RUSSIA SPEAKS KINDLY OF BRITAIN. Could it be that the improbable friendship of Hitler and Stalin is turning icy? The United Press reports Monday that the tightly-controlled Soviet press has printed an article describing in "the most friendly terms" the role being played by ordinary working-class citizens and trade unionists in the defense of Britain. The U.P. adds that the article "praised British defenses, discipline, morale, living conditions and the attitude of officers toward soldiers." And on top of that, Russia’s Commissar of Defense, Marshal Timoshenko, has warned darkly of "provocations that may threaten our borders." It’s hard to believe he’s talking about the weakened rump states of Finland or Rumania. That just leaves you-know-who. The Wilhelmstrasse can’t be too happy about this.
WAR WITH JAPAN THIS MONTH? The isolationists in Congress who were sounding the alarm last week over the prospects for a war crisis involving Japan on one side and Britain and America on the other might have been half-right. A United Press dispatch reports that Britain is expected to announce shortly her decision to re-open the Burma Road a week from Thursday. Reportedly the Roosevelt Administration is "pleased" with the decision, says the U.P. And Monday’s New York Times carries a story inside the paper quoting a dire warning from the Japanese newspaper Hoshi -- if the British do so, "war will result."
That’s probably a bluff. Japan’s too busy in China to jump into a general war in the Pacific with Britain and the U.S. And as displeased as the Roosevelt Administration would be with the prospect of Japanese adventurism in French Indo-China and the Dutch East Indies, it’s hard to imagine the President asking for a declaration of war over it. But if the Japanese mean what they’re saying right now -- the radio might be crackling later this week with war crisis bulletins. And this time it won’t be Europe facing the danger. It’ll be us.
HOW BAD IS THE DAMAGE IN BRITAIN? Just how badly is the British economy being hit by Nazi air raids? It’s hard to say from the daily press accounts. Newspapermen warn that their dispatches are routinely censored, so that we’re usually told only when German bombers strike hospitals, schools, and churches -- not when they hit docks, gas works, railroads, power stations, and so on. But the current issue of Time magazine includes an ingenious survey which provides some illuminating, though unwelcome, information --
"One way of estimating the extent of general industrial damage was to ascertain how much U.S. enterprises with British branches or holdings were hit. Last week TIME queried 82 enterprises with headquarters all over the U.S. and associate properties all over Britain. The results were not reassuring. Of 68 companies which were willing to discuss their British affiliates, 20 were able to say that they had recently heard that the plants in Britain were altogether unharmed, 40 replied that ‘as far as they knew’ plants were operating, but mostly at reduced rate because of enlistment of labor or difficulties of transport, and eight reported more or less severe damage by bombs. Eight hits in 68 is 11.8%. The figure sounds low, but it must be remembered that much less than 100% destruction spells trouble. The U.S. Defense Commission’s battles against bottlenecks have demonstrated all too clearly how a hit on one vital supply plant could slow up a whole chain of processes. Furthermore, most of these firms produced non-military goods, and the percentage among strategic industries was doubtless substantially higher."
DEMAGOGUERY BY THE DEMOCRATS. Writing in Sunday’s New York Times, Arthur Krock takes a serious look at what’s emerged as a lamentable Democratic strategy in the election campaign -- to portray the Republicans as the choice of the Axis powers, or, in Mr. Krock’s words, "turn the decision of United States voters on the pivot of foreign preference." He produces what are, to my mind, any number of strong arguments why it just wouldn’t make any sense for Hitler to root for Willkie --
"Both the President and Mr. Willkie have proposed ‘aid short of war’ to the British, and both have upheld assistance to China. The Republican candidate has recently gone out ahead of Mr. Roosevelt in urging that more aid be extended, even to the point of ‘sacrifice.’ This has been taken to mean approval of the British request for bombers, on which the President has not expressed himself. Mr. Willkie has also endorsed the pooling of air and naval bases with the British in the Far East, as well as in the near Atlantic and Carribean. What hope of ‘appeasement’ or a slackening of Anglo-American relations does this offer the Axis if Mr. Willkie is elected? He has charged that the Administration’s defense program is impeded by policies and incompetence which he would eradicate if he becomes President, and the stronger and more rapidly built our national defense, the greater challenge to the Axis. Why should this make the dictators prefer to have Mr. Willkie in the White House?"
Mr. Krock answers that the dictators have been so enraged by President Roosevelt’s words of denunciation that they’d like to see him humiliated, whether it’s in their interests or not. But more importantly, this analysis warns that however helpful the Democrats’ strategy might be in re-electing the President, it’ll only be harmful to the country in the long run -- "The strategy...will certainly not -- if continued -- make for that national unity after Nov. 5 for which all patriots are hoping. If the result is to be explained on the ground that a large minority in the United States were voting for or against the wishes of the dictators abroad, no good will be done to a national defense effort which requires the labor of all."
"MOUNTING CRISES" ARE HELPING ROOSEVELT. The latest Gallup survey, as reported in Sunday’s Washington Post, doesn’t have much good news for the Republicans -- Roosevelt is leading in forty-two states, which would give him a landslide total of 499 electoral votes. The popular vote splits 56% for the President, and 44% for Willkie. However, eleven states where Roosevelt leads are still close enough that a four-percentage-point shift in opinion could move any of them into the Willkie column. Gallup also notes that his surveys have for more than two years "shown that President Roosevelt’s popularity increases with every intensification of the war crisis abroad." And that’s what’s happening once again.
Dr. Gallup does note one intriguing sidelight of the popular vote totals. Since the President commands such tremendous leads in the Southern states, he would have to win significantly more than a popular-vote majority, say around 53%, to keep from losing the election in the Electoral College.
No comments:
Post a Comment