WELLES ARRIVES IN ROME. Under Secretary of State Welles has begun talks in Europe as President Roosevelt’s personal envoy, his liner docking at Naples on Sunday afternoon. He is to gather information for the President on the war situation from the Italians, the Allies, and the German government. And he will not spill any of it for the benefit of the public in the meantime. According to James M. Minifie’s account in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune, Secretary Welles “made it clear from the outset that his motto for the next month would be, ‘I have nothing to say.’”
The Herald Tribune doesn’t paint the start of the Welles mission as especially auspicious. It notes that the controlled Italian press didn’t say anything of the Secretary’s arrival and has “rigorous refrained” from any comment on the trip. There is also a “growing conviction in Rome that the object of Mr. Welles’ safari is the symbolical elephant of the Republican party -- that it is, in short, nothing but a move in American election-year politics.” And it might even net the President any usable information, says Mr. Minifie. “Western Europe’s plans and projects depend on events which are expected to move so rapidly that by the time Mr. Welles returns to Washington his information and his conclusions alike may be obsolete.”
The New York Times calls the Italian greeting for Secretary Welles “mild”, and the Associated Press says he was received with “non-committal courtesy” by Mussolini’s men.
A NAZI INVASION OF NORWAY & SWEDEN? One problem with the Allies sending troops or other direct military aid to Finland is that Norway and Sweden won’t allow it to be sent across their territory. But Harold Callender writes in Sunday’s New York Times that if the Germans decide to strike northward, the Allies would be in a much better position to defend Scandinavia --
“If Sweden and Norway were brought into the war by Germany’s action the Allies would land forces, perhaps at Narvik, to support the Swedish and Norwegian armies in resisting the Germans....With Sweden and Norway belligerents in spite of themselves, Britain would be free to seize or destroy iron cargoes bound to Germany or to occupy the mining areas as the ally of the Swedes. Norway’s mountains and Sweden’s forests make the region difficult for military operations. While the Allies brought troops by sea Sweden could put some half million men in the field. Her air force has some 400 planes, though not of the newest types. Her navy is rated second to Germany’s in the Baltic. Norway, like Sweden, has universal military service, though her army and navy are small.”
Mr Callender notes along the way one reason it is so important to help the Finns resist the Red Army -- “If Russia conquered Finland a grave crisis would face Scandinavia. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark would be unable to face Russia – it would then be too late.” However, of all the northern neutrals Denmark just might stand the best chance of being left alone -- “Germany could seize Denmark at any time she liked, but Denmark is more valuable to her as a neutral supplying foodstuffs than as a vassal. For Danish agriculture is dependent on imported fodder, which the British blockade would cut off completely if Denmark were in German hands.”
THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE GOES OFF THE DEEP END. An absolutely eye-popping editorial in Monday’s Chicago Tribune. In it, the editors ascribe the last few months’ worth of murder, carnage, betrayal, and aggression in Europe to the work of one man -- Neville Chamberlain. Yes, you heard right. It wasn’t Germany’s invasion of Poland that started the European war, it was Britain’s insane notion of going to the aid of countries which so insolently dared to stand up to threats of Hitlerian aggression. The Tribune says that things might be just ducky right now if only Chamberlain had never given Poland that silly guarantee --
“If Mr. Chamberlain had made a different decision there might now still be a Polish state, even if reduced in area and and apprehensive of the future. There might have been no Nazi-communist treaty and no advance of the Reds into Poland and the Baltic states. Finland might be at peace and Germany and Russia still professedly hostile. Great Britain and France probably would be in almost as active a state of military preparation as they are now, but the western front would not be considering the imminence of great battles in the spring. A different decision than the one Mr. Chamberlain made could not have produced worse than the present conditions, and now the question is, how can better conditions be created? Only two methods can be considered. There will either be a war of exhaustion, with the victor forcing his will on the defeated, or a peace by compromise and conciliation which undertakes to make the best possible arrangement for all the people concerned.”
All the people, that is, except for the Poles, Czechs, Finns, and any other nationalities that the dictators subsequently decide to rule by force. The Tribune mentions in passing Hitler’s “betrayal” of the Munich agreement -- just what makes “the world’s greatest newspaper” think that another round of “peace by compromise and conciliation” would work any better?
The Tribune editors have said some crazy things in the past, but this takes the cake. Are they really suggesting, as they seem to be, that nations such as Poland do not have the right to defend themselves against aggression? Or that “peace” is such a supreme value that it justifies begging dictators for mercy? And that Fuehrer Hitler has broken all his promises, torn up his treaties, destroyed three countries (so far) and murdered countless numbers of men, women, and children because Neville Chamberlain forced him to?
There’s only one word for people who actually believe such things. Idiots.
ACTUAL, REAL NEWS ABOUT THE THIRD TERM. There’s been so much guesswork and speculation about whether or not President Roosevelt will run for a third term that it was startling to open the Sunday papers and find some honest-to-goodness news on the subject. And there it is, on the front page of the Washington Post -- the President has by inaction allowed his name to stand as a candidate in the Illinois Democratic primary on April 9. He will be contending on the ballot with Vice President Garner, who unlike the President is a declared candidate. It’s widely believed that by his silence in declining to order the removal of his name from the ballot, President Roosevelt is tacitly indicating that he “will seek a third term under certain circumstances.”
Coincidentally or not, the Sunday Post also prints a new Gallup survey which shows the President still dominating his party. When Democrats were asked in the latest poll who they’d like to see elected President this year, 78% answered Roosevelt, while only 10% went with Vice President Garner and 6% chose Secretary of State Hull. The Vice President did much better with Roosevelt’s name omitted from the choices, as he no doubt hopes it will be. In that second survey, 40% of Democrats went with Garner, 25% chose Hull, and 11% voted for Security Administrator Paul V. McNutt.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Sunday, February 25, 1940
TURKEY DECLARES AN EMERGENCY. It’s hard to tell exactly what has happened, since Turkey has cut off all telephone communication to the outside world. But the New York Times says Saturday that the Turkish defense council has declared a state of emergency throughout the country. The Times reports that the Turks would declare an emergency in one of three circumstances: (1) partial or general mobilization, (2) war between Turkey and another country, or (3) war between two other powers that threatened Turkish interests. No word yet on which of these is going on, but allegedly there was “a serious Russo-Turkish border incident” a few days ago.
According to the Times, “It was reported Russian troops crossed the Caucasus frontier into Turkey and declined to withdraw. It was authoritatively reported here late this evening that that the Russian troops were still on Turkish territory, though it is not known whether there has been any clash.” The account also notes, ominously, that at the same time as the rumored Russian border crossing, “unusually large numbers of German nationals [are] inexpicably traveling to Turkey at a time when German technicians are still being expelled from that country.”
It sounds like the Russians and Germans might be planning a joint attack in the direction of the Near East this spring -- before the Allies’ Near East armies can strike towards Germany through the Balkans, or Russia toward the Caucasus. Then again, it could just be a plan by Berlin and Moscow to frighten the Turks out of throwing in their lot with the Allies.
HORE-BELISHA URGES “REAL WAR” AGAINST RUSSIA. Finally, somebody in Britain recognizes that it’s crazy to just sit by and let the Russians destroy Finland. Alas, it’s Leslie Hore-Belisha, the former war minister who was more or less booted out of the Chamberlain government on Jan. 5. An Associated Press story by Robert E.; Bunnelle quotes Mr. Hore-Belisha as calling in a Friday night speech for “:well-planned, adequate, decisive action” by Britain to help Finland resist Russian aggression. The United Press account notes that “it was obvious to his listeners that war with the Soviet Union would be the natural consequence of military aid to Finland.” But the former minister’s own words make it clear why that just may be necessary --
“Finland is fighting for the principles for which we stand and for which the two great democracies declared war. She is fighting against aggression. She is fighting for national independence. She is fighting for freedom. She is fighting for our own food and supplies. How is this so? Does any one imagine that if Russia wins she will be satisfied with just Finland or that Germany, just as she gave to Russia her share of Poland, will not receive from Russia equivalent advantages in Scandinavia?..Unless the weak can be helped by the strong and justice supported by might, the land lost may not be regained for generations. To this inspiring task we are summoned by the plight of the Finns. If we don’t respond with promptness and decision, the cause that we, too, have undertaken will be harder to uphold.”
RUSSIANS LOSE 3,000 IN ONE DAY OF FINNISH WAR. An Associated Press dispatch on the Karelian fighting gets slanted much differently in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune than it does in that day’s Washington Post. The A.P. account, by Thomas F. Hawkins, says the Red Army “thrust forward at several points along a jagged 30 mile front” on the western side of the Mannerheim Line. The story also says the Russians have penetrated at one point within 10 to 12 miles of Viipuri (Viborg), Finland’s second largest city. But the Soviet armies continue to lose men profusely and apparently in total disregard to the cost-in-blood for their offensive.
The Tribune headlined the story like a Finnish defeat -- “Finns Fall Back in Battle Along 30 Mile Front.” But the Post makes it sound like it’s the Russians who are losing -- “Meager Gains Cost Russians 3,000 Dead”. The two papers also differ in just ho w many Russians fell in Friday’s fighting. The Tribune’s A.P. story puts Russian losses at 2,800, and the Post’s version of the same story puts the number at “nearly 3,000.”
So who’s right? I don’t know, but it’s notable that the Tribune has so many times in the past slanted its front-page reporting to support its editorial views. Could the Tribune’s editors be so adamantly opposed to U.S. aid to Finland that they’re willing to propagandize on behalf of Stalin, who they otherwise express nothing but disdain for? I couldn’t prove they are, but...that’s the way I’d bet.
WHO’S THE BUCK-BESTOWING MYSTERY MAN? The Associated Press uncovers a big-hearted citizen in the Ozarks -- “A generous but mysterious ‘sunshine friend’ had the Missouri Ozark country beside itself waiting for the mail man. Cashier’s checks of $100 or more are arriving unexpectedly at homes with this penned admonition: ‘Use this to try and make somebody as happy as this makes you.’ The gifts to charitable and other organizations in Springfield, Mo., total $12,900. Now three former merchants and a widow living in nearby Ava, Mo., have received checks. One check was for $150, the others for $100 each.”
According to the Times, “It was reported Russian troops crossed the Caucasus frontier into Turkey and declined to withdraw. It was authoritatively reported here late this evening that that the Russian troops were still on Turkish territory, though it is not known whether there has been any clash.” The account also notes, ominously, that at the same time as the rumored Russian border crossing, “unusually large numbers of German nationals [are] inexpicably traveling to Turkey at a time when German technicians are still being expelled from that country.”
It sounds like the Russians and Germans might be planning a joint attack in the direction of the Near East this spring -- before the Allies’ Near East armies can strike towards Germany through the Balkans, or Russia toward the Caucasus. Then again, it could just be a plan by Berlin and Moscow to frighten the Turks out of throwing in their lot with the Allies.
HORE-BELISHA URGES “REAL WAR” AGAINST RUSSIA. Finally, somebody in Britain recognizes that it’s crazy to just sit by and let the Russians destroy Finland. Alas, it’s Leslie Hore-Belisha, the former war minister who was more or less booted out of the Chamberlain government on Jan. 5. An Associated Press story by Robert E.; Bunnelle quotes Mr. Hore-Belisha as calling in a Friday night speech for “:well-planned, adequate, decisive action” by Britain to help Finland resist Russian aggression. The United Press account notes that “it was obvious to his listeners that war with the Soviet Union would be the natural consequence of military aid to Finland.” But the former minister’s own words make it clear why that just may be necessary --
“Finland is fighting for the principles for which we stand and for which the two great democracies declared war. She is fighting against aggression. She is fighting for national independence. She is fighting for freedom. She is fighting for our own food and supplies. How is this so? Does any one imagine that if Russia wins she will be satisfied with just Finland or that Germany, just as she gave to Russia her share of Poland, will not receive from Russia equivalent advantages in Scandinavia?..Unless the weak can be helped by the strong and justice supported by might, the land lost may not be regained for generations. To this inspiring task we are summoned by the plight of the Finns. If we don’t respond with promptness and decision, the cause that we, too, have undertaken will be harder to uphold.”
RUSSIANS LOSE 3,000 IN ONE DAY OF FINNISH WAR. An Associated Press dispatch on the Karelian fighting gets slanted much differently in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune than it does in that day’s Washington Post. The A.P. account, by Thomas F. Hawkins, says the Red Army “thrust forward at several points along a jagged 30 mile front” on the western side of the Mannerheim Line. The story also says the Russians have penetrated at one point within 10 to 12 miles of Viipuri (Viborg), Finland’s second largest city. But the Soviet armies continue to lose men profusely and apparently in total disregard to the cost-in-blood for their offensive.
The Tribune headlined the story like a Finnish defeat -- “Finns Fall Back in Battle Along 30 Mile Front.” But the Post makes it sound like it’s the Russians who are losing -- “Meager Gains Cost Russians 3,000 Dead”. The two papers also differ in just ho w many Russians fell in Friday’s fighting. The Tribune’s A.P. story puts Russian losses at 2,800, and the Post’s version of the same story puts the number at “nearly 3,000.”
So who’s right? I don’t know, but it’s notable that the Tribune has so many times in the past slanted its front-page reporting to support its editorial views. Could the Tribune’s editors be so adamantly opposed to U.S. aid to Finland that they’re willing to propagandize on behalf of Stalin, who they otherwise express nothing but disdain for? I couldn’t prove they are, but...that’s the way I’d bet.
WHO’S THE BUCK-BESTOWING MYSTERY MAN? The Associated Press uncovers a big-hearted citizen in the Ozarks -- “A generous but mysterious ‘sunshine friend’ had the Missouri Ozark country beside itself waiting for the mail man. Cashier’s checks of $100 or more are arriving unexpectedly at homes with this penned admonition: ‘Use this to try and make somebody as happy as this makes you.’ The gifts to charitable and other organizations in Springfield, Mo., total $12,900. Now three former merchants and a widow living in nearby Ava, Mo., have received checks. One check was for $150, the others for $100 each.”
Monday, February 22, 2016
Thursday, February 22, 1940
BRITAIN TALKS TOUGH TO NORWAY. Prime Minister Chamberlain led British indignation Tuesday over Norway’s claim that the Altmark was actually a German “state service ship.” Thus, Oslo holds, the vessel was within her rights to be in Norwegian coastal waters. The Nazi prison ship yielded 299 British prisoners when boarded by Royal Navy sailors last week-end. (Earlier accounts put the total variously at 324 and 326). Chamberlain’s speech to the House of Commons merits a lengthy front-page article in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune, which makes one main point -- Britons of all political parties are fiercely united in their approval of the Altmark raid, and in their consternation at what Chamberlain called Norway’s “complete indifference” to German violations of her neutrality.
The Herald Tribune summarizes Chamberlain’s position as this -- “Because [the Altmark] was armed and carrying British prisoners she should not have been granted the freedom of those waters but she should have been searched and the prisoners should have been removed.
It’s difficult to say whether the Norwegians believe for a second their ridiculous demand that Britain turn the freed prisoners over to Norway’s control, or if Oslo is acting purely out of fear of Hitler. But Chamberlain implied that if Norway won’t protect her coastline from German incursions, the British Navy will. A Wednesday New York Times story by Raymond Daniell on Chamberlain’s speech explicitly makes that point. A Times dispatch from Paris says as well that the Allies might be “forced to take action to prevent Norwegian waters from being used as a refuge for German vessels.”
IS OIL THE KEY TO VICTORY? Author Frazier Hunt writes Wednesday for the International News Service that the fates of Germany and the Allies might be settled not on Europe’s battlefronts, but in the Arab kingdoms of the Near East. That’s where the French “Army of the Orient” waits to defend French interests in the region, and possibly to attack German and Russian interests as well --
“This war might be won by [French] Gen. Maxime Weygand’s army of mystery tucked away in scores of villages and cities in this ancient Syrian land. A single three-letter word holds the secret of this war. It is -- ‘OIL’. The side controlling oil wins the war if it can cut off the supply from its enemy. That is largely the reason the great soldier, Weygand, is here with his army gathered from every corner of the French empire. For the task of the army is not only to help guard the Allies’ priceless oil fields in Iraq, Arabia, and Iran, but also to help Rumania hold her oil away from Germany and -- to venture a long prophecy -- possibly some day to cut off the supply of oil from the Baku and Batum fields in southernmost Russia and prevent its reaching Germany.”
Mr. Hunt sees Rumania as possibly becoming a major battlefield, due to the belligerents’ competing interests there. If the Allies succeed in cutting off Germany’s overland oil supply, he says, “the war is over.” Thus, “I believe this is one of several reasons why France sent Gen. Weygand here to build up an army so as to be able to strike deep into the Balkans when the moment comes. If Germany attacks Rumania and the latter can hold out until Weygand rushes to the rescue with the Anglo-French forces being massed in the Near East and with the probable help of the Turks, it may prove to be a vastly different story than the easy conquest of Rumania [by Germany] in 1915.”
“CENSORSHIP” IN BRITAIN AND GERMANY. The Chicago Tribune’s editors are fond of calling Britain and France “dictatorships” on par with Russia and Germany -- because of the Allies’ routine wartime restrictions on speech and the press, and the understandable decline of partisan politics in London and Paris. But are Chamberlain and Daladier really just on par with Hitler and Stalin? Or even close? Note what an article in the current issue of Newsweek has to say about radio-listening in Britain --
“A man known only as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ is a national figure in Britain today: he figures in a current revue and is the subject of a popular song and countless letters in the newspapers. ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ is heard nightly on the German radio, broadcasting in English, and got his sobriquet because of his supposed super-Oxford accent -- although listeners have traced its origin everywhere from Edinburgh to Chicago. Britons religiously listen to him nightly -- the newspapers even list his name and wave lengths -- and laugh.”
Contrast that with the Reich government’s view of radio programs from abroad -- “In Germany, listening to foreign broadcasts has become increasingly less of a laughing matter. The penalty is prison and in extreme cases – for habitual listening or organizing listening sessions -- death.”
I remember that William S. Shirer, the C.B.S. Berlin correspondent, gave a good example late last month of how nuts the Germans are about propaganda broadcasts. On one sector of the Western Front, French loudspeakers began trumpeting anti-Hitler messages across the Rhine to the German lines. Nazi gunners were ordered to open fire on the amplifiers, and, when the initial attempts didn't work, a mini-offensive was launched to destroy the loudspeakers. The bombardment went on for days, until it finally succeeded. It was the biggest shooting spree on the Front in some time. The same thing happened two weeks ago, says Newsweek, but the French loudspeakers were “entrenched behind pillboxes” and kept talking right along.
Obviously, one side in this war has much more confidence than the other in the ability of its own people to think for themselves. And that side deserves to be called a democracy.
The Herald Tribune summarizes Chamberlain’s position as this -- “Because [the Altmark] was armed and carrying British prisoners she should not have been granted the freedom of those waters but she should have been searched and the prisoners should have been removed.
It’s difficult to say whether the Norwegians believe for a second their ridiculous demand that Britain turn the freed prisoners over to Norway’s control, or if Oslo is acting purely out of fear of Hitler. But Chamberlain implied that if Norway won’t protect her coastline from German incursions, the British Navy will. A Wednesday New York Times story by Raymond Daniell on Chamberlain’s speech explicitly makes that point. A Times dispatch from Paris says as well that the Allies might be “forced to take action to prevent Norwegian waters from being used as a refuge for German vessels.”
IS OIL THE KEY TO VICTORY? Author Frazier Hunt writes Wednesday for the International News Service that the fates of Germany and the Allies might be settled not on Europe’s battlefronts, but in the Arab kingdoms of the Near East. That’s where the French “Army of the Orient” waits to defend French interests in the region, and possibly to attack German and Russian interests as well --
“This war might be won by [French] Gen. Maxime Weygand’s army of mystery tucked away in scores of villages and cities in this ancient Syrian land. A single three-letter word holds the secret of this war. It is -- ‘OIL’. The side controlling oil wins the war if it can cut off the supply from its enemy. That is largely the reason the great soldier, Weygand, is here with his army gathered from every corner of the French empire. For the task of the army is not only to help guard the Allies’ priceless oil fields in Iraq, Arabia, and Iran, but also to help Rumania hold her oil away from Germany and -- to venture a long prophecy -- possibly some day to cut off the supply of oil from the Baku and Batum fields in southernmost Russia and prevent its reaching Germany.”
Mr. Hunt sees Rumania as possibly becoming a major battlefield, due to the belligerents’ competing interests there. If the Allies succeed in cutting off Germany’s overland oil supply, he says, “the war is over.” Thus, “I believe this is one of several reasons why France sent Gen. Weygand here to build up an army so as to be able to strike deep into the Balkans when the moment comes. If Germany attacks Rumania and the latter can hold out until Weygand rushes to the rescue with the Anglo-French forces being massed in the Near East and with the probable help of the Turks, it may prove to be a vastly different story than the easy conquest of Rumania [by Germany] in 1915.”
“CENSORSHIP” IN BRITAIN AND GERMANY. The Chicago Tribune’s editors are fond of calling Britain and France “dictatorships” on par with Russia and Germany -- because of the Allies’ routine wartime restrictions on speech and the press, and the understandable decline of partisan politics in London and Paris. But are Chamberlain and Daladier really just on par with Hitler and Stalin? Or even close? Note what an article in the current issue of Newsweek has to say about radio-listening in Britain --
“A man known only as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ is a national figure in Britain today: he figures in a current revue and is the subject of a popular song and countless letters in the newspapers. ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ is heard nightly on the German radio, broadcasting in English, and got his sobriquet because of his supposed super-Oxford accent -- although listeners have traced its origin everywhere from Edinburgh to Chicago. Britons religiously listen to him nightly -- the newspapers even list his name and wave lengths -- and laugh.”
Contrast that with the Reich government’s view of radio programs from abroad -- “In Germany, listening to foreign broadcasts has become increasingly less of a laughing matter. The penalty is prison and in extreme cases – for habitual listening or organizing listening sessions -- death.”
I remember that William S. Shirer, the C.B.S. Berlin correspondent, gave a good example late last month of how nuts the Germans are about propaganda broadcasts. On one sector of the Western Front, French loudspeakers began trumpeting anti-Hitler messages across the Rhine to the German lines. Nazi gunners were ordered to open fire on the amplifiers, and, when the initial attempts didn't work, a mini-offensive was launched to destroy the loudspeakers. The bombardment went on for days, until it finally succeeded. It was the biggest shooting spree on the Front in some time. The same thing happened two weeks ago, says Newsweek, but the French loudspeakers were “entrenched behind pillboxes” and kept talking right along.
Obviously, one side in this war has much more confidence than the other in the ability of its own people to think for themselves. And that side deserves to be called a democracy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)