BRITISH TROOPS HEADING TO FINLAND? It’s only two hundred soldiers, but they make front-page news in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune -- the first British volunteers who are heading out “soon” to fight the Russians in Finland. They’re part of a 5,000-man contingent enrolled by the Finnish Aid Society. Its London headquarters “was swamped with men and women applicants yesterday and ran out of application forms,” says the report. While the Society signs up new volunteers at the rate of fifty a day, a Labourite Member of Parliament wants to make the recruitment illegal. He probably won’t succeed, on the technicality that the Russo-Finnish conflict is not a declared war. And in any case, according to the Herald Tribune, the volunteer army doesn’t at all weaken Britain’s ability to fight Germany, since its recruits are “either over-age for military service under British colors, or for some other reason ineligible for military service.”
Meanwhile, in Finland the bitter Russian assaults on the Mannerheim Line have gone on for ten days without any sign that the Finns are cracking. The Associated Press says that the Soviets have started using “tanks which throw flaming naptha and steel shields which are pushed ahead by the infantry”, neither to any avail as of yet. And the United Press says that Finnish defenders are tipped off to impending Russian attacks by “the sound of drunken singing...from the Russian lines.”
THE WAR THAT GOES ON AND ON. Remember the Sino-Japanese war? Hallett Abend offers a status report in the analysis section of Sunday’s New York Times. He sees “no signs of an early ending,” and that’s bad news for Japan. Mr. Abend writes that in the extreme northwest and extreme southwest parts of China have Japan’s armies broken the stalemate, but in the critical regions of coastal China, the Yangtze Basin and the Shansi frontiers, nothing has really changed.
Japan has succeeded mainly at exacting a terrible toll on on Chiang Kai-shek’s regime and China’s people. Foreign analysts estimate over a million Chinese soldiers have been killed in thirty-two months of fighting, another two million wounded, and perhaps two million civilians killed by Japanese air raids. Mr. Abend himself estimates from Japanese records that total Chinese military casualties are a mind-boggling 6,500,000. According to official Japanese sources, about 100,000 Japanese troops have been killed in the undeclared war so far, apparently not including another 18,000 who died fighting Russian units in the border war with Outer Mongolia last summer. Chinese officials ridicule Japan’s figures as gross understatements, but note that even if the Japanese have only lost 100,000 men, that would mean more than 475,000 total casualties, which would explain “the Japanese labor shortage and the crippling of many essential industries.” China’s regular army is vastly outgunned by their well-equipped enemy, but guerrilla fighters harass Japanese troops everywhere.
Mr. Abend says that China is bone-tired, but Japan can’t break her -- “All reports from Chungking emphasize the growing war weariness of many important government circles....This does not mean that Japan is about to win the war or that China is about to surrender. Far from it. The prospects now are that China will continue to resist and feebly counter-attack for many years and as time passes Japan will invariably lose the strength necessary for a knockout blow.”
It’s a terribly depressing scenario, and though the Times analysis doesn’t mention it, it adds up to a good argument for a U.S. embargo on all trade with Japan. Why on earth are we using our dollars to help the Japanese Army wage this bloodbath?
THE TRIBUNE SEES ECHOES OF 1916. The Chicago Tribune gets around Sunday to commenting on President Roosevelt’s plan to send Undersecretary of State Welles to talk with Germany, Italy, and the Allies. Not surprisingly, the editors don’t trust the President’s motives, comparing the Welles mission with Col. House’s peace effort made on behalf of President Wilson in 1916. (Isolationists charge that Col. House gave secret assurances to the French and British that America would enter the World War on their side). The Tribune says history may be repeating itself --
“It has been remarked that all of Mr. Roosevelt’s actions this year, until he gives reason to prove the contrary, must be interpreted in relation to the third term. His intervention in the affairs of Europe will be contemplated with a feeling of great uncertainty. Every one must still hope that Europe can find a peaceable adjustment before this war releases all the forces of destruction still held measurably in check. Alongside this hope must be the fear that, step by step, the United States will repeat in 1940 or 1941, if peace does not come, the movements of 1916 and 1917 which led it into the war. As the policy of 1940 continues closely to parallel that of 1916, the apprehension will increase.”
COLUMNISTS WEIGH IN ON WELLES. Dorothy Thompson writes in Monday's New York Herald Tribune that the President’s peace initiatives are primarily political, and only secondarily concerned with Europe – “The 1940 Presidential campaign is extremely dull so far. The war in Europe has pushed domestic affairs into the background. The strongest card that the President has is his foreign policy, and the strongest argument that can be advanced for a third term, or for a Democratic candidate of Mr. Roosevelt’s own choice is the advisability of continuity in foreign policy....Mr. Roosevelt knows as well as any other person that no such peace can be made as long as two men hold the power that they do, at present, in the world. There can be no peace except on the basis of the distribution of power. There will be no possibility of continuing peace as long as Hitler and Stalin can let loose whatever forces they choose whenever they choose. Hitler’s mania let loose this war, and Europe cannot and will not make peace with Hitler.”
But Ernest K. Lindley asserts in Monday’s Washington Post that the Welles mission is worth a shot anyway -- “The chances that Sumner Welles will find even a toe-hold for an effort to stop the European war may not be more than 1 in 100 or 1 in 1,000. Nothing is lost from exploring the possibilities. If the chances of success were only 1 in 1,000,000, the attempt would be worth making....Unless it is stopped soon, the Nazi-British-French war almost certainly will spread over almost all Europe.”
REPUBLICANS HAVE ONE PRIORITY -- WINNING. The primaries are only a few weeks away, and a new Gallup survey in Sunday’s Washington Post shows the young district attorney, Thomas Dewey, still holding a commanding lead among Republican candidates for President. The current poll shows Dewey with 56% of G.O.P support, trailed by Senator Vandenberg with 17% and Senator Taft with 17%. This represents only a slight erosion of Dewey’s support from a month ago, when he stood at 60%, with 16% for Vandenberg and 11% for Taft. Former President Hoover draws 3% in the current survey. New York publisher Frank Gannett, who announced his candidacy this past month, shows up at 1%.
Dr. Gallup says one big reason for Mr. Dewey’s popularity is “the widespread belief (among Republicans) that Dewey would have a better chance of being elected next November than some of the other G.O.P. leaders.” When asked which candidate would be most likely to win, 59% of Republican voters picked Mr. Dewey, versus 21% for Senator Taft. Also, according to Gallup, Senators Vandenberg and Taft are seen as conservative, while “almost as many Republicans consider Mr. Dewey a ‘liberal’ in politics as consider him a ‘conservative’....[T]he prevailing sentiment of Republican voters is toward a greater degree of liberalism than the party favored in 1936.”
And in case none of the major candidates suit you, Gallup also lists “other Republican eligibles named most often” in the current survey -- “Former Gov. Alf. M. Landon; Gov. John Bricker of Ohio; Representative Joseph Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts; Gov. Arthur H. James of Pennsylvania; Senator Charles L. McNary of Oregon; Representative Bruce Barton, of New York; Senator Gerald P. Nye, of North Dakota; Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York; Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, jr., of Masachusetts; Senator Styles Bridges, of New Hampshire; Gov. William H. Vanberbilt of Rhode Island; John D. Rockefeller, jr.; Representative James W. Wadsworth, of New York; Theodore Roosevelt, jr., of New York; Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes; Representative Hamilton Fish, of New York; Publisher Frank Knox, of Illinois; Senator Arthur Capper, of Kansas; Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts; Wendell L. Wilkie and Alfred P. Sloan, of New York; Senator Warren R. Austin, of Vermont.”
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Sunday, February 11, 1940
AN AMERICAN PEACE MISSION? A pair of announcements from the Roosevelt administration are creating a stir on two continents this week-end. First, the President said at Friday’s press conference he’s sending Undersecretary of State Welles to Britain, France, Germany, and Italy to study and report on “present conditions in Europe.” And Secretary of State Hull said in a statement two hours later that the U.S. is engaging in “diplomatic conversations of an informal character” with neutral nations in Europe. The purpose, he says, is to work with the neutrals on building “a sound international economic system” after the war’s end and planning a “world-wide reduction of armaments.” Arthur Sears Henning of the Chicago Tribune describes the administration’s actions as “a peace offensive on a wide front.”
It does sound like a two-pronged peace mission, a last-chance attempt to reconcile the seemingly-irreconcilable interests of Germany and the Allies. As Felix Belair Jr. put it in Saturday’s New York Times, “Apparently the President felt the effort was worth making now, in view of the fears that heavy fighting will break out in the Spring.” And the Washington Post’s William V. Nessly cites official sources as saying the two moves are “closely intertwined with the President’s eager desire to further the coming of peace whenever such a condition is practicable.” But the Roosevelt announcement emphasized that Secretary Welles will discuss no proposals or communicate any kind of “peace plan” to the belligerents.
LONDON AND PARIS ARE WARY. A “peace plan” of another kind is what the Chamberlain and Daladier governments are concerned about, according to Ralph W. Barnes in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune. “It is thought,” he writes, “that in the ‘peace talks’ with neutrals, or in the course of Welles’ visit to Berlin, a Nazi ‘peace plan’ might appear which would fall far short of British requirements, but might find widespread favor in neutral eyes.” Officially the British say that the Welles mission will receive a “very cordial welcome.” But Chamberlain government officials say Britain has stated her conditions for peace plainly, and those conditions aren’t going to change. Germany must give up Hitlerism, and renounce aggression. Nazi peace conditions are almost a mirror image of this, demanding that the Anglo-French “abandon their proclaimed intention of smashing the Reich.”
So what good is the Welles visit, then? London sees it a bit cynically, says Mr. Barnes -- “There is a tendency here to believe that American domestic politics in an election year played a considerable role in both of the developments in Washington today.”
THE TIMES AND THE POST APPROVE. It’s at least gotten President Roosevelt some favorable press notice. A New York Times editorial salutes the news of Secretaries Welles and Hull -- “Mr. Roosevelt undoubtedly knows how slight is the prospect of immediate peace, but this does not prevent him from thinking about the world that must emerge from the present tragedy. We are not participants in this war; we have no right to tell those who are bearing the strain and grief of the struggle what they must do to end it. But we and other neutral nations face identical problems....If the neutrals can face their common troubles with something like a common outlook, the next peace may be something more than an armed truce.”
And the Washington Post editors see only pluses -- “No false hopes must be built upon the mission which Mr. Welles is about to undertake. No discredit whatsoever will attach to him if it leads to nothing, for only information is sought. The beauty of the project is that while it may not succeed, it cannot fail. And it is wholly in line with the deeper obligations of our neutrality policy to ascertain what helpful action, if any, the United States can take at this stage of world disaster. The Welles mission is a positive assertion of the American will for peace.”
BUT THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE DOESN’T. There’ve been no editorials in the Chicago Tribune as yet on the President’s latest diplomatic moves. But one paragraph from the paper’s “news” coverage makes it clear the Tribune sees it as just another dastardly plot to get the U.S. into war --
“The President’s dispatch of Mr. Welles to the belligerent governments as a ‘peace envoy’ parallels President Woodrow Wilson’s commission of the late Col. Edward House to execute a similar mission during the world war. House failed to find a basis for peace between the allies and the central powers, but he negotiated the secret agreement of 1916 between Mr. Wilson and Sir. Edward Grey, the British foreign secretary, providing that the United States would enter the war if necessary to save the allies from defeat. Critics on Capital Hill immediately dubbed Welles Roosevelt’s ‘Col. House.’”
OUTGUNNED FINNS FIGHT HAND TO HAND. The latest Russian attack on Finland’s Mannerheim Line is turning into a hideous spectacle of slaughter. An Associated Press dispatch by Thomas F. Hawkins, published Saturday, says the Russians came at the Line in such numbers Friday night that its Finnish defenders temporarily ran out of bullets -- “their troops are resorting to bayonets and hand grenades.” Still, the Russians die, and the Finns’ defenses hold. And still, more Russians come.
Quoting Finnish sources, Mr. Hawkins reports that “Red army dead, running into the thousands, were sprawled in the snows in front of the line and that hundreds of wounded were left to die because of an apparent breakdown in the Russian transportation system in the rear.” They were happy to die such ghastly deaths, no doubt, in support of Joseph Stalin’s ice-cold determination to make Finland pay for daring to defend herself.
FRANCE WARNS THE RUSSIANS. A Friday Associated Press story says France has given Russia a “warning glimpse” of the French forces in the Near East, now put at 275,000. A French government source told the A.P. that the soldiers, commanded by General Weygand, are on hand to “prepare for all Russian or German threats in the Balkans or the Caucasus.” France got in a couple of more digs at the Soviets in the last few days -- they “turned down a Soviet protest against seizure of Russian documents in a Paris police raid” and helped transport a Polish expeditionary force to Finland to battle the Russians there.
U.S. AND BRITAIN FAVOR AID TO FINNS, BUT... A new Gallup survey published Friday in the Washington Post shows a vast number of Americans and Britons sympathize with Finland. Sizeable majorities want to aid the Finns in their right against Soviet Russia. That’s the good news. But then, an equally large majority in the U.S. opposes selling Finland war supplies, and the British oppose sending troops.
The results on American sympathies in the northern war are as lopsided as it gets -- 88% of U.S. citizens say they sympathize with Finland, and a grand total of 1% sympathize with the Russians. Americans feel we should lend money to the Finnish government by a margin of 58% to 42%, while the British overwhelmingly favor sending arms to the Finns, 74% to 18%. But Americans also oppose use of those loans for war supplies, 39% yes to 61% no. And British sympathies don’t go quite as far as sending troops, with only 33% favoring the idea and 50% opposed.
Unfortunately, it seems that the attitude of “let’s help the Finns, but not enough to make a real difference” might be widespread.
It does sound like a two-pronged peace mission, a last-chance attempt to reconcile the seemingly-irreconcilable interests of Germany and the Allies. As Felix Belair Jr. put it in Saturday’s New York Times, “Apparently the President felt the effort was worth making now, in view of the fears that heavy fighting will break out in the Spring.” And the Washington Post’s William V. Nessly cites official sources as saying the two moves are “closely intertwined with the President’s eager desire to further the coming of peace whenever such a condition is practicable.” But the Roosevelt announcement emphasized that Secretary Welles will discuss no proposals or communicate any kind of “peace plan” to the belligerents.
LONDON AND PARIS ARE WARY. A “peace plan” of another kind is what the Chamberlain and Daladier governments are concerned about, according to Ralph W. Barnes in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune. “It is thought,” he writes, “that in the ‘peace talks’ with neutrals, or in the course of Welles’ visit to Berlin, a Nazi ‘peace plan’ might appear which would fall far short of British requirements, but might find widespread favor in neutral eyes.” Officially the British say that the Welles mission will receive a “very cordial welcome.” But Chamberlain government officials say Britain has stated her conditions for peace plainly, and those conditions aren’t going to change. Germany must give up Hitlerism, and renounce aggression. Nazi peace conditions are almost a mirror image of this, demanding that the Anglo-French “abandon their proclaimed intention of smashing the Reich.”
So what good is the Welles visit, then? London sees it a bit cynically, says Mr. Barnes -- “There is a tendency here to believe that American domestic politics in an election year played a considerable role in both of the developments in Washington today.”
THE TIMES AND THE POST APPROVE. It’s at least gotten President Roosevelt some favorable press notice. A New York Times editorial salutes the news of Secretaries Welles and Hull -- “Mr. Roosevelt undoubtedly knows how slight is the prospect of immediate peace, but this does not prevent him from thinking about the world that must emerge from the present tragedy. We are not participants in this war; we have no right to tell those who are bearing the strain and grief of the struggle what they must do to end it. But we and other neutral nations face identical problems....If the neutrals can face their common troubles with something like a common outlook, the next peace may be something more than an armed truce.”
And the Washington Post editors see only pluses -- “No false hopes must be built upon the mission which Mr. Welles is about to undertake. No discredit whatsoever will attach to him if it leads to nothing, for only information is sought. The beauty of the project is that while it may not succeed, it cannot fail. And it is wholly in line with the deeper obligations of our neutrality policy to ascertain what helpful action, if any, the United States can take at this stage of world disaster. The Welles mission is a positive assertion of the American will for peace.”
BUT THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE DOESN’T. There’ve been no editorials in the Chicago Tribune as yet on the President’s latest diplomatic moves. But one paragraph from the paper’s “news” coverage makes it clear the Tribune sees it as just another dastardly plot to get the U.S. into war --
“The President’s dispatch of Mr. Welles to the belligerent governments as a ‘peace envoy’ parallels President Woodrow Wilson’s commission of the late Col. Edward House to execute a similar mission during the world war. House failed to find a basis for peace between the allies and the central powers, but he negotiated the secret agreement of 1916 between Mr. Wilson and Sir. Edward Grey, the British foreign secretary, providing that the United States would enter the war if necessary to save the allies from defeat. Critics on Capital Hill immediately dubbed Welles Roosevelt’s ‘Col. House.’”
OUTGUNNED FINNS FIGHT HAND TO HAND. The latest Russian attack on Finland’s Mannerheim Line is turning into a hideous spectacle of slaughter. An Associated Press dispatch by Thomas F. Hawkins, published Saturday, says the Russians came at the Line in such numbers Friday night that its Finnish defenders temporarily ran out of bullets -- “their troops are resorting to bayonets and hand grenades.” Still, the Russians die, and the Finns’ defenses hold. And still, more Russians come.
Quoting Finnish sources, Mr. Hawkins reports that “Red army dead, running into the thousands, were sprawled in the snows in front of the line and that hundreds of wounded were left to die because of an apparent breakdown in the Russian transportation system in the rear.” They were happy to die such ghastly deaths, no doubt, in support of Joseph Stalin’s ice-cold determination to make Finland pay for daring to defend herself.
FRANCE WARNS THE RUSSIANS. A Friday Associated Press story says France has given Russia a “warning glimpse” of the French forces in the Near East, now put at 275,000. A French government source told the A.P. that the soldiers, commanded by General Weygand, are on hand to “prepare for all Russian or German threats in the Balkans or the Caucasus.” France got in a couple of more digs at the Soviets in the last few days -- they “turned down a Soviet protest against seizure of Russian documents in a Paris police raid” and helped transport a Polish expeditionary force to Finland to battle the Russians there.
U.S. AND BRITAIN FAVOR AID TO FINNS, BUT... A new Gallup survey published Friday in the Washington Post shows a vast number of Americans and Britons sympathize with Finland. Sizeable majorities want to aid the Finns in their right against Soviet Russia. That’s the good news. But then, an equally large majority in the U.S. opposes selling Finland war supplies, and the British oppose sending troops.
The results on American sympathies in the northern war are as lopsided as it gets -- 88% of U.S. citizens say they sympathize with Finland, and a grand total of 1% sympathize with the Russians. Americans feel we should lend money to the Finnish government by a margin of 58% to 42%, while the British overwhelmingly favor sending arms to the Finns, 74% to 18%. But Americans also oppose use of those loans for war supplies, 39% yes to 61% no. And British sympathies don’t go quite as far as sending troops, with only 33% favoring the idea and 50% opposed.
Unfortunately, it seems that the attitude of “let’s help the Finns, but not enough to make a real difference” might be widespread.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Thursday, February 8, 1940
WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST? The New York Times Paris correspondent, G.H. Archambault, lifts the curtain in Wednesday's edtions on the mysterious “Army of the Orient." The “army” is actually a series of Allied military groupings in various Near East countries. One is a French contingent principally based in Syria and Lebanon, estimated to be anywhere between 150,000 and 400,000. (French sources call the latter number “a manifest exaggeration”). It includes mechanized and air units and in recent weeks “has received reinforcements both in men and material,” the Times says. Meanwhile, the British army of the Middle East seems to be spread throughout the region. Iraq, Aden, and Egypt are locations mentioned by Mr. Archambault. The Allied commanders -- French General Weygand and British Lieutenant General Wavell -- work in close cooperation.
So what do the Allies intend to do with this force? Well, there was the talk last week about a possible Anglo-French strike on Germany through the Balkans. But the current Time magazine passes along the “notion” discussed in French newspapers of combining Weygand’s army together with Turkish forces for “a campaign directed at Russia’s rich oil fields” in the Caucasus. The New York Times cites the same theory from an Italian dispatch, which notes that the Caucasus “now represents Germany’s principal source of petroleum supplies.” And a Russian defense ministry newspaper has accused the Anglo-French of having “far-reaching strategic plans” in the region.
It’s hard to imagine Britain and France taking such a step, unless it becomes clear that Russia is about to come into the war on Germany’s side. Still, the possibility has to give both Hitler and Stalin pause -- and that’s a huge benefit of the Anglo-French-Turkish treaty. As Mr Archambault writes in the Times, the treaty “opened many possibilities for action either in the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Caucasus, or even further east. True, there is a protocol dealing with the possibility of war between Russia and the Allies, but this is not considered here to be a bar to Turkish cooperation.”
FEAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN. Meanwhile, Wednesday’s New York Times and Chicago Tribune have stories on “nervousness” in Iran and Afghanistan. Both countries are said to be taking major military preparations to oppose a rumored “Russo-German drive toward the Persian Gulf.” These tales come from Italian sources, which the Times says are considered “generally accurate.” It sounds improbable, but maybe not too much so -- both Germany and Russia tend to favor opponents who can’t fight back very well. And Hitler and Stalin surely have a common interest in taking control of the region's oil supplies.
THE DANGER FACING NORWAY. A Washington Post special correspondent, Joachim Joesten, asserts in a Tuesday column that Norway, not Sweden, is facing the biggest threat of an impending Russian attack --
“Norway is incomparably weaker in a military sense than Sweden. The difference in population is not so great (2,900,000 as compared with 6,300,000) as the disparity of resources, war potential and actual fighting strength. Secondly, Swedish territory is as yet inaccessible to the Soviet forces – except of course from the air -- while Norway now has a common frontier with Russia (along the occupied Petsamo district) over at least a hundred kilometers. And thirdly, it is becoming quite clear that the Soviet drive in the extreme north aims much more at the ice-free Atlantic harbors of that region -- which all belong to Norway -- than at its great mineral wealth -- which mostly belongs to Sweden. Moreover, Sweden’s northern frontier is heavily fortified...the tail-like stretch of Norwegian territory that touches upon the occupied ‘bottleneck’ of Petsamo is practically indefensible and hardly even fortified.”
Mr. Joesten says Norway’s armed forces have been called “a navy without ships and and army without training.” To keep the Soviets from the temptation of testing the country’s “ramshackle” defenses, Norway’s parliament has voted massive increases in military spending for the 1940-41 financial year. Will it be soon enough?
RUSSIA’S STRATEGY OF ATTRITION. Back in Finland, the fruitless Russian infantry and tank assaults on the Mannerheim Line go on – and it’s starting to look like the Red Army has opted for a very expensive strategy of wearing the Finns down to the breaking point. K.J. Eskelund writes in Wednesday’s New York Times of the latest attacks -- “As soon as one Russian wave was repulsed, a new one was launched. The battle raged all day. At nightfall the Russians did not desist as usual. Machine-gun and artillery fire continued into the night. Five violent attacks had then been repulsed by the dead-tired Finns.”
One radio report yesterday contained an estimate of 20,000 Soviet casualties in the last week. And yet there might be a method here to Stalin’s madness (this particular madness, anyway). The Russians are doing just as General Grant did against the Confederacy, albeit on a much bloodier and more ruthless scale. The Reds can make good their losses, and the Finns can’t. Not unless Sweden, Britain, France, and the U.S. get a lot more serious, a lot faster, about getting Finland some real military help.
THE NAZIS AS PEACE MEDIATORS. In Wednesday's New York Herald Tribune John Elliott quotes Paris sources as predicting German mediation to end the Russo-Finnish war. This follows the summoning to Berlin of two Reich diplomats, Dr. von Bluecher (the minister to Helsinki) and Count von der Schulenburg (the minister to Moscow). According to Paris-Soir, Germany’s Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop will announce, perhaps at the end of the month, a four-point proposal for ending hostilities. The terms are said to be --
(1) An armistice in place for one month.
(2) A plebiscite throughout Finland over which government the Finns want to have, their current democratic regime or the Soviet puppet “people’s government” backed by Stalin. There’s no doubt what the results of this vote would be, but “it would be staged to permit the Soviet Union to save its face.”
(3) The awarding of several air and naval bases to Russia, along with a portion of the Karelian Isthmus, in exchange for a chunk of Russian territory in northern Karelia.
(4) An promise between the two countries that no foreign troops would be allowed on each other’s soil.
Nazi peace-mongering seems about as unlikely as a speech by Vice President Garner endorsing the third term. But Mr. Elliott points out two good reasons why Hitler badly wants a Finnish truce --
“First, as long as this conflict goes on important Russian supplies, notably foodstuffs and oil, which otherwise would be shipped to the Reich are being diverted to the Soviet forces operating in Finland. Second, while the Russians are tied up in Finland they are prevented from undertaking or threatening to undertake a military expedition for the conquest of the Province of Bessarabia from Rumania. The Germans would like to use this menace as a means of extracting concessions from the Rumanians.”
So what do the Allies intend to do with this force? Well, there was the talk last week about a possible Anglo-French strike on Germany through the Balkans. But the current Time magazine passes along the “notion” discussed in French newspapers of combining Weygand’s army together with Turkish forces for “a campaign directed at Russia’s rich oil fields” in the Caucasus. The New York Times cites the same theory from an Italian dispatch, which notes that the Caucasus “now represents Germany’s principal source of petroleum supplies.” And a Russian defense ministry newspaper has accused the Anglo-French of having “far-reaching strategic plans” in the region.
It’s hard to imagine Britain and France taking such a step, unless it becomes clear that Russia is about to come into the war on Germany’s side. Still, the possibility has to give both Hitler and Stalin pause -- and that’s a huge benefit of the Anglo-French-Turkish treaty. As Mr Archambault writes in the Times, the treaty “opened many possibilities for action either in the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Caucasus, or even further east. True, there is a protocol dealing with the possibility of war between Russia and the Allies, but this is not considered here to be a bar to Turkish cooperation.”
FEAR IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN. Meanwhile, Wednesday’s New York Times and Chicago Tribune have stories on “nervousness” in Iran and Afghanistan. Both countries are said to be taking major military preparations to oppose a rumored “Russo-German drive toward the Persian Gulf.” These tales come from Italian sources, which the Times says are considered “generally accurate.” It sounds improbable, but maybe not too much so -- both Germany and Russia tend to favor opponents who can’t fight back very well. And Hitler and Stalin surely have a common interest in taking control of the region's oil supplies.
THE DANGER FACING NORWAY. A Washington Post special correspondent, Joachim Joesten, asserts in a Tuesday column that Norway, not Sweden, is facing the biggest threat of an impending Russian attack --
“Norway is incomparably weaker in a military sense than Sweden. The difference in population is not so great (2,900,000 as compared with 6,300,000) as the disparity of resources, war potential and actual fighting strength. Secondly, Swedish territory is as yet inaccessible to the Soviet forces – except of course from the air -- while Norway now has a common frontier with Russia (along the occupied Petsamo district) over at least a hundred kilometers. And thirdly, it is becoming quite clear that the Soviet drive in the extreme north aims much more at the ice-free Atlantic harbors of that region -- which all belong to Norway -- than at its great mineral wealth -- which mostly belongs to Sweden. Moreover, Sweden’s northern frontier is heavily fortified...the tail-like stretch of Norwegian territory that touches upon the occupied ‘bottleneck’ of Petsamo is practically indefensible and hardly even fortified.”
Mr. Joesten says Norway’s armed forces have been called “a navy without ships and and army without training.” To keep the Soviets from the temptation of testing the country’s “ramshackle” defenses, Norway’s parliament has voted massive increases in military spending for the 1940-41 financial year. Will it be soon enough?
RUSSIA’S STRATEGY OF ATTRITION. Back in Finland, the fruitless Russian infantry and tank assaults on the Mannerheim Line go on – and it’s starting to look like the Red Army has opted for a very expensive strategy of wearing the Finns down to the breaking point. K.J. Eskelund writes in Wednesday’s New York Times of the latest attacks -- “As soon as one Russian wave was repulsed, a new one was launched. The battle raged all day. At nightfall the Russians did not desist as usual. Machine-gun and artillery fire continued into the night. Five violent attacks had then been repulsed by the dead-tired Finns.”
One radio report yesterday contained an estimate of 20,000 Soviet casualties in the last week. And yet there might be a method here to Stalin’s madness (this particular madness, anyway). The Russians are doing just as General Grant did against the Confederacy, albeit on a much bloodier and more ruthless scale. The Reds can make good their losses, and the Finns can’t. Not unless Sweden, Britain, France, and the U.S. get a lot more serious, a lot faster, about getting Finland some real military help.
THE NAZIS AS PEACE MEDIATORS. In Wednesday's New York Herald Tribune John Elliott quotes Paris sources as predicting German mediation to end the Russo-Finnish war. This follows the summoning to Berlin of two Reich diplomats, Dr. von Bluecher (the minister to Helsinki) and Count von der Schulenburg (the minister to Moscow). According to Paris-Soir, Germany’s Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop will announce, perhaps at the end of the month, a four-point proposal for ending hostilities. The terms are said to be --
(1) An armistice in place for one month.
(2) A plebiscite throughout Finland over which government the Finns want to have, their current democratic regime or the Soviet puppet “people’s government” backed by Stalin. There’s no doubt what the results of this vote would be, but “it would be staged to permit the Soviet Union to save its face.”
(3) The awarding of several air and naval bases to Russia, along with a portion of the Karelian Isthmus, in exchange for a chunk of Russian territory in northern Karelia.
(4) An promise between the two countries that no foreign troops would be allowed on each other’s soil.
Nazi peace-mongering seems about as unlikely as a speech by Vice President Garner endorsing the third term. But Mr. Elliott points out two good reasons why Hitler badly wants a Finnish truce --
“First, as long as this conflict goes on important Russian supplies, notably foodstuffs and oil, which otherwise would be shipped to the Reich are being diverted to the Soviet forces operating in Finland. Second, while the Russians are tied up in Finland they are prevented from undertaking or threatening to undertake a military expedition for the conquest of the Province of Bessarabia from Rumania. The Germans would like to use this menace as a means of extracting concessions from the Rumanians.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)