RUSSIANS FIGHTING IN RUMANIA. Some people, Joseph Stalin for example, just can’t take yes for an answer. Four days after Rumania’s King Carol assented to Soviet demands for Bessarabia and a chunk of Bucovina, the Russians are marching into strategic Rumanian cities bordering these newly-seized territories, while they battle angry Rumanian mobs in their rear. The Associated Press says that Russian troops have forced the Rumanian Army out of the city of Reni, at the Danube and Prut Rivers near the southwest border line of Bessarabia. The Red Army used a clever ploy in this attack, sending forth “baby tanks” landed by airplanes. The tanks were “suspended between the wheels of big transport planes in a display of warfare in its most modern phase.” The gambit “caught the Rumanian garrison so completely by surprise that the rifles stood untouched in barracks packs.” Sounds like Red officers have paid close attention to Nazi lighting-war tactics.
Eugen Kovacs reports in Monday’s New York Times that there’s some real fighting going on inside Bessarabia, and reports two trains full of wounded Rumanian troops arrived in Bucharest during the week-end. The Time article counts 35,000 to 40,000 Rumanian refugees fleeing the Soviet advance. On the other hand, about 7,000 Jews, alarmed at about Rumania’s recent tilt toward Nazi-ism, are fleeing in the other direction, trying to get to the Russian-occupied portions of the country.
Interestingly, the A.P. casts the Russian takeover of Reni as a “major blow” to Hitler -– “From Reni, the Red Army is in a position to block all traffic from the Danube to the Black Sea -- if it so desires -- with hardly more than machine guns necessary.” The Germans are no doubt also worried about reports of Russia’s “request” that Turkey “share” defense responsibilities of the critical Dardanelles Straits with the Soviets. Just four months after it appeared Stalin and Hitler might likely end up as wartime allies, it has to be wondered whether Russia has decisively outsmarted Germany in the East and now stands on par with Britain as the Reich’s most serious rival.
GIBRALTAR NEXT ON THE AXIS LIST? Sources in Berlin tell Sigrid Schultz of the Chicago Tribune that a coordinated German and Italian attack on Britain’s territories “seems to be rapidly drawing near,” and that Italy’s role in the drive will be a Fascist assault against the British fortress at Gibraltar on Spain’s southern coast --
“Some sources speak of an attack on Gibraltar with legionnaires, similar to the Italian Arrow divisions and the German Condor legions which fought in the Spanish war, operating from the land side of ‘the rock,’ aided by the attacks of Italian sea and air forces. Gen. Franco, who was aided by Hitler and Mussolini in the Spanish war, has declared Spain ‘nonbelligerent’ -- the same term which Italy used before Il Duce entered the war on the side of Hitler. There have been several recent demonstrations in Spain calling for the return of Gibraltar. It is believed that an Italian attack against Gibraltar is a stronger possibility than an Italian attack on Egypt. To drive the British out of Gibraltar, Germans feel, would enhance their chances of success in a direct attack upon the British Isles.”
THE MIRACLE OF WILLKIE. In Sunday’s New York Times, Arthur Krock exults at Wendell Willkie’s nomination as a glorious and improbable event that can only happen in a democracy --
“The nomination of Wendell L. Willkie by the Republican National Convention was not only the climax of an American political revolution, and the achievement of a miracle; it was a notice that, as ever before, the Democratic system here furnishes a man for the exigent hour and traditional molds are burst to effect his entrance. In the light of all political experience Mr. Willkie’s nomination was impossible. He has voted the Republican ticket for only four years, and has been registered with that party for only one. He has never been in politics, or sought or held a public office. His claims to this nomination were not submitted to any party primary or convention before this one met. He is an executive in the utilities business, which the New Deal has chosen as its especial example to prove the needs for drastic regulation of industry. He is a director of the First National Bank of New York, a “Wall Street” bank. And not until the day before the convention met did Mr. Willkie form a professional political group to pilot his campaign.”
Mr. Krock also sees Mr. Willkie’s triumph over the G.O.P.’s political bosses as a most encouraging contrast to the war news -- “Democracy worked this week, at a time when triumphant war machines have been erected on its ruins in nearly all the rest of the world.” Yes, it is always heartening to see an honest, upright dark-horse candidate triumph over conventional politicians picked by the “old guard” party men. But the press seems to me to be making too much of this democratic “miracle.” I doubt if Hitler is losing any sleep over it.
WILL ROOSEVELT DECLINE A THIRD TERM BID? He might, once the Democrats nominate him. That’s the odd and intriguing theory being sounded in Monday’s New York Herald Tribune --
“With the Democratic National Convention, scheduled to open in Chicago two weeks from today, a report has been circulating in Democratic circles, it was learned yesterday, that President Roosevelt would allow himself to be nominated for a third term and then, in a dramatic appearance before the convention, decline the nomination and suggest the substitution of some other candidate whom he would designate by name. Two names recurring in these reports are those of Attorney General Robert H. Jackson and Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court.”
This sounds like a bit of theorizing cooked up by a Washington observer very late at night in his favorite bar. I suppose that in the wake of the Willkie phenomenon, any wild prediction suddenly seems plausible. But it’s hard to imagine a wise politician like the President honestly thinking that this kind of gambit would boost the Democrats’ chances. Dr. Gallup says that 92 percent of Democrats want F.D.R. to run for a third term -- can you imagine how unbelievably crestfallen the delegates in Chicago would be to see their hero take the podium and proclaim, “Thanks, but no thanks”?
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Sunday, June 30, 1940
IT’S WILLKIE. Democrats have every reason to be nervous about the Republican Convention’s sixth-ballot nomination of Wendell Willkie to be the party’s presidential candidate this fall. Within moments of his dramatic victory over Messrs. Dewey and Taft, just before 2 a.m. Friday morning, it was clear he’d have glowing endorsements from all of his former opponents. Friday’s late editions of the New York Herald Tribune extensively quote the messages of support. With a united G.O.P. behind him, Mr. Willkie is in a sensational position to reach out to Democrats and Independents, having been regarded himself as a Democrat until just a couple of years ago.
And his man-of-the-people credentials are solid. Henry Paynter of the Associated Press writes a great biography of the man in Friday’s Washington Post, pointing out among other things the fact that this big-business Republican lawyer was never afraid to soil his hands -- “Wendell sold papers, collected bills, worked in a steel mill and on a Puerto Rico sugar plantation, was a migratory farm worker in California, an Iowa farmhand (he almost married the farmer’s daughter); ran a cement block machine in Wyoming, worked in the wheat fields of Oklahoma and Kansas and drove a baker’s wagon. Few of his present friends know he was an accomplished shortorder cook, having worked his way up from dishwasher.”
WILLKIE AND THE WAR. Most importantly, Mr. Willkie’s argument is with the New Deal, not with the President’s support of the Allies. He is one of the Republicans who generally agrees with the Administration’s position on supporting Great Britain with great amounts of war material, while sparing no expense to prepare America to defend the Western Hemisphere against the future threat of Axis attack. Perhaps his foreign-policy views are the reason that the Chicago Tribune, remarkably, has yet to mention him editorially since his nomination. Or maybe the isolationists are nervous because, according to Saturday’s New York Times, President Roosevelt said at his Friday news conference he would be “very glad” to meet Mr. Willkie for a discussion on international relations, perhaps even with an eye to putting forth a “common front” on foreign policy. Mr. Willkie, who plans to make his formal acceptance speech soon in his home town of Elwood, Indiana, said he would be “glad” to talk to the President, and deftly threw in a quip -- “I think one should be courteous to his predecessor.”
THE CRITICS RAVE. Among the newspaper editors, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike come close to gushing about the Willkie nomination in their Friday editions --
Los Angeles Times (Republican) -- “If ever a man was nominated in response to popular demand, against powerful rival coalitions and against all the ‘dope’ of the political wiseacres, it is Wendell Willkie.”
New York World Telegram (Independent) -- “It was the wisest decision [the convention] could have made....President Roosevelt will meet an opponent worthy of his steel.”
Kansas City Star (Independent) -- “If ever the people of America prayed, ‘God, send us a man,’ it has been in the last six weeks, and if ever such a prayer was answered it has come in the nomination of Wendell Willkie.”
Washington Post (Independent) -- “Washington was a simple man and so was Jefferson. Another of the same, straightforward habit of thought was Abraham Lincoln, a figure whose heroic simplicity of character has been caught and depicted in imperishable marble in the great statue which every visitor to this city knows....there is the quality of simplicity in Wendell Willkie.”
Hartford Courant (Republican) -- Wendell Willkie...will do more than merely revitalize the Republican party. He will tremendously appeal to the people as one fully capable of supplying the kind of leadership that the country so sorely needs at this juncture.”
Baltimore Sun (Democrat) -- “Not only is Mr. Wendell L. Willkie the ablest man who was available in the Republican ranks, he had directed his abilities to the most enlightened and patriotic causes....His victory...is a miracle of American politics.”
New Orleans Times-Picayune (Democrat) -- “Mr Willkie’s...writings and utterances, by their candor, common sense, and good spirit, have favorably impressed millions of Americans. The same fine qualities and abilities that won him the nomination should carry him far in the campaign.”
Galveston News (Democrat) -- “Disillusioned Democrats and liberal Republicans will flock to his standard. Conservative Republicans will have no other choice.”
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN RUMANIA. Last week Soviet Russia sent occupying troops into the Baltic states, and this week she’s seizing a chunk of eastern Rumania. A Friday Associated Press story says that Rumania’s King Carol has given in to Russian demands for Bessarabia and northern Bucovina. Reportedly, the Soviets were waiting for the diplomats to iron out the details before their troops marched. But a United Press dispatch on Saturday says that the Russians have not only sent 100 divisions, or about a million troops, into the ceded areas, they’ve also crossed the border into “old” Rumania. There, they’ve occupied the border cities of Cernauti and Dorohol and seem to be still on the move.
According to the A.P., this has prompted Carol to order general mobilization and file “an urgent appeal with the German minister that Berlin put hard pressure on Moscow to halt the Red advance and force the Russians to retire to the line named in their original and accepted demand.” Sadly, although Rumania had a year ago accepted a British guarantee of security and seemed to wish to stand with the Allies, she’s now trying desperately to curry favor with Hitler, to the point that Carol added this week two Rumanian Nazis to his cabinet.
It doesn’t seem to be working, though. Hungary and Bulgaria have responded to the Russian move by making territorial demands of their own against what’s left of Rumania. Most of Rumania’s 2,000,000 men under arms are facing the Hungarian frontier. But as Poland found out over the centuries, it’s impossible to defend one’s homeland when it’s surrounded by enemies bent on partition. Rumania will be one more European country to soon disappear from the map – unless Hitler, bent on the fullest exploitation of Rumania’s resources for his own ends, decides to step in and spare it.
And his man-of-the-people credentials are solid. Henry Paynter of the Associated Press writes a great biography of the man in Friday’s Washington Post, pointing out among other things the fact that this big-business Republican lawyer was never afraid to soil his hands -- “Wendell sold papers, collected bills, worked in a steel mill and on a Puerto Rico sugar plantation, was a migratory farm worker in California, an Iowa farmhand (he almost married the farmer’s daughter); ran a cement block machine in Wyoming, worked in the wheat fields of Oklahoma and Kansas and drove a baker’s wagon. Few of his present friends know he was an accomplished shortorder cook, having worked his way up from dishwasher.”
WILLKIE AND THE WAR. Most importantly, Mr. Willkie’s argument is with the New Deal, not with the President’s support of the Allies. He is one of the Republicans who generally agrees with the Administration’s position on supporting Great Britain with great amounts of war material, while sparing no expense to prepare America to defend the Western Hemisphere against the future threat of Axis attack. Perhaps his foreign-policy views are the reason that the Chicago Tribune, remarkably, has yet to mention him editorially since his nomination. Or maybe the isolationists are nervous because, according to Saturday’s New York Times, President Roosevelt said at his Friday news conference he would be “very glad” to meet Mr. Willkie for a discussion on international relations, perhaps even with an eye to putting forth a “common front” on foreign policy. Mr. Willkie, who plans to make his formal acceptance speech soon in his home town of Elwood, Indiana, said he would be “glad” to talk to the President, and deftly threw in a quip -- “I think one should be courteous to his predecessor.”
THE CRITICS RAVE. Among the newspaper editors, Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike come close to gushing about the Willkie nomination in their Friday editions --
Los Angeles Times (Republican) -- “If ever a man was nominated in response to popular demand, against powerful rival coalitions and against all the ‘dope’ of the political wiseacres, it is Wendell Willkie.”
New York World Telegram (Independent) -- “It was the wisest decision [the convention] could have made....President Roosevelt will meet an opponent worthy of his steel.”
Kansas City Star (Independent) -- “If ever the people of America prayed, ‘God, send us a man,’ it has been in the last six weeks, and if ever such a prayer was answered it has come in the nomination of Wendell Willkie.”
Washington Post (Independent) -- “Washington was a simple man and so was Jefferson. Another of the same, straightforward habit of thought was Abraham Lincoln, a figure whose heroic simplicity of character has been caught and depicted in imperishable marble in the great statue which every visitor to this city knows....there is the quality of simplicity in Wendell Willkie.”
Hartford Courant (Republican) -- Wendell Willkie...will do more than merely revitalize the Republican party. He will tremendously appeal to the people as one fully capable of supplying the kind of leadership that the country so sorely needs at this juncture.”
Baltimore Sun (Democrat) -- “Not only is Mr. Wendell L. Willkie the ablest man who was available in the Republican ranks, he had directed his abilities to the most enlightened and patriotic causes....His victory...is a miracle of American politics.”
New Orleans Times-Picayune (Democrat) -- “Mr Willkie’s...writings and utterances, by their candor, common sense, and good spirit, have favorably impressed millions of Americans. The same fine qualities and abilities that won him the nomination should carry him far in the campaign.”
Galveston News (Democrat) -- “Disillusioned Democrats and liberal Republicans will flock to his standard. Conservative Republicans will have no other choice.”
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN RUMANIA. Last week Soviet Russia sent occupying troops into the Baltic states, and this week she’s seizing a chunk of eastern Rumania. A Friday Associated Press story says that Rumania’s King Carol has given in to Russian demands for Bessarabia and northern Bucovina. Reportedly, the Soviets were waiting for the diplomats to iron out the details before their troops marched. But a United Press dispatch on Saturday says that the Russians have not only sent 100 divisions, or about a million troops, into the ceded areas, they’ve also crossed the border into “old” Rumania. There, they’ve occupied the border cities of Cernauti and Dorohol and seem to be still on the move.
According to the A.P., this has prompted Carol to order general mobilization and file “an urgent appeal with the German minister that Berlin put hard pressure on Moscow to halt the Red advance and force the Russians to retire to the line named in their original and accepted demand.” Sadly, although Rumania had a year ago accepted a British guarantee of security and seemed to wish to stand with the Allies, she’s now trying desperately to curry favor with Hitler, to the point that Carol added this week two Rumanian Nazis to his cabinet.
It doesn’t seem to be working, though. Hungary and Bulgaria have responded to the Russian move by making territorial demands of their own against what’s left of Rumania. Most of Rumania’s 2,000,000 men under arms are facing the Hungarian frontier. But as Poland found out over the centuries, it’s impossible to defend one’s homeland when it’s surrounded by enemies bent on partition. Rumania will be one more European country to soon disappear from the map – unless Hitler, bent on the fullest exploitation of Rumania’s resources for his own ends, decides to step in and spare it.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Thursday, June 27, 1940
THE REPUBLICAN PEACE PLANK. Only some of the press men at the Republican Convention in Philadelphia this week are writing on suspenseful battle for the nomination between Dewey, Taft, and Willkie -- others have been following the platform committee’s back-and-forth discussions over the “peace plank.” Jack Beall writes in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune that the platform committee finished up its work late Tuesday night after nine straight days of work. The upshot is “a strong peace, defense, and non-intervention plank” which the isolationists have succeeded this week in making more anti-Roosevelt and less specific in support for aiding Britain than it started out to be.
In fact, Monday’s Washington Post featured a story by Robert C. Allbright describing the Republicans as having swung toward aid to the Allies, on the basis of the way the peace plank was shaping up. Although it did accuse the President of making “provocative statements” which have brought the nation closer to war, and declared against American “involvement” in foreign wars, the plank explicitly called for sympathy and aid for “oppressed peoples” resisting aggression. But John B. Oakes writes in Wednesday’s editions of the Post that isolationists subsequently insisted on making the plank “punchier,” with still more language accusing the Democrats of promoting war, and watering down the support for aid to the Allies (“People of the United States feel and express a sympathetic interest in all oppressed peoples everywhere...”).
The platform wasn’t as explicit as former President Hoover’s address to the Convention Tuesday night, where he spoke of the impossibility of isolation and advocated sending munitions and materials to foreign nations fighting for their freedom. But Mr. Hoover’s own vagueness is disappointing. Is it too much to hope that whoever wins the G.O.P. nomination will somehow gather up the courage to support military aid to Britain by name? The Republicans need to show a healthier balance of determination to keep America out of war, while making it clear they’re willing to help Britain in her life-and-death fight with the common enemy of every civilized people.
ITALY SETTLES FOR LESS. So much for Mussolini’s haughty demands that Italy be given control of the entire French Mediterranean coast as the spoils of her two-week pop-gun war against France. The New York Times prints the peace terms that France and Italy have signed, and the Italian gains turn out to be quite a bit more moderate than first anticipated –- “military occupation of only a slim border belt in the Alps, demilitarization of French colonial outposts in North Africa and full rights over Jibuti, the only rail outlet to Italian East Africa.” But that’s not all, says the Times. “Italy got control of the French section of the railway running from [Jibuti] to Addis Ababa.” One can only presume that the Italians’ original extravagant demands were too much even for Petain’s defeatist regime, and that not even the Nazis could keep a straight face in pressing for their junior ally’s interests. Of course, this hasn't stopped the Duce from decreeing a lavish two-day “celebration” throughout Italy in honor of this famous victory.
SENATOR PITTMAN SAYS ENGLAND IS “LOST.” At least one prominent Senator now seems to say that Hitler will inevitably seize the British Isles and that the British Fleet should sail to the Americas without any further delay. An Associated Press story says Key Pittman, Democrat of Nevada, distributed a statement to reporters which said, among other things, “It is no secret that Great Britain is totally unprepared for defense and that nothing that the United States has to give can do more than delay the result.” But he hopes that the British will carry out Churchill’s pledge to fight on elsewhere --
“Churchill’s statement, ‘We will never surrender’ and that if any portions of the British Isles are subjugated ‘we will fight from the New World with our navy,’ if carried out and carried out immediately, will end Hitler’s ambition for world conquest. It is to be hoped that this plan will not be too long delayed by futile encouragement to fight on. It is conclusively evident that Congress will not authorize intervention in the European war.”
It’s worrying when Senators talk this way. Not necessarily because what they’re saying might be true, but because such opinions might discourage Congress from giving all-out military aid to Britain for the defense of the British Isles. And in discouraging American assistance, Senator Pittman and others of similar views might make their predictions into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let’s not write off the British homeland yet. As James B. Reston wrote in last Sunday’s New York Times, that “big moat” surrounding Britain should be a tougher challenge for the Nazi warriors than the French defenses were.
AN AXIS INVASION OF AMERICA. Then again, if you want something to worry about, look no farther than the current issue of Life magazine, which offers an illustrated three-page exploration of how a combination of Germany, Italy, and Japan might attack, and conquer, the United States. It drives home, as few other articles have done, just how important a powerful navy will be in keeping Nazi claws off the Americas.
Life’s scenario starts far away -- Japanese dive bombers launch a surprise raid on the Panama Canal, a Fascist fleet occupies the strategic port of Para, Brazil, and German bombers defeat U.S. planes in a battle over La Guiara, Venezuela. Naval battles take place in the Carribean between U.S. and Fascist cruisers, and Fascist bombing fleets lay waste to St. Thomas, Guayama, Barahona, the U.S. naval base at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. Then, the U.S. fleet is completely destroyed in a battle off the Brazilian coast. The way is cleared for German and Italian troops to land on the U.S. mainland, and they do -- first at Bay Head, N.J., and then at Wilmington, Delaware, beating back “small U.S. forces.” A Fascist air raid destroys the Croton Dam, leaving New York City’s millions in desperate need of water. The Fascist tanks and artillery then defeat “small, under-equipped U.S. forces” in the climactic Battle of Pittsburgh, while Nazi planes pulverize Akron, Chicago, and other Midwest industrial cities. Finally, in a ceremony inside the swastika-bedecked Independence Hall in Philadelphia, U.S. diplomats agree to a humiliating peace. Life concludes, “Although most of the U.S. remains unconquered, it cannot fight as its great arms centers in the East have been destroyed or captured.”
The most chilling part of Life’s dire fantasy is its date --- the magazine approached the “best available military sources in Washington” in February 1939, and asked them how the Germans and Italians might plan an invasion of America. The situation given was “that it was July 1941 and that Germany and Italy have defeated Britain and France.” But the editors decided not to publish their article and charcoal sketches showing step-by-step how the Axis attack would develop. “They appeared too sensational at the time,” says Life. But alas, not any more.
IT’S ALL IN BRITISH HANDS. The Chicago Tribune, in an uncharacteristically moderate and thoughtful editorial, doesn’t write off Britain’s chances against Hitler, but they don’t seem to imply much faith that the British war effect will eventually lead to victory, either. Still, the Tribune describes a hope that some people aren’t even daring to voice right now --
“The French as a people will survive. Their culture will continue. Their experience, if the experiences of Poland and other subjugated peoples are any guide, will be humiliating and hard to bear. Their fate for generations, it would seem, is in the hands of the British. The only power which now can save them and restore them to the position occupied last September is the British sea power and the ability of Mr. Churchill’s government to make better use of the war potential of the British empire than Reynaud succeeded in making of the French. The British are in an explicably angry mood. They, nevertheless, as long as they can carry on, are fighting the battle of France which the French have abandoned. If they win they will have the extraordinary opportunity, magnanimously used or not, of handing back to their insolvent allies the domain and the resources which have been surrendered. If the invader leaves French soil and restores all the provinces...if he is to be driven back and stripped of his power to coerce, it will be because again the British have proved themselves able to overthrow a continental military autocracy just when it seemed to have all of Europe firmly in its clutch.”
In fact, Monday’s Washington Post featured a story by Robert C. Allbright describing the Republicans as having swung toward aid to the Allies, on the basis of the way the peace plank was shaping up. Although it did accuse the President of making “provocative statements” which have brought the nation closer to war, and declared against American “involvement” in foreign wars, the plank explicitly called for sympathy and aid for “oppressed peoples” resisting aggression. But John B. Oakes writes in Wednesday’s editions of the Post that isolationists subsequently insisted on making the plank “punchier,” with still more language accusing the Democrats of promoting war, and watering down the support for aid to the Allies (“People of the United States feel and express a sympathetic interest in all oppressed peoples everywhere...”).
The platform wasn’t as explicit as former President Hoover’s address to the Convention Tuesday night, where he spoke of the impossibility of isolation and advocated sending munitions and materials to foreign nations fighting for their freedom. But Mr. Hoover’s own vagueness is disappointing. Is it too much to hope that whoever wins the G.O.P. nomination will somehow gather up the courage to support military aid to Britain by name? The Republicans need to show a healthier balance of determination to keep America out of war, while making it clear they’re willing to help Britain in her life-and-death fight with the common enemy of every civilized people.
ITALY SETTLES FOR LESS. So much for Mussolini’s haughty demands that Italy be given control of the entire French Mediterranean coast as the spoils of her two-week pop-gun war against France. The New York Times prints the peace terms that France and Italy have signed, and the Italian gains turn out to be quite a bit more moderate than first anticipated –- “military occupation of only a slim border belt in the Alps, demilitarization of French colonial outposts in North Africa and full rights over Jibuti, the only rail outlet to Italian East Africa.” But that’s not all, says the Times. “Italy got control of the French section of the railway running from [Jibuti] to Addis Ababa.” One can only presume that the Italians’ original extravagant demands were too much even for Petain’s defeatist regime, and that not even the Nazis could keep a straight face in pressing for their junior ally’s interests. Of course, this hasn't stopped the Duce from decreeing a lavish two-day “celebration” throughout Italy in honor of this famous victory.
SENATOR PITTMAN SAYS ENGLAND IS “LOST.” At least one prominent Senator now seems to say that Hitler will inevitably seize the British Isles and that the British Fleet should sail to the Americas without any further delay. An Associated Press story says Key Pittman, Democrat of Nevada, distributed a statement to reporters which said, among other things, “It is no secret that Great Britain is totally unprepared for defense and that nothing that the United States has to give can do more than delay the result.” But he hopes that the British will carry out Churchill’s pledge to fight on elsewhere --
“Churchill’s statement, ‘We will never surrender’ and that if any portions of the British Isles are subjugated ‘we will fight from the New World with our navy,’ if carried out and carried out immediately, will end Hitler’s ambition for world conquest. It is to be hoped that this plan will not be too long delayed by futile encouragement to fight on. It is conclusively evident that Congress will not authorize intervention in the European war.”
It’s worrying when Senators talk this way. Not necessarily because what they’re saying might be true, but because such opinions might discourage Congress from giving all-out military aid to Britain for the defense of the British Isles. And in discouraging American assistance, Senator Pittman and others of similar views might make their predictions into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let’s not write off the British homeland yet. As James B. Reston wrote in last Sunday’s New York Times, that “big moat” surrounding Britain should be a tougher challenge for the Nazi warriors than the French defenses were.
AN AXIS INVASION OF AMERICA. Then again, if you want something to worry about, look no farther than the current issue of Life magazine, which offers an illustrated three-page exploration of how a combination of Germany, Italy, and Japan might attack, and conquer, the United States. It drives home, as few other articles have done, just how important a powerful navy will be in keeping Nazi claws off the Americas.
Life’s scenario starts far away -- Japanese dive bombers launch a surprise raid on the Panama Canal, a Fascist fleet occupies the strategic port of Para, Brazil, and German bombers defeat U.S. planes in a battle over La Guiara, Venezuela. Naval battles take place in the Carribean between U.S. and Fascist cruisers, and Fascist bombing fleets lay waste to St. Thomas, Guayama, Barahona, the U.S. naval base at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. Then, the U.S. fleet is completely destroyed in a battle off the Brazilian coast. The way is cleared for German and Italian troops to land on the U.S. mainland, and they do -- first at Bay Head, N.J., and then at Wilmington, Delaware, beating back “small U.S. forces.” A Fascist air raid destroys the Croton Dam, leaving New York City’s millions in desperate need of water. The Fascist tanks and artillery then defeat “small, under-equipped U.S. forces” in the climactic Battle of Pittsburgh, while Nazi planes pulverize Akron, Chicago, and other Midwest industrial cities. Finally, in a ceremony inside the swastika-bedecked Independence Hall in Philadelphia, U.S. diplomats agree to a humiliating peace. Life concludes, “Although most of the U.S. remains unconquered, it cannot fight as its great arms centers in the East have been destroyed or captured.”
The most chilling part of Life’s dire fantasy is its date --- the magazine approached the “best available military sources in Washington” in February 1939, and asked them how the Germans and Italians might plan an invasion of America. The situation given was “that it was July 1941 and that Germany and Italy have defeated Britain and France.” But the editors decided not to publish their article and charcoal sketches showing step-by-step how the Axis attack would develop. “They appeared too sensational at the time,” says Life. But alas, not any more.
IT’S ALL IN BRITISH HANDS. The Chicago Tribune, in an uncharacteristically moderate and thoughtful editorial, doesn’t write off Britain’s chances against Hitler, but they don’t seem to imply much faith that the British war effect will eventually lead to victory, either. Still, the Tribune describes a hope that some people aren’t even daring to voice right now --
“The French as a people will survive. Their culture will continue. Their experience, if the experiences of Poland and other subjugated peoples are any guide, will be humiliating and hard to bear. Their fate for generations, it would seem, is in the hands of the British. The only power which now can save them and restore them to the position occupied last September is the British sea power and the ability of Mr. Churchill’s government to make better use of the war potential of the British empire than Reynaud succeeded in making of the French. The British are in an explicably angry mood. They, nevertheless, as long as they can carry on, are fighting the battle of France which the French have abandoned. If they win they will have the extraordinary opportunity, magnanimously used or not, of handing back to their insolvent allies the domain and the resources which have been surrendered. If the invader leaves French soil and restores all the provinces...if he is to be driven back and stripped of his power to coerce, it will be because again the British have proved themselves able to overthrow a continental military autocracy just when it seemed to have all of Europe firmly in its clutch.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)