MORE “SENSATIONAL” NAZI DISCLOSURES COMING? Sunday’s New York Times says the Germans promise to release a new series of documents from the Polish foreign ministry that, along with the sixteen made public over the week-end, supposdly prove U.S. “war guilt.” According to correspondent Percival Knauth, the Nazis portray the U.S. Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, as “the chief war-baiter behind the scenes in diplomatic moves which ultimately plunged Europe into war.” Joseph P. Kennedy, America’s ambassador to Britain, is supposedly his helper.
The House of Representatives’ least-patient isolationist, Hamilton Fish of New York, expressed again Sunday his eagerness to jump onto Hitler’s blame-America bandwagon. At first he demanded that the House Foreign Affairs Committee take up the question of whether or not President Roosevelt has committed impeachable offenses by conniving to start European wars. Now, according to the Times, Representative Fish has threatened to introduce a resolution to impeach the President, and for good measure, Ambassador Bullitt as well. Thankfully, a more sensible isolationist, Senator Champ Clark of Missouri, said Sunday that “the matter is too serious to make a snap judgement upon it.”
IS THERE ANYTHING TO IT? (II). Those of us who wish to dismiss the Polish documents as wholesale Nazi forgeries found this disturbing paragraph in Percival Knauth’s New York Times story -- “Correspondents who viewed the original ‘documents’ at the [German] foreign office today were inclined to accept them as genuine. They all bear a variety of signatures and marginal notes, which suggest that they have passed through many hands in the routine of the Polish ministry for foreign affairs.”
But an International News Service story by Walter Fitzmaurice, printed inside Monday’s Washington Post, says that U.S. investigating agencies have compiled a mammoth amount of evidence casting “indirect doubt” on the authenticity of the documents. He writes that F.B.I. and Secret Service investigators have discovered evidence of “bribery, theft and the distribution of forged documents” by Nazis directing propaganda activities in the U.S. A source says this evidence might be made public “at the appropriate time.” “Right now” would be a good time, actually.
A COUPLE OF EDITORIAL COMMENTS. The Chicago Tribune takes a typically curious line toward the Nazi disclosures. The editors write Monday that it doesn’t matter whether the charges are true or false, because they’re true! Or something like that --
“If the Polish documents printed in the German white paper...are forgeries it must be admitted that the craftsmen had authentic models before them....The forgers, if such they were, did not go to work upon material which would be unrecognizable in American eyes. They took utterances and events as Americans have heard them spoken and have seen them happen, and about them wove the most intimate inner-office confidential details that might have been in the hidden background of what appeared in public. The authenticity of what is known to be true does not, of course, establish by itself the truth of the purported revelation of the whole story. But it does establish the fact that there is no inconsistency between what is known as the public record and what are presented as the secret proceedings behind it.”
On the other hand, Barnet Nover of the Washington Post takes an understated, sensible approach in his Monday column --
“At this distance and at this time it is impossible to say whether these documents tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But it is equally impossible to say with complete conviction that they do not. And Dr. Goebbels knows that...He knows also that where the will to believe exists, notably in certain isolationist circles long suspicious of President Roosevelt’s foreign policy, these documents will be grist for their mill, regardless of the President’s warning to take them with a grain of salt and regardless of the fervent denials of Secretary Hull and Ambassadors Bullitt, Kennedy, and Potocki. Individuals suspicious of the Administration’s foreign policy may find it awkward to believe the Nazi regime whose record for truth-telling is not impressive. But the temptation to accept the Nazi documents at their face value may override the promptings of caution.”
NORWAY AND SWEDEN ARE NERVOUS. And according to Harold Callender in Sunday’s New York Times, they’re arming rapidly, just in case --
“The presence of a German submarine in Norway’s territorial waters this week -- not far from the strategic points where a British destroyer had hovered a few days earlier to keep an eye on German merchant ships -- gave Scandinavia another of those minor shocks which lately have been too frequent to be counted. But in these uncertain times minor shocks may develop into major ones, and the accumulation of these alarms during and since the Finnish war has kept Scandinavia’s nerves on edge and intensified the desire of these pacific and until recently pacifist countries to become a good deal more military than they had thought of doing since Napoleon’s time.”
The numbers are impressive, considering the size of these countries. Sweden has spent $175,000,000 on its military since the invasion of Poland, and will spend $275,000,000 in 1940 -- an increase of eight times over the last five years. She is tripling the size of her air force, with plans for 1,000 fast fighting planes, is reorganizing her army on a war basis, and could field a half-million men if need be. Meanwhile, the Norwegians are trying to make up for lost time, spending $58,000,000 on defense over a nine-month period. The money comes from mammoth tax increases, including a 50% hike in the national income tax, a sales tax, and huge excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Even tiny Denmark is taking steps to protect herself, spending up to $30,000,000 for air squadrons and anti-aircraft guns, plus torpedo boats from Britain.
THE DIRECTION OF THE DANGER. Harold Callender’s Sunday New York Times article also says the Scandinavians “fear all the great powers” but have no doubts as to where an attack would come from -- “their sympathies are predominantly on the side of the Allies. They fear that Britain and France might precipitate an attack by Germany and Germany’s pact with Russia may cause further aggression from Moscow.”
What’s tragic about this is if Sweden and Norway had only began arming early last fall and had made a defense pact with the Finns, the Russians would probably have never attacked Finland, and the dangers facing them now would be that much less.
AMERICANS SYMPATHIZE WITH THE ALLIES (SOMEWHAT). A new poll by Dr. George Gallup published in Sunday’s Washington Post shows that Americans’ support of Germany has slipped just a bit. Six months ago, 84% of those surveyed said they wanted the Allies to win, versus 2% who wanted Germany to win. Dr. Gallup has just repeated that poll question, and the results are now -- 84% want the Allies to win, and 1% want Germany to win. A total of 15% say they’re “completely neutral” or have no opinion.
What bothers me about these polls is that many Americans who profess to want an Allied victory also say they don’t particularly want to do anything to help them. According to Gallup, “if the Allies appear to be losing” only 55% of those surveyed would even be willing to “lend money” to them, and 23% would use U.S. troops to prevent a British and French defeat, as disastrous for civilization as that would be. In other words, Americans hope the Allies win, but apparently in the same way that a Brooklyn fan wants to see the Dodgers beat the Giants.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Sunday, March 31, 1940
U.S. ENVOYS STARTED THE WAR? Germany has touched off a controversy in the U.S. Congress following publication of a Nazi “White Book,” which claims the European war was secretly fomented by a pair of U.S. ambassadors under President Roosevelt’s direction. Saturday’s New York Times has partial transcripts of the “sensational diplomatic documents,” which the Germans claim came from captured archives at the Polish Foreign Office in Warsaw. In these papers, Polish ambassadors report on diplomatic talks with their foreign counterparts, most notably the American ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, and the ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy.
According to Sigrid Schultz in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, most of the papers cover the period prior to the Anglo-French commitment to defend Poland, which was made exactly one year ago today. Miss Schultz reports that in one of the documents Ambassador Bullitt pledges to Poland’s ambassador to the U.S., Count Potocki, that America would “finish” any future war on the side of the Allies. Ambassador Bullitt also said, in Count Potocki’s paraphrase, that “only strength...could in the future put an end to Germany’s mad expansion.” The ambassador also supposedly referred to a “psychosis” of anti-German feeling in the U.S. Another documents claims Ambassador Kennedy promised the Poles he would lobby British leaders about “the necessity of helping Poland at once with cash.”
Easily the phoniest-sounding document of the bunch is a purported dispatch to Warsaw by Count Potocki on Jan. 12, 1939, described by Miss Schultz thusly -- “After asserting that hatred in the United States against all forms of Fascism was growing and was being incited by Jewish propaganda which, the document said, controls the radio, press, films, and magazines nearly 100 percent, the alleged Potocki report continued: ‘President Roosevelt was first to give expression to this hatred for Fascism. He thereby pursued a two-fold object. First, he wanted to distract the attention of the American public from difficult and complicated domestic problems....Second, by conjuring up a war psychosis and conjuring up danger in Europe, he wanted to persuade the American people to accept America’s enormous preparedness program, a program which goes beyond defense needs.’”
IS THERE ANYTHING TO IT? It’s hard to imagine how anybody who isn’t a follower of Hitler could swallow this Potocki report. In effect, the Germans are asking us to believe that a Polish diplomat, in early 1939, would issue confidential communications that mimic Dr. Goebbels’ current propaganda line almost word-for-word. As for the alleged statements by Ambassadors Bullitt and Kennedy, an article by William V. Nessly in Saturday’s Washington Post records their emphatic denials, as well as Secretary Hull’s remark that the U.S. government doesn’t give any of these documents “the slightest credence.” So who’s lying, Hitler or Hull? No contest there.
What galls even more is that, even if the Ambassadors Bullitt and Kennedy were “guilty” of making any private statements in support of the Allied cause, the main Nazi allegation here is that the U.S. started the war by (1) endorsing the right of Poland to defend herself against German aggression, and (2) encouraging the Allies to help her in this task. According to the views of the men who wrote this “White Book,” the correct “peaceful” approach presumably would be for the Roosevelt administration to sit by and watch the Nazis bomb, pillage, ravage, invade, murder, and extort neighboring countries -- and not give a fig. It’s amazing to me that anyone can claim President Roosevelt has been too emphatically pro-British and anti-German. In most respects, the administration’s approach these past few months has been quite mild. And if anything, our foreign policy needs to be more emphatically opposed to the deeds and goals of the dictators -- not less.
SHAME ON THE ISOLATIONISTS. Some in Congress have assailed the “White Book” disclosures as Nazi propaganda, and others are withholding comment. Then, there are those like Hamilton Fish, the Republican representative from New York – he claims the charges are so “serious” that the House Foreign Affairs Committee should investigate. He even says, according to the Chicago Tribune, that “if President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments to involve us in war he should be impeached.” Maybe Congress should do so, if such secret commitments exist. But do we really start investigating on the basis of Hitler’s word alone? Thankfully, another Senate Republican isolationist, Danaher of Connecticut, has the sense to say that the source of these documents is “open to suspicion.”
Maybe the dumbest comment of all so far comes from Senator Holt, Democrat of West Virginia, who seems eager to vouch for the authenticity of the Nazi claims, based on nothing but his own silly class prejudices. He told the New York Times, “Frankly, I believe Bullitt did say that....We have too many Ambassadors who can’t stand foreign liquor and when they get too much of it they do too much talking. But you will never see them leading the soldiers in the front-line trenches. They haven’t enough time to get away from their teas and cocktail parties.”
MASSACHUSETTS LEANS TO THE REPUBLICANS. Dr. George Gallup is reporting in the Washington Post on a series of state-by-state polls which look at how the Republicans and Democrats would do if the Presidential race were held now. Without naming a specific candidate, the current Gallup survey, in Massachusetts, shows the Republican trend of two years ago continuing, with 54% of voters there favoring a Republican for President this fall. As in other states, Bay State voters oppose the Third Term, 55% to 45%. The best news for the Democrats so far in these statewide polls is that the bigger states are leaning Democratic -- New York by 53% to 47%, and Pennsylvania by 51% to 49%. California leans strongly Democratic in the Presidential race, 58% to 42%, while New Jersey leans toward the G.O.P., 53% to 47%.
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE? A story in Friday’s New York Herald Tribune says another Republican might join the presidential race, though he’s being coy about it -- “Republican leaders, awaiting the results of important Presidential primary contests next week, have been comparing notes on the availability of Wendell L. Willkie as a compromise candidate, should a deadlock develop among the Dewey, Taft, and Vandenberg forces at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.” Mr. Willkie, the president of the Commonwealth and Southern Corporation, was the subject of a highly favorable profile last month in Current History. That article portrayed the tall Midwesterner as a standout among the Republicans -- a utility executive not averse to unions and government regulation, an independent thinker whose fitness for President is touted by figures such as Alfred E. Smith and General Johnson, a self-described “La Follette liberal.” There may be one problem with a Willkie candidacy -- according to the Herald Tribune, he “is listed in the record books as a Democrat.”
According to Sigrid Schultz in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune, most of the papers cover the period prior to the Anglo-French commitment to defend Poland, which was made exactly one year ago today. Miss Schultz reports that in one of the documents Ambassador Bullitt pledges to Poland’s ambassador to the U.S., Count Potocki, that America would “finish” any future war on the side of the Allies. Ambassador Bullitt also said, in Count Potocki’s paraphrase, that “only strength...could in the future put an end to Germany’s mad expansion.” The ambassador also supposedly referred to a “psychosis” of anti-German feeling in the U.S. Another documents claims Ambassador Kennedy promised the Poles he would lobby British leaders about “the necessity of helping Poland at once with cash.”
Easily the phoniest-sounding document of the bunch is a purported dispatch to Warsaw by Count Potocki on Jan. 12, 1939, described by Miss Schultz thusly -- “After asserting that hatred in the United States against all forms of Fascism was growing and was being incited by Jewish propaganda which, the document said, controls the radio, press, films, and magazines nearly 100 percent, the alleged Potocki report continued: ‘President Roosevelt was first to give expression to this hatred for Fascism. He thereby pursued a two-fold object. First, he wanted to distract the attention of the American public from difficult and complicated domestic problems....Second, by conjuring up a war psychosis and conjuring up danger in Europe, he wanted to persuade the American people to accept America’s enormous preparedness program, a program which goes beyond defense needs.’”
IS THERE ANYTHING TO IT? It’s hard to imagine how anybody who isn’t a follower of Hitler could swallow this Potocki report. In effect, the Germans are asking us to believe that a Polish diplomat, in early 1939, would issue confidential communications that mimic Dr. Goebbels’ current propaganda line almost word-for-word. As for the alleged statements by Ambassadors Bullitt and Kennedy, an article by William V. Nessly in Saturday’s Washington Post records their emphatic denials, as well as Secretary Hull’s remark that the U.S. government doesn’t give any of these documents “the slightest credence.” So who’s lying, Hitler or Hull? No contest there.
What galls even more is that, even if the Ambassadors Bullitt and Kennedy were “guilty” of making any private statements in support of the Allied cause, the main Nazi allegation here is that the U.S. started the war by (1) endorsing the right of Poland to defend herself against German aggression, and (2) encouraging the Allies to help her in this task. According to the views of the men who wrote this “White Book,” the correct “peaceful” approach presumably would be for the Roosevelt administration to sit by and watch the Nazis bomb, pillage, ravage, invade, murder, and extort neighboring countries -- and not give a fig. It’s amazing to me that anyone can claim President Roosevelt has been too emphatically pro-British and anti-German. In most respects, the administration’s approach these past few months has been quite mild. And if anything, our foreign policy needs to be more emphatically opposed to the deeds and goals of the dictators -- not less.
SHAME ON THE ISOLATIONISTS. Some in Congress have assailed the “White Book” disclosures as Nazi propaganda, and others are withholding comment. Then, there are those like Hamilton Fish, the Republican representative from New York – he claims the charges are so “serious” that the House Foreign Affairs Committee should investigate. He even says, according to the Chicago Tribune, that “if President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments to involve us in war he should be impeached.” Maybe Congress should do so, if such secret commitments exist. But do we really start investigating on the basis of Hitler’s word alone? Thankfully, another Senate Republican isolationist, Danaher of Connecticut, has the sense to say that the source of these documents is “open to suspicion.”
Maybe the dumbest comment of all so far comes from Senator Holt, Democrat of West Virginia, who seems eager to vouch for the authenticity of the Nazi claims, based on nothing but his own silly class prejudices. He told the New York Times, “Frankly, I believe Bullitt did say that....We have too many Ambassadors who can’t stand foreign liquor and when they get too much of it they do too much talking. But you will never see them leading the soldiers in the front-line trenches. They haven’t enough time to get away from their teas and cocktail parties.”
MASSACHUSETTS LEANS TO THE REPUBLICANS. Dr. George Gallup is reporting in the Washington Post on a series of state-by-state polls which look at how the Republicans and Democrats would do if the Presidential race were held now. Without naming a specific candidate, the current Gallup survey, in Massachusetts, shows the Republican trend of two years ago continuing, with 54% of voters there favoring a Republican for President this fall. As in other states, Bay State voters oppose the Third Term, 55% to 45%. The best news for the Democrats so far in these statewide polls is that the bigger states are leaning Democratic -- New York by 53% to 47%, and Pennsylvania by 51% to 49%. California leans strongly Democratic in the Presidential race, 58% to 42%, while New Jersey leans toward the G.O.P., 53% to 47%.
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE? A story in Friday’s New York Herald Tribune says another Republican might join the presidential race, though he’s being coy about it -- “Republican leaders, awaiting the results of important Presidential primary contests next week, have been comparing notes on the availability of Wendell L. Willkie as a compromise candidate, should a deadlock develop among the Dewey, Taft, and Vandenberg forces at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.” Mr. Willkie, the president of the Commonwealth and Southern Corporation, was the subject of a highly favorable profile last month in Current History. That article portrayed the tall Midwesterner as a standout among the Republicans -- a utility executive not averse to unions and government regulation, an independent thinker whose fitness for President is touted by figures such as Alfred E. Smith and General Johnson, a self-described “La Follette liberal.” There may be one problem with a Willkie candidacy -- according to the Herald Tribune, he “is listed in the record books as a Democrat.”
Monday, March 28, 2016
Thursday, March 28, 1940
FRENCH-SOVIET RELATIONS NEARING A BREAK? A Wednesday Associated Press story says that diplomatic relations between France and Soviet Russia “appeared to have reached the breaking point,” following an incident involving the Soviet ambassador to Paris, Jakob Surits. Reportedly, Ambassador Surits provoked French government anger by sending a telegram to Soviet Premier Molotov saluting the Red Army’s success in Finland, which the Ambassador said thwarted “plans of the Anglo-French warmongers who attempted to fan the flames of war in northwest Europe.” France has responded by demanding that the Russians recall Ambassador Surits, and they have done so.
The A.P. reports that “several newspapers in Paris are urging the government to close the Soviet embassy...and the campaign to to break off diplomatic relations with Russia is gaining headway.” Then again, the A.P. adds that relations may have already been effectively broken -- “Informed sources considered it unlikely that the French government would approve the nomination of any Soviet envoy as successor to the recalled ambassador. Paul Naggier, the French ambassador to Russia, has already left his post, having returned to Paris ostensibly on sick leave.”
It’s been two months since the French government banned the Communist Party as a subversive organization, and Premier Reynaud declared to the Chamber of Deputies just last Friday that Germany has been “aided by the treason of the Soviets.” Since Stalin is likely to launch new aggressions soon, against Finland or in the Balkans, it now looks likelier than ever this year that either the Allies will end up fighting a “white war” against Russia, or Stalin will actually join the shooting war on Hitler’s side.
BRITISH DEMAND “RUTHLESS WAR” ON HITLER. Larry Rue reports in Tuesday’s Chicago Tribune that Britain’s newspapers are demanding the Allies take bolder steps in fighting the war. Mr. Rue quotes the military expert from the Daily Sketch as explaining this means “we should either violate somebody’s neutrality or begin to bomb German oil supplies and industries.” Not too long ago British strategists believed that if the Allies maintained a passive blockade, they would break Germany over time. But now, says Mr. Rue, a Sunday Times’ analysis warns darkly of “the possibility of Hitler refusing to wage a military war and relying on the hope that prolonged hostilities will ruin England and France financially and force them to capitulate thru economic pressure.” Now, says Britain’s press, “time is working more for Germany than for the western powers and that quick, decisive action is necessary to break the deadlock and give them the advantage.”
Britain’s papers are also debating various suggestions to protect Rumania from German pressure, including using the Empire’s wealth to insure the Rumanians always have a better offer for their products from the Allies than from Germany. Other sources, Mr. Rue reports, “advocated repeated air raids on German industrial areas, especially the huge synthetic petroleum plants at Leuna. They maintain that Germany would be unable to retaliate, owing to a lack of fuel, and would become a victim of same kind of blitzkrieg [lightning war] she conducted against Poland.” It sounds good -- but not anything like the kind of action the Chamberlain government, as now constituted, would dare take.
ALLIES VIOLATING NEUTRAL SKIES? But according to last night’s broadcast by C.B.S. Berlin correspondent William Shirer, Nazi sources claim the Allies are already getting cavalier about violating neutrals’ rights. Specifically, the German high command claims Allied planes have recently flown over the territory of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Switzerland. Somewhat ominously, the story exploded into banner headlines in the controlled Nazi press on Wednesday, and Reporter Shirer concludes delicately that the high command “will not remain content forever” to merely note the alleged violations. It's likely these charges say more about German intentions in the coming weeks than they do about anything the Allies are up to.
WESTERN FRONT TO STAY CALM? But then, maybe the Germans don’t have any big plans at all. In addition to the report from Paris last week in the New Republic that Hitler isn’t planning anything big until 1941, the Chicago Tribune reports on Tuesday that “Paris observers” now don’t expect any major German offensive soon --
“Altho the war is about to enter its eighth month and opinion in Great Britain and France insists that it be prosecuted with increasing energy, observers here do not expect any change on the western front for a long time to come. The problem of the British and French is held to be to induce or compel their enemy to make a rash attack. Two means to this end are seen -- to make the blockade effective or to organize a coalition of countries, or both. It is felt here [in Paris] that Hitler will attack neither the Maginot line nor the army in the near east until he has been forced to play his last card -- decision by battle.”
The A.P. reports that “several newspapers in Paris are urging the government to close the Soviet embassy...and the campaign to to break off diplomatic relations with Russia is gaining headway.” Then again, the A.P. adds that relations may have already been effectively broken -- “Informed sources considered it unlikely that the French government would approve the nomination of any Soviet envoy as successor to the recalled ambassador. Paul Naggier, the French ambassador to Russia, has already left his post, having returned to Paris ostensibly on sick leave.”
It’s been two months since the French government banned the Communist Party as a subversive organization, and Premier Reynaud declared to the Chamber of Deputies just last Friday that Germany has been “aided by the treason of the Soviets.” Since Stalin is likely to launch new aggressions soon, against Finland or in the Balkans, it now looks likelier than ever this year that either the Allies will end up fighting a “white war” against Russia, or Stalin will actually join the shooting war on Hitler’s side.
BRITISH DEMAND “RUTHLESS WAR” ON HITLER. Larry Rue reports in Tuesday’s Chicago Tribune that Britain’s newspapers are demanding the Allies take bolder steps in fighting the war. Mr. Rue quotes the military expert from the Daily Sketch as explaining this means “we should either violate somebody’s neutrality or begin to bomb German oil supplies and industries.” Not too long ago British strategists believed that if the Allies maintained a passive blockade, they would break Germany over time. But now, says Mr. Rue, a Sunday Times’ analysis warns darkly of “the possibility of Hitler refusing to wage a military war and relying on the hope that prolonged hostilities will ruin England and France financially and force them to capitulate thru economic pressure.” Now, says Britain’s press, “time is working more for Germany than for the western powers and that quick, decisive action is necessary to break the deadlock and give them the advantage.”
Britain’s papers are also debating various suggestions to protect Rumania from German pressure, including using the Empire’s wealth to insure the Rumanians always have a better offer for their products from the Allies than from Germany. Other sources, Mr. Rue reports, “advocated repeated air raids on German industrial areas, especially the huge synthetic petroleum plants at Leuna. They maintain that Germany would be unable to retaliate, owing to a lack of fuel, and would become a victim of same kind of blitzkrieg [lightning war] she conducted against Poland.” It sounds good -- but not anything like the kind of action the Chamberlain government, as now constituted, would dare take.
ALLIES VIOLATING NEUTRAL SKIES? But according to last night’s broadcast by C.B.S. Berlin correspondent William Shirer, Nazi sources claim the Allies are already getting cavalier about violating neutrals’ rights. Specifically, the German high command claims Allied planes have recently flown over the territory of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Switzerland. Somewhat ominously, the story exploded into banner headlines in the controlled Nazi press on Wednesday, and Reporter Shirer concludes delicately that the high command “will not remain content forever” to merely note the alleged violations. It's likely these charges say more about German intentions in the coming weeks than they do about anything the Allies are up to.
WESTERN FRONT TO STAY CALM? But then, maybe the Germans don’t have any big plans at all. In addition to the report from Paris last week in the New Republic that Hitler isn’t planning anything big until 1941, the Chicago Tribune reports on Tuesday that “Paris observers” now don’t expect any major German offensive soon --
“Altho the war is about to enter its eighth month and opinion in Great Britain and France insists that it be prosecuted with increasing energy, observers here do not expect any change on the western front for a long time to come. The problem of the British and French is held to be to induce or compel their enemy to make a rash attack. Two means to this end are seen -- to make the blockade effective or to organize a coalition of countries, or both. It is felt here [in Paris] that Hitler will attack neither the Maginot line nor the army in the near east until he has been forced to play his last card -- decision by battle.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)