn’t be clearer than that. More ominously, the radio news this morning says that Vichy’s foreign minister, Paul Baudouin, has abruptly resigned. No reason given.
HITLER & STALIN PLAY HIGH-STAKES CHESS. An editorial in this week’s New Republic concisely sums up the tensions in the German-Russian relationship at the moment, stirred up by Hitler’s need to seize the oil reserves of Iran and Irak if he is to reliably fuel his war machine in the months and years ahead. To get to Iran and Irak the Nazis must go through Turkey, and there’s the rub --
"Behind Turkey looms the Soviet Union, which historically has had its own eyes on the Dardanelles, and certainly would dislike to see the straits pass under the control of a great and possibly hostile power. Hitler would hesitate to extend the war to Turkey unless he could buy Stalin’s consent with concessions elsewhere or unless he were sure that the USSR would not dare to resist him. It is here that the great and obscure diplomatic game now centers. Hitler knows well that Stalin does not want to fight and that the Soviet armies, though huge, are none too well organized or supplied. Stalin in turn knows that Hitler’s greatest fear is a war on two fronts at once, and even then if he could defeat the Russians inside of a year or two, he would go far to avoid clashing with them unless he had first finished off Britain. Hitler knows that Stalin, too, fears a war on two fronts and would hesitate to take on the Germans unless he were safe from Japan. On this great chessboard the diplomatists are now moving."
Who will win this game? The New Republic’s editors conclude with three possibilities -- "The Russians are great chess players, and it is possible that they may so arrange their pieces as to stay Hitler’s hand in the Balkans this winter. It is also possible that Hitler may drive so hard at their inherent weakness as to compel them to give way. Or he may simply upset the board and send all the pieces rolling."
JOHN L. LEWIS ENDORSES WILLKIE. Another former Roosevelt supporter comes out for the Republicans, this time the head of the C.I.O. In a Friday night radio address carried on 362 stations, the fiery labor leader put the choice in starkly dramatic terms --
"I think the re-election of President Roosevelt for a third term would be a national evil of the first magnitude. He no longer hears the cries of the people. I think that the election of Wendell Willkie is imperative in relation to this country’s needs. I commend him to the men and women of labor, and to the nation, as one worthy of their support, and as one who will capably and zealously protect their rights, increase their privileges and restore their happiness....America needs no superman. It denies the philosophy that runs to the deification of the state. America wants no royal family."
Call it rhetoric, but Mr. Lewis obviously believes in his words – he’s vowing to step down as C.I.O. chief if the President wins! In his own words, "It is obvious that President Roosevelt will not be re-elected for the third term unless he has the overwhelming support of the men and women of labor. If he is, therefore, re-elected, it will mean that the members of the Congress of Industrial Organizations have rejected my advice and my recommendation. I will accept the result as being the equivalent of a vote of no confidence, and will retire..."
Some of his criticisms are a little overheated, in the grand tradition of soap-box rhetoric. But Mr. Lewis makes a comprehensive case for change. By all means, if you didn't hear it on the radio, grab a copy of Saturday’s New York Times or New York Herald Tribune and read the transcript.
THE WASHINGTON POST ON THE THIRD TERM. A Post editorial in Saturday’s editions says it all --
"If [President Roosevelt] wins, the unique balance of our system of government will be in jeopardy. One of the most important bars to dictatorship will be down. It does not necessarily follow that the President would make himself master of the country, as other popular leaders have done in many parts of the world. But the path to excessive personal power would be at least partly cleared, and the temptation to take it would be strong. It is true that the Nation faces an emergency. For that very reason, however, safeguards against personalized government are the more important. What is the nature of the world-shaking movement that threatens us? Regardless of what else it may be, it is a revolution against democracy. It is the gravest sort of fallacy to talk of resisting this totalitarian menace by weakening the structure of our own democratic system."
THE TIMES SAYS IT SHORT AND SWEET. The editorial page of Saturday’s New York Times makes a telling comment on the third term as well, merely by quoting Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Henry Guest dated January 4, 1809 --
"I am sensible to the kindness of your rebuke on my determination to retire from office at a time when our country is laboring under difficulties truly great. But if the principle of rotation be a sound one, as I conscientiously believe it to be with respect to this office, no pretext should ever be permitted to dispense with it, because there never will be a time when real difficulties will not exist, and furnish a plausible pretext for dispensation."
I think the italics are mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment