MORE GOOD NEWS FROM GREECE. The Associated Press says that twelve days after Italian troops first crossed the Greek border, "neutral experts declared that Greek positions were as good as on the first day of the Fascist assault, or better." And while the Italians retain a small pincer inside Greek territory at the southern end of the front, at the northern flank Greek troops continue to endanger the strategic Italian base at Koritza, Albania. Plus, a United Press dispatch says that Greek troops, aided by heavy rains, have stopped an Italian drive on Janina about fourteen miles northwest of the city. The A.P. cites reports that the Greeks have now taken more than 2,500 Fascist prisoners, including five officers.
When the invasion began and the prevailing belief was that the Italians would probably win a quick victory, the New Republic editorialized on the tonic effects of a gallant Anglo-Greek defense -- "If perchance Britain and Greece together could throw back an assault, the anti-Axis coalition would be immensely strengthened, and the way would at last be open for action against the Axis on an Eastern front." Could it be that, if Greece continues a successful resistance and humiliates the Italians, that Turkey, and maybe even Russia, would find the nerve (and the self-interest) to join a coalation against Hitler and Mussolini? If so, these little Greek border battles could be a major turning point in the war.
NAZIS SINK 86,000 TONS OF SHIPPING. In a single engagement, that is. According to Saturday’s New York Times, German surface warships in the North Atlantic attacked and sunk fifteen to twenty ships in a British convoy last Tuesday. The German press is sketchy on details of the assault, which took place about 1,000 miles east of Newfoundland. But the Associated Press notes that Stuka dive bombers have also been at work, sinking another 31,000 tons of shipping (six vessels) on Friday and damaging an additional 21,000 tons. The Times sees this as evidence that the Nazis are shifting the emphasis of their Blitz campaign against Britain to attacks on shipping -- an unbylined story describes German warships, submarines, and warplanes as a "triple threat blockade instrument which at the present stage is one of Germany’s most powerful weapons."
NAVAL PROWESS WILL DECIDE THE WAR. Walter Lippmann raises an interesting point in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune, that "now as in the first World War...the outcome depends upon the control of the Atlantic Ocean. In the end the victory will go to the powers that can use the ocean to supply themselves and can cut off their enemies from the non-European world." He’s a relative optimist on the subject, arguing that "the pressure of British sea power is driving Germany, Italy, Russia, and France apart." If the Royal Navy remains invincible, Mr. Lippmann predicts, it will "do to Hitler what it did to Napoleon; it will deprive him of his allies and transform them into his enemies." It may already be causing strains between Germany, which has had great success in a series of landlocked campaigns, and Italy, which has had slow going attacking countries such as Egypt and Greece whose defenses can be assisted directly by British warships.
More dramatically, Mr. Lippman says the British blockade could well cause fatal fissures between Germany and Russia --
"We do not know whether Russia will participate in [the Greek] campaign as an accomplice of the Axis, or stand aside, or even eventually support the Greeks, the Turks, and the British. But we can be reasonably sure that Russia will go with Germany only if Stalin thinks it is too soon to be safe to oppose Germany, and that he will go against Germany if he thinks this is not too dangerous an operation. But what he must know, what everybody knows, is that while Russia will go with Germany, if the blockade continues Germany must finally attack Russia and get at the supplies of the Ukraine and the Black Sea region. Thus the effect of the blockade is to engender an irrepressible conflict between Germany and Russia. This conflict will eventually be precipitated by Germany if Germany is strong in arms but desperately pressed, or by Russia herself if Germany’s military power begins to show signs of deteriorating. This is what it means to say that the effect of sea power is to drive apart Hitler’s partners and allies."
SHOULD WE ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE? The election wasn’t all that close, but a number of the pre-election polls said it would be, with Gallup predicting a fair chance that President Roosevelt would win the popular vote while Wendell Willkie took a majority of electoral votes – and the election. However, the Washington Post argues in a Saturday editorial that proposals to "fix" our electoral system would only make things worse --
"Chairman Edward J. Flynn of the Democratic National Committee condemns the present electoral system because in some cases it might ‘defeat the will of the majority.’ Republican Senator Lodge has announced his intention of introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College, which he regards as a useless relic....[But] Mr. Flynn should not forget that the Electoral College more closely reflects the popular will than does the Senate. Each State has the same proportionate influence in the election of a President as it has in the enactment of legislation. To disturb this balance would be a blow to the Federal system -- a system which is particularly well adapted to the needs of a country as large and diversified as the United States....No less important is the influence of the Electoral College upon the two-party system. Election of the President by popular vote would be a great encouragement to minority parties. Since the two-party system has many advantages in promoting unity and encouraging continuity of national policies, Congress is not likely to approve any proposal that would tend to split the major parties into ineffective factions."
The Post sums up wisely, "Mr. Lodge’s proposal takes on the appearance of an invitation to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire."
THE TRIBUNE TURNS ITS BACK ON WILLKIE (II). It’s been a lousy week for a good man, Wendell Willkie. Not only does he lose the election, but now the F.B.I. is investigating allegations of Republican vote fraud in Michigan which might end up taking away a chunk of the few electoral votes he managed to win. (Willkie won Michigan’s nineteen electoral votes by a bare margin of 3,404 votes, according to an International News Service tabulation). And the Chicago Tribune, which spoke worshipfully of him right up until Nov. 5, now finds in a Thursday editorial that he was fatally flawed --
"Mr. Willkie gave everything he had to the campaign but his unfamiliarity with the campaign problems he faced made him a great deal of trouble in the beginning....His mistakes in the beginning...were costly. One of them was made when he overruled the Republicans in congress and came out for conscription at the behest of the male and female Dorothy Thompsons who cut his throat afterwards. He was never able fully to recover from the bad start he made. He approved so much of Mr. Roosevelt’s administration that many people were confused. He couldn’t persuade them that there was an issue between him and Mr. Roosevelt. He thus became a candidate without a machine, approving the policies of a candidate who had a machine. Mr. Willkie not only approved the New Deal acts in internal affairs but he adopted Mr. Roosevelt’s foreign policy almost item by item."
Loyal isolationists who religiously read the Tribune will no doubt be stunned to discover their newspaper spent the last four months aggressively ballyhooing a candidate who "approved the New Deal" and pledged to copy the Administration’s foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment