WILL THE NEAR EAST GO TO WAR? “It may only require an incident -- which spring or early summer may bring -- to involve the Near East more deeply in the European conflict.” So says an analysis prepared by Harvard’s Philip W. Ireland for the Foreign Policy Association, and reported Monday in the Washington Post. Mr. Ireland also points to the Balkans as a likely spot where a spark of conflict could bring that region wholly into the war. Soviet Russia, now freed from the Finnish campaign, can concentrate on her territorial goals in Rumania and Turkey, while the Germans and Russians plot to divide up influence in the region. Meanwhile, Hitler insists on his right to supply Germany’s warriors with Rumanian and Russian oil, while Britain promises “drastic measures” to shut off the oil flow.
But the Allied domination of the Near East gives Britain and France a valuable advantage in checking any move by Hitler and Stalin against a Balkan state or in the Near East itself. A report in the Chicago Sunday Tribune says that France has 200,000 troops in Syria and Lebanon alone. British and French forces in the region could be quickly called into action to stop aggression against Rumania or Turkey, both of which are protected by British guarantees. The Allies also could, if they wanted to get tough, launch a campaign to seize the Soviets’ Caucasus oilfields.
The Tribune story says that “the German-Russian bloc might turn its attention to the near east” itself, but that doesn’t seem too likely. “British and French friendship with Turkey...is being cemented more firmly...The sympathies of the neighboring Moslem states, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are with Turkey, to whom they are linked by the Saadabad treaty of friendship. Since they support Turkey, they would no doubt support Britain and France, too.” That’s too many potential adversaries for the dictators, who don’t seem to like a fair fight.
FRANCE WANTS ACTION, BUT BRITAIN HESITATES. An analysis by James B. Reston in Sunday’s New York Times says that for some time the French have agitated for a more “daring” war strategy, while the British continue to be hesitant. According to Mr. Reston, France wanted early on in the Russo-Finnish war to send an Allied expeditionary force of 100,000 troops across Scandinavia to help Finland. They wanted to do so without the permission of Norway or Sweden, on the grounds that the Scandinavian countries' agreement to the League of Nations resolution supporting the Finns was tantamount to a grant of access. But Prime Minister Chamberlain took the more gingerly approach of asking the Norwegians and Swedes for permission to send troops through their territory, which they refused to give. The Times article says this presents a big problem in Allied cooperation --
“These facts of the Finnish case indicate the differences in method between the Allies. On the one hand, the French argue that this is a total war against a ruthless enemy who is breaking every rule of international law and who must receive a dose of his own medicine. On the other, the British argue that they must follow the letter of international law if they are not to be accused of trampling over rules that they are fighting to uphold. These two views, if not irreconcilable, are at least difficult to combine. The Allies tried to combine them into a compromise on the Finnish decision and it did not work, and the Allies have now reached a stage in the war where they are going to have to decide to go one way or the other.”
The British attitude could change, writes Mr. Reston -- “There are a considerable number of people in this country, led by Winston Churchill, who believe in the French theory and it may be that they will eventually gain the ascendancy.” But for now, alas, Chamberlain continues to be on top of the political situation. It can be said in his defense that caution is as important as courage in winning wars. But the important thing is knowing when to be cautious and when to be bold. The Prime Minister’s hesitancy is reflexive, and seems to be a hallmark of his every action.
“OOPS! WE OVERTHREW THE GOVERNMENT!” John Elliott offers an interesting profile of France’s new Premier Reynaud in Sunday’s New York Herald Tribune. He is a man, we are told, with great oratorical gifts and a champion of free economics, but the question yet to be answered is “can he handle men as expertly as he handles finances?” That aside, the most startling information in Mr. Elliott’s piece comes after the first sixteen paragraphs, where it’s explained that his ascendancy was merely some kind of dim-witted accident of French politics --
“The last thing that most of the deputies (who abstained from voting in the chamber in the small hours of Wednesday morning) desired was to throw Daladier out of office. They thought they were simply indulging in a harmless demonstration intended as a warning that the war must be conducted more vigorously in the future. They expected Daladier to form a war cabinet and remain as Premier. When the deputies learned that Daladier had interpreted their abstention as a vote of lack of confidence, most of them deeply regretted their action. They now feel remorse that Daladier was saddled unjustly with the responsibility for the collapse of Finland.”
Mr. Elliott also seconds the belief that Daladier will likely be back as Premier within a few weeks, if the Reynaud government fails to gain widespread support. That would certainly compound the mess. One wonders what ordinary people ruled by the dictators must think of such a circus. Yes, it’s great that French democracy continues to function during wartime, giving the lie to mounds of isolationist editorials on the subject. But to vote out the nation’s leader, then to come within a single vote of getting rid of his successor, and then to say you didn’t really mean any of it -- all in a single week -- only feeds the arguments of Nazi and Communist propaganda mills that democracy is a joke.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Sunday, March 24, 1940
DALADIER OUT, REYNAUD IN -- FOR NOW. Over the past four days France has seen the resignation of one premier, Edouard Daladier. And the authority of his successor, Paul Reynaud, is already in jeopardy. P.J. Philip has the story in Thursday’s New York Times on the Daladier resignation, which came in the wake of widespread criticism in the Chamber of Deputies over his conduct of the war, and a confidence vote in which only 239 deputies supported the government, while 300 abstained. The Times sums up his downfall -- “He has lacked initiative and imagination, his critics say, and the failure to support Finland quickly enough has been taken as an example, not because any one seriously believes that more could have been done directly for Finland, but as an indication of what might happen elsewhere if the same tempo of doing things were continued.”
But Mr. Philip also laments the fact that such an important change was made during a secret session of the Chamber, and after “a very confused vote.” This makes it possible, he reports, that Premier Raynaud could well fail in forming a government. And if that happens, President Lebrun might in the end ask M. Daladier to take the premiership once again.
Meanwhile, the new Reynaud cabinet has gotten off to a “sorry start,” according to John Elliott in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune. In a Friday vote of confidence, the government prevailed by 268-156 with 111 abstentions -- an absolute majority of only one vote. Premier Reynaud received wide support from his own Radical Socialists and other parties on the Left, but was opposed by Center and Right groups. Mr. Elliott says the new government’s “prestige has been badly shaken at the very outset. Not since the war have so many votes in opposition to a Cabinet been recorded in the French Chamber. Still, Premier Reynaud has at least ten days in which to show what he can do and attempt to win additional support, for Parliament went into recess today until April 2.”
RUSSIANS FORBID FINNISH ALLIANCE. Forget the talk about Finland protecting herself from the Russian bear by forming a defensive alliance with her neighbors, Sweden and Norway. Apparently the alliance won’t stop the Russians from future aggression against the Finns for one reason -- Stalin refuses to permit it.
That was one of two shocks a Finnish peace delegation received after arriving in Moscow, according to Harold Callender in the New York Times. The other shock was when their Russian counterparts presented a map with the new Russo-Finnish border -- in which the newly negotiated frontiers had been unilaterally altered in several places in Russia’s favor. “It was as if, reports Mr. Callender, “Moscow had deliberately underlined Prime Minister Chamberlain’s speech on Tuesday by substantiating his warning that the north was still -- or more than ever -- in danger.”
So much for the wistful hope expressed in a Times editorial a week ago that the Russians would think twice about conquering the rest of Finland because of the probability that the Allies and the Finns' Scandinavian neighbors would rush to fight alongside them. It turns out all the Soviets have to do is say “boo”, and suddenly the Norwegians say they now believe an alliance to be “extremely difficult, it not impossible”, while the Swedes respond, with meek mock-defiance, that staff talks with Finland will continue, “whether a formal pact were signed or not.” Can anyone now doubt that the Russians will seize the rest of Finland before the end of this year?
A GERMAN ATTACK THROUGH HOLLAND? Last week’s New Republic has an editorial doubting the chances of two much-discussed scenarios in the war. As to the possibility of a German offensive in the Balkans or Scandinavia, “it is as a source of supply that these regions are most important to [Germany],” say the editors. As to the chances of a Nazi flanking attack on France through Switzerland or Belgium, “the French are now about as well prepared there as in the center.” But the editors see one other very real possibility --
“From underground Germany comes word that the plan is for a Blitzkrieg through Holland alone, in order to gain closer access to Britain, and capture Holland’s gold. It is thought by those who adhere to this theory that Holland would not call in Allied or Belgian help, and would not offer serious resistance. Such a move would accord with Hitler’s traditional ‘artichoke plan’ of conquest, by which the smaller nations are eaten one leaf at a time. And it might open the way for a still more daring adventure in the future -- invasion and conquest of Britain itself. Psychologically, the guess seems to fit what we have learned about Hitler.”
...OR NO GERMAN ATTACK AT ALL? Meanwhile, in the current New Republic, Genevieve Tabouis writes from Paris that knowledgeable French sources don’t believe the Germans have the ability to carry out a big offensive this year --
“It is authoritatively said in France that at the beginning of January Hitler convoked his High Command and outlined his war plans for this year and next, specifying that no mass offensive should be undertaken before 1941. During the spring of 1941, it is said, he is to reconsider the possibilities of a total war on the western front and whether the chances are favorable for the German army. If not, the troops are to retire behind the Third Siegfried Line. The Fuehrer is reported to have stressed the point that by then he would have solidly based his economy on exploitation of the Balkans and Russia, and he would be in no danger of having to capitulate. It is also said in Paris that Hitler did not give these orders willingly, but because -- despite appearances -- he was obliged to do so for two reasons: the shortage of war material necessary for an offensive, and the shortage of reserves.”
ALLIES IMPATIENT WITH THE “SIT-DOWN WAR.” Barnet Nover writes in his Washington Post column Friday that France’s new premier is no appeaser, and that his ascension might indicate an increased determination in both Britain and France to defeat Hitler --
“Paul Reynaud has for long been an ardent opponent of the Munich policy. He stands for the most vigorous possible prosecution of the war. He is opposed, as Edouard Daladier was equally opposed, to a negotiated peace that would leave Hitler in possession of his gains and in a position, after a few months of uncertain peace, to launch of Blitzkrieg against the demoralized Allies. And the same desire for action that was behind the replacement of Daladier by Reynaud is to be found in Great Britain. There Neville Chamberlain remains master of the situation. But a shake-up of the cabinet is imminent. Popular impatience with the ‘sit-down war’ may lead the French and British governments to undertake ill-considered ventures that may prove disastrous. That is a real danger. But, in the meantime it is of more than passing significance that the most serious defeat suffered by the Allies since Poland was overrun, namely, the collapse of Finland, far from wrecking the morale of the British and French people has only resulted in increasing their determination to fight it out.”
But Mr. Philip also laments the fact that such an important change was made during a secret session of the Chamber, and after “a very confused vote.” This makes it possible, he reports, that Premier Raynaud could well fail in forming a government. And if that happens, President Lebrun might in the end ask M. Daladier to take the premiership once again.
Meanwhile, the new Reynaud cabinet has gotten off to a “sorry start,” according to John Elliott in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune. In a Friday vote of confidence, the government prevailed by 268-156 with 111 abstentions -- an absolute majority of only one vote. Premier Reynaud received wide support from his own Radical Socialists and other parties on the Left, but was opposed by Center and Right groups. Mr. Elliott says the new government’s “prestige has been badly shaken at the very outset. Not since the war have so many votes in opposition to a Cabinet been recorded in the French Chamber. Still, Premier Reynaud has at least ten days in which to show what he can do and attempt to win additional support, for Parliament went into recess today until April 2.”
RUSSIANS FORBID FINNISH ALLIANCE. Forget the talk about Finland protecting herself from the Russian bear by forming a defensive alliance with her neighbors, Sweden and Norway. Apparently the alliance won’t stop the Russians from future aggression against the Finns for one reason -- Stalin refuses to permit it.
That was one of two shocks a Finnish peace delegation received after arriving in Moscow, according to Harold Callender in the New York Times. The other shock was when their Russian counterparts presented a map with the new Russo-Finnish border -- in which the newly negotiated frontiers had been unilaterally altered in several places in Russia’s favor. “It was as if, reports Mr. Callender, “Moscow had deliberately underlined Prime Minister Chamberlain’s speech on Tuesday by substantiating his warning that the north was still -- or more than ever -- in danger.”
So much for the wistful hope expressed in a Times editorial a week ago that the Russians would think twice about conquering the rest of Finland because of the probability that the Allies and the Finns' Scandinavian neighbors would rush to fight alongside them. It turns out all the Soviets have to do is say “boo”, and suddenly the Norwegians say they now believe an alliance to be “extremely difficult, it not impossible”, while the Swedes respond, with meek mock-defiance, that staff talks with Finland will continue, “whether a formal pact were signed or not.” Can anyone now doubt that the Russians will seize the rest of Finland before the end of this year?
A GERMAN ATTACK THROUGH HOLLAND? Last week’s New Republic has an editorial doubting the chances of two much-discussed scenarios in the war. As to the possibility of a German offensive in the Balkans or Scandinavia, “it is as a source of supply that these regions are most important to [Germany],” say the editors. As to the chances of a Nazi flanking attack on France through Switzerland or Belgium, “the French are now about as well prepared there as in the center.” But the editors see one other very real possibility --
“From underground Germany comes word that the plan is for a Blitzkrieg through Holland alone, in order to gain closer access to Britain, and capture Holland’s gold. It is thought by those who adhere to this theory that Holland would not call in Allied or Belgian help, and would not offer serious resistance. Such a move would accord with Hitler’s traditional ‘artichoke plan’ of conquest, by which the smaller nations are eaten one leaf at a time. And it might open the way for a still more daring adventure in the future -- invasion and conquest of Britain itself. Psychologically, the guess seems to fit what we have learned about Hitler.”
...OR NO GERMAN ATTACK AT ALL? Meanwhile, in the current New Republic, Genevieve Tabouis writes from Paris that knowledgeable French sources don’t believe the Germans have the ability to carry out a big offensive this year --
“It is authoritatively said in France that at the beginning of January Hitler convoked his High Command and outlined his war plans for this year and next, specifying that no mass offensive should be undertaken before 1941. During the spring of 1941, it is said, he is to reconsider the possibilities of a total war on the western front and whether the chances are favorable for the German army. If not, the troops are to retire behind the Third Siegfried Line. The Fuehrer is reported to have stressed the point that by then he would have solidly based his economy on exploitation of the Balkans and Russia, and he would be in no danger of having to capitulate. It is also said in Paris that Hitler did not give these orders willingly, but because -- despite appearances -- he was obliged to do so for two reasons: the shortage of war material necessary for an offensive, and the shortage of reserves.”
ALLIES IMPATIENT WITH THE “SIT-DOWN WAR.” Barnet Nover writes in his Washington Post column Friday that France’s new premier is no appeaser, and that his ascension might indicate an increased determination in both Britain and France to defeat Hitler --
“Paul Reynaud has for long been an ardent opponent of the Munich policy. He stands for the most vigorous possible prosecution of the war. He is opposed, as Edouard Daladier was equally opposed, to a negotiated peace that would leave Hitler in possession of his gains and in a position, after a few months of uncertain peace, to launch of Blitzkrieg against the demoralized Allies. And the same desire for action that was behind the replacement of Daladier by Reynaud is to be found in Great Britain. There Neville Chamberlain remains master of the situation. But a shake-up of the cabinet is imminent. Popular impatience with the ‘sit-down war’ may lead the French and British governments to undertake ill-considered ventures that may prove disastrous. That is a real danger. But, in the meantime it is of more than passing significance that the most serious defeat suffered by the Allies since Poland was overrun, namely, the collapse of Finland, far from wrecking the morale of the British and French people has only resulted in increasing their determination to fight it out.”
Monday, March 21, 2016
Thursday, March 21, 1940
THE BRITISH LAUNCH AN ALL-NIGHT AIR RAID. The British have successfully raided a major German air base -- for seven hours, too. Associated Press reporter Tom Yarbrough says it might be “the overture of the great aerial offensives which have been predicted in any great modern war.” Objective of the attack was the Reich’s Sylt Island base, which Wednesday morning was said to be a mass of “burning hangars, workshops, and slipways.” The number of warplanes involved is a secret, but four successive, almost continuous, waves of bombers were sent against the Germans. The New York Times account quotes the British Air Ministry as claiming the base was “severely damaged,” and that one British plane failed to return.
This raid is described as an answer to Germany’s 85-minute bomber attack last Saturday on the British anchorage at Scapa Flow. The Times story noted that Britain is being quite forward about this -- “Since the start of the war, British leaders have warned Germany that if she should intentionally or carelessly bomb or kill civilians, as happened during the attack on Scapa Flow, she must accept responsibility for the consequences. Prime Minister Chamberlain repeated this statement in Parliament with the full knowledge that British planes as he spoke were on their way to the German base under orders to bomb this military objective with the greatest possible force.”
DESPITE “PEACE PLAN”, LOTS OF TOUGH TALK. Prime Minister Chamberlain spoke for an hour to the House of Commons Tuesday, but he answered the alleged eleven-point German peace plan with four words -- “we intend to fight.” According to Raymond Daniell in Wednesday’s New York Times, “he gave the impression that he did not care a fig what the two ‘dictators’, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, talked about at Brennero yesterday.” (Yet even when he is at his most resolute, Chamberlain still has that irritating Caspar Milquetoast-way of mincing words -- “We are not likely to be diverted from the purpose for which we entered this war.”)
Premier Daladier, meanwhile, won another confidence vote, this time in the Chamber of Deputies by a vote of 239-1 -- but with over 300 abstentions. The confidence motion urged the Premier to “immediately” take forceful action to “carry the war to victory in close accord with our allies.” The abstainers say they are waiting to see what kind of new cabinet Daladier is putting together, in response to what the Associated Press describes as “the Chamber’s insistent demand for a more energetic administration of the nation’s war machine.”
And according to Sigrid Schultz in Wednesday’s Chicago Tribune, the Nazis themselves are pooh-poohing the news stories about peace proposals. Hitler, she writes, followed up his meeting with Mussolini by meeting with “the leaders of the army, air force, navy, government, and the Nazi party.” The Nazis are expecting “action.”
THAT ELEVEN-POINT PEACE PLAN. The Allies ridicule it, and the Germans themselves now deny even offering it. But for what it’s worth, here is the peace proposal that Hitler is alleged to have communicated to Under Secretary of State Welles, as published in Tuesday’s New York Herald Tribune --
“1. General and simultaneous disarmament on land and sea and in the air.”
“2. Formation of a small, independent Poland in the central part of the former state around Warsaw, comprising a population of about 10,000,000 or 11,000,000. Gdynia would be a Polish port, giving access to the Baltic. The Poles would have a free port at Danzig, and Polish commerce to the Baltic would be facilitated.”
“3. The Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians would form a tripartite state allied to the Reich, in which Germany would hold certain industrial and communications rights for twenty-five years.”
“4. Austria would remain forever in the Reich.”
“5. Germany would get back within twenty-five years her colonies lost in the World War, or at least get certain colonial concessions or protection of German emigration to certain zones in Africa.”
“6. A Danubian confederation would be formed, with the participation of Germany and Italy as great guardian powers, the confederation to include Rumania, Bohemia, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, and Hungary.”
“7. The Balkan status quo would be guaranteed thereafter, with protection for such frontiers as Rumania’s Bessarabia and Transylvania regions, obtained from neighbors after the World War.”
“8. Absolute liberty of religion; Germany’s remaining Jews would migrate under the direction of Britain to Palestine, Italian East Africa, and French-owned Madagascar.”
“9. Absolute liberty of trade after the war, with no trade barriers for raw materials and with direct contacts for economic collaboration with the United States; also facilitation of German and Italian emigration, such as Italians to France’s Tunisia and Germans to Africa.”
“10. Special treatment of Italian commerce at Djibouti (French port for Ethiopia), and also free passage of the Suez Canal, beginning in 1945.”
“11. A new status for Italians in Tunisia, French North Africa protectorate.”
THE PEACE PLAN IS MERE MOONSHINE. Dorothy Thompson writes in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune that the peace proposal, unacceptable as it is to the Allies, can’t even be regarded as a sincere declaration of Nazi aims --
“From Rome, and from the Vatican, comes an 11-point peace program. The American correspondents in Rome report that this is the peace program presented by Hitler to Sumner Welles, and by Ribbentrop to the Pope, in his recent visit to Rome. The American correspondents in Rome state that Sumner Welles had asked Mussolini to try and get Hitler to mitigate these terms....Now, the interesting thing about the German terms from the Vatican is that they ignore Russia altogether. They divide central and eastern Europe into a sphere of influence to be shared by Italy and Germany -- chiefly Germany -- while the rest of Europe returns to Mussolini’s original conception of a four-power pact....Hitler is playing two games -- on the one side he is conciliating and trying to use Russia, and on the other he is prepared to make a common front against Russia...In other words, the peace proposals made to Welles and to the Vatican were just so much dust thrown in the eyes of the western Allies and the neutrals.”
Once again Miss Thompson blasts the Roosevelt administration’s stance on all this, asserting that the U.S. has joined the Vatican in the “ridiculous” position of attempting to “moralize the world.” In her view, “the United States is still unwilling to face the fact that the struggle now going on is absolutely bound to change the social and economic structure of most of the world and will have the most profound repercussions upon the hemisphere from Alaska to Cape Horn before it is over. We are neither militarily or morally prepared for the world of the next decade, which will not be a comfortable middle-class world based on the morals of the nineteenth century, whatever else it is or may become.”
WILL RUSSIA BECOME AN AXIS PARTNER? Columnist Barnet Nover of the Washington Post acknowledges the possibility of a Rome-Berlin-Moscow Axis, but believes it is much less of a danger than some have predicted --
“It is of more than passing interest that the talk of the German-Russian-Italian combination, while loud and vehement in Berlin, has not even been whispered in Moscow and Rome. This may either mean that the Russian and Italian dictators have not yet made up their minds as to whether they are prepared to make such an arrangement or do not favor it except for very limited objectives. And if it is formed for limited objectives, it is hardly likely to give the Allies any real cause for alarm....The whole campaign appears to be part of the ‘white war’ whereby Hitler hopes to achieve the aims he has not yet dared to seek by military means. Perhaps he is still convinced that in this war of nerves the morale of the British and French people will be the first to crack...But the reaction in London and Paris to this ‘white offensive’ show that now, as from time to time since his peace bid of October 8, Hitler is going to be disappointed.”
This raid is described as an answer to Germany’s 85-minute bomber attack last Saturday on the British anchorage at Scapa Flow. The Times story noted that Britain is being quite forward about this -- “Since the start of the war, British leaders have warned Germany that if she should intentionally or carelessly bomb or kill civilians, as happened during the attack on Scapa Flow, she must accept responsibility for the consequences. Prime Minister Chamberlain repeated this statement in Parliament with the full knowledge that British planes as he spoke were on their way to the German base under orders to bomb this military objective with the greatest possible force.”
DESPITE “PEACE PLAN”, LOTS OF TOUGH TALK. Prime Minister Chamberlain spoke for an hour to the House of Commons Tuesday, but he answered the alleged eleven-point German peace plan with four words -- “we intend to fight.” According to Raymond Daniell in Wednesday’s New York Times, “he gave the impression that he did not care a fig what the two ‘dictators’, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, talked about at Brennero yesterday.” (Yet even when he is at his most resolute, Chamberlain still has that irritating Caspar Milquetoast-way of mincing words -- “We are not likely to be diverted from the purpose for which we entered this war.”)
Premier Daladier, meanwhile, won another confidence vote, this time in the Chamber of Deputies by a vote of 239-1 -- but with over 300 abstentions. The confidence motion urged the Premier to “immediately” take forceful action to “carry the war to victory in close accord with our allies.” The abstainers say they are waiting to see what kind of new cabinet Daladier is putting together, in response to what the Associated Press describes as “the Chamber’s insistent demand for a more energetic administration of the nation’s war machine.”
And according to Sigrid Schultz in Wednesday’s Chicago Tribune, the Nazis themselves are pooh-poohing the news stories about peace proposals. Hitler, she writes, followed up his meeting with Mussolini by meeting with “the leaders of the army, air force, navy, government, and the Nazi party.” The Nazis are expecting “action.”
THAT ELEVEN-POINT PEACE PLAN. The Allies ridicule it, and the Germans themselves now deny even offering it. But for what it’s worth, here is the peace proposal that Hitler is alleged to have communicated to Under Secretary of State Welles, as published in Tuesday’s New York Herald Tribune --
“1. General and simultaneous disarmament on land and sea and in the air.”
“2. Formation of a small, independent Poland in the central part of the former state around Warsaw, comprising a population of about 10,000,000 or 11,000,000. Gdynia would be a Polish port, giving access to the Baltic. The Poles would have a free port at Danzig, and Polish commerce to the Baltic would be facilitated.”
“3. The Czechs, Slovaks, and Hungarians would form a tripartite state allied to the Reich, in which Germany would hold certain industrial and communications rights for twenty-five years.”
“4. Austria would remain forever in the Reich.”
“5. Germany would get back within twenty-five years her colonies lost in the World War, or at least get certain colonial concessions or protection of German emigration to certain zones in Africa.”
“6. A Danubian confederation would be formed, with the participation of Germany and Italy as great guardian powers, the confederation to include Rumania, Bohemia, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, and Hungary.”
“7. The Balkan status quo would be guaranteed thereafter, with protection for such frontiers as Rumania’s Bessarabia and Transylvania regions, obtained from neighbors after the World War.”
“8. Absolute liberty of religion; Germany’s remaining Jews would migrate under the direction of Britain to Palestine, Italian East Africa, and French-owned Madagascar.”
“9. Absolute liberty of trade after the war, with no trade barriers for raw materials and with direct contacts for economic collaboration with the United States; also facilitation of German and Italian emigration, such as Italians to France’s Tunisia and Germans to Africa.”
“10. Special treatment of Italian commerce at Djibouti (French port for Ethiopia), and also free passage of the Suez Canal, beginning in 1945.”
“11. A new status for Italians in Tunisia, French North Africa protectorate.”
THE PEACE PLAN IS MERE MOONSHINE. Dorothy Thompson writes in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune that the peace proposal, unacceptable as it is to the Allies, can’t even be regarded as a sincere declaration of Nazi aims --
“From Rome, and from the Vatican, comes an 11-point peace program. The American correspondents in Rome report that this is the peace program presented by Hitler to Sumner Welles, and by Ribbentrop to the Pope, in his recent visit to Rome. The American correspondents in Rome state that Sumner Welles had asked Mussolini to try and get Hitler to mitigate these terms....Now, the interesting thing about the German terms from the Vatican is that they ignore Russia altogether. They divide central and eastern Europe into a sphere of influence to be shared by Italy and Germany -- chiefly Germany -- while the rest of Europe returns to Mussolini’s original conception of a four-power pact....Hitler is playing two games -- on the one side he is conciliating and trying to use Russia, and on the other he is prepared to make a common front against Russia...In other words, the peace proposals made to Welles and to the Vatican were just so much dust thrown in the eyes of the western Allies and the neutrals.”
Once again Miss Thompson blasts the Roosevelt administration’s stance on all this, asserting that the U.S. has joined the Vatican in the “ridiculous” position of attempting to “moralize the world.” In her view, “the United States is still unwilling to face the fact that the struggle now going on is absolutely bound to change the social and economic structure of most of the world and will have the most profound repercussions upon the hemisphere from Alaska to Cape Horn before it is over. We are neither militarily or morally prepared for the world of the next decade, which will not be a comfortable middle-class world based on the morals of the nineteenth century, whatever else it is or may become.”
WILL RUSSIA BECOME AN AXIS PARTNER? Columnist Barnet Nover of the Washington Post acknowledges the possibility of a Rome-Berlin-Moscow Axis, but believes it is much less of a danger than some have predicted --
“It is of more than passing interest that the talk of the German-Russian-Italian combination, while loud and vehement in Berlin, has not even been whispered in Moscow and Rome. This may either mean that the Russian and Italian dictators have not yet made up their minds as to whether they are prepared to make such an arrangement or do not favor it except for very limited objectives. And if it is formed for limited objectives, it is hardly likely to give the Allies any real cause for alarm....The whole campaign appears to be part of the ‘white war’ whereby Hitler hopes to achieve the aims he has not yet dared to seek by military means. Perhaps he is still convinced that in this war of nerves the morale of the British and French people will be the first to crack...But the reaction in London and Paris to this ‘white offensive’ show that now, as from time to time since his peace bid of October 8, Hitler is going to be disappointed.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)