"SUPER BOMBS" KILL 600 IN LONDON. The Associated Press has some choice language for Monday’s German air raid on London -- "nine hours and 41 minutes of fire-streaked, bomb-blasting horror." It was the longest and deadliest raid yet on the British capital, "the worst in British history," says the A.P.. A radio report this morning says the combined casualty totals of the week-end’s raids were 600 dead, 2,600 injured. Almost 2,000 German planes were involved in Monday’s raid. The New York Times reports that the bombs "fell more carelessly than ever. No section of London was immune." No doubt this is the real thing now -- the start of an all-out Blitzkrieg by which Germany intends to decide the war. Monday’s papers give banner headlines to the A.P.’s description of the Nazi explosives as "super bombs," but this is taken merely from an official German claim that the warplanes and bombs used in the latest raids are "of the deadly types reserved exclusively for Nazi knockout blows on special objectives," whatever that means.
But there does seem to be something else special about the current wave of mass raids. Percival Knauth writes in Monday’s New York Times that Reich Marshal Goering is now "personally directing operations." Mr. Knauth quotes authoritative German sources as telling him that "a new phase in the war has begun." The A.P. reports the belief that "Goering would not personally associate himself with anything but a major war action." And, most ominously, Nazi pilots claim that while British antiaircraft fire continues unabated, the R.A.F. fighter-plane defenses are losing their punch.
So much for the British press gloating the other week that the blitzkrieg has "spent its force," and the loose talk about Britain’s fighting men eventually taking the offensive, etc. Twice now, at the start of the Norwegian campaign and again last week, important Britons waxed optimistically when they should have known better. Notably, Prime Minister Churchill has abstained from such talk. Good for him. Britain will need his sober and tough leadership as the fight for the Empire’s life finally begins.
MURROW SAYS INVASION MIGHT BE SEPT. 18. Edward Murrow of the C.B.S. has been doing great eye-witness reporting from London, and gave a shrewd analysis last night as to just what the Germans are up to with the current mass raids. Here’s the quote, transcribed as best as I could from the live broadcast --
"The night bombing is serious and sensational. It makes headlines, kills people, and smashes property but it doesn’t win wars. It may be safely presumed that the Germans know that...several days of terror bombing will not cause this country to collapse....What happens next? The future must be viewed in relation to previous objectives...the western ports and convoys, the Midlands, and Welsh industrial towns and the southern airfields. And now we have the bombing of London. If this is the prelude to invasion, we must expect much heavier raids against London....And we must expect a sudden renewal of the attacks against fighter dromes near the coast, an effort to drive the fighters farther inland. If the Germans continue to hammer London for a few more nights and then sweep successfully to blasting airdromes with their dive bombers, it will probably be the signal for invasion."
Mr. Murrow relates the "currently favored date" for a German invasion as Wednesday, Sept. 18.
EYEWITNESS IMPRESSIONS. A number of other correspondents added some striking first-hand observations to their stories in Monday’s papers. A sampling --
Raymond Daniell, New York Times -- "This correspondent had a narrow escape shortly turning to his home this morning. Long before the bomb exploded, the inrush of air was felt inside the apartment as the bomb hurtled to earth, whistling. First the windows crashed in. Then the whole building swayed like a ship in stormy seas. Next came the blast of the exploding bomb. Then the air was filled with the odor of a burning gun-powder fuse, awakening boyhood memories of Fourth of July celebrations. Just a little way from the doorstep was a deep crater, which served as a reminder that this odor of the explosion was not a part of any celebration."
Larry Rue, Chicago Tribune -- "I heard the whine of one falling bomb, and saw its explosion lift a five story building into the air, where it seemed to be suspended for a moment and then it dissolved."
Tania Long, New York Herald Tribune -- "The grim thing about this war -- now that no holds are barred -- is that the poor people are getting the worst of it. For it is the working-class people, living and toiling for a couple of pounds a week, who live in the dock areas behind the factories and warehouses and gas and oil tanks which the Nazis are attempting to destroy....During an unconducted tour through this region early this afternoon one of the things that impressed this correspondent most was the rows of people lining up at the bus stops, all carrying small suitcases filled with the few possessions they had managed to save. They were the men, women and children who made up the mass exodus from the east of London to the center of the city. Later, dining in one of the largest hotels of central London, I saw some of these people coming in for temporary shelter. Women, gray-faced, hatless, their hair untidy, poured into the basement of the hotel, carrying babies from a few months to a few years old. The children were wrapped in blankets or quilts. A few whimpered. The majority lay limply in their mothers’ arms, and some even slept happily."
CONSCRIPTION DELAY TO BE KILLED? Maybe it was a little early to mourn the isolationists’ victory last week-end in the House vote to impose a sixty-day delay in the military draft. That is, if Monday’s Washington Post is correct in reporting that Capital Hill observers are predicting "swift agreement" by House-Senate conferees to eliminate the Fish amendment from the final version of the bill. The two chambers are at odds on this issue, the House approving a conscription delay by a seven-vote margin and the Senate rejecting it by two votes.
A couple of big factors, the Post reports -- "four of the five House members appointed to compose differences between the House and Senate versions of the measure voted against the Fish provision on the floor, while the Senate twice rejected similar moves." It sounds hopeful, and we should know soon enough. Congress aims now to pass a conscription bill sometime this week and adjourn by Sept. 25.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Sunday, September 8, 1940
LONDON HIT WITH 4,000 TONS OF BOMBS. Judging from the radio news this morning, it sounds like our worst fears are being realized. The Germans appear to be trying to demolish London via air attacks, just as Hitler boasted in his speech on Wednesday. Last night’s raid on the British capital went on for eight hours and eighteen minutes, from late afternoon until almost dawn. Some 1,500 planes caused what one news report calls "severe damage," though the specifics are censored. Apparently the Nazis have shifted the focus of their ongoing attacks from airports and armament works to industry and harbor works. No doubt now the civilian death toll is skyrocketing. And the rest of the country continues to be hit hard as well.
The Germans have shown signs in the last few days that they are going back to a strategy of mass air raids, after a period of seeming hesitation and small-scale raids by isolated striking groups. James M. Minifie writes in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune that Saturday’s raids over England "followed one after the other so fast that the southeastern section of England was virtually under continuous attack." But, he says, the Nazis haven’t come anywhere close to driving the R.A.F. out of the skies, and that German losses are approaching the 4-to-1 mark -- in this case, the British shot down forty-five Nazi warplanes in six separate raids over London yesterday. And as Percival Knath writes in Saturday’s New York Times, British planes continue to hit Berlin, staying over the city for three hours in a single raid earlier that day.
AN UNSETTLING REMINDER. But the stories of Britain inflicting huge losses on the Germans remind one of the newspaper dispatches from last January, which told of the heroic Finns forcing the Russians to pay a terrible price for their invasion. Yes, the Finns killed tens of thousands of Russians and destroyed tons of military materiel. But the Russians kept coming, the Finns ran out of ammunition, their soldiers collapsed from fatigue, and eventually Stalin’s armies prevailed. Could this be something akin to what Hitler is trying to do now? Does Germany have the resources to duplicate Stalin’s success? And if she does, then do the glowing reports of R.A.F. successes mean anything in the long run?
THE HUMAN COST OF BOMBING (II). Drew Middleton writes in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune that the latest wave of London bombings doesn’t seem to be doing much damage to military targets. But it is destroying the lives of the people who inhabit the East End slums. One sad image stands out --
"People of the slums walked silently past bombed houses in the stifling heat. An old man and a young woman, eyes red from weeping, stood outside one house. ‘I’m not going to leave. I’m not,’ the old man kept saying. ‘I’ve lived here 59 years. I’m not going. They’ll steal my clothes.’ An air raid warden said helplessly, ‘I took ‘em to a relief center where they have beds and food. They came right back. They won’t leave.’"
ISOLATIONISTS DELAY CONSCRIPTION. What perfect timing. With London facing the greatest crisis in its history, isolationist Congressmen in the House have thrown a monkey wrench into the Burke-Wadsworth bill. They're trying to delay -- and probably successfully -- the U.S. Army’s efforts to draft enough young men to meet defense goals this fall. The House passed Burke-Wadsworth yesterday evening, by a sizeable margin of 263 to 149 -- but with an amendment introduced by Representative Hamilton Fish, a leading isolationist, to delay the start of conscription for sixty days. The amendment passed by the much narrower margin of 207 to 200, and was sold to the House as giving volunteer recruitment a "fair trial" before a military draft is instituted. According to John G. Norris in Saturday’s Washington Post, the bill, as amended, also requires President Roosevelt to issue "an immediate call for 400,000 volunteers" to serve one-year enlistments, and for the Army to carry out an "intensive campaign" toward this end. If the number of volunteers fails to total 400,000, the President may draft the number of men necessary to reach that number.
It’s more of the kooky reasoning typical of the isolationists, masquerading as common sense. I remember the Chicago Tribune and other isolationist organs thundering last month about the Administration’s lack of planning on national defense. But now, they support an amendment which is designed to introduce elements of happenstance and variability into our plans for manning a modern army. Is there anything in America right now that can less afford to be dependent on the changing desires of individuals? And won’t the Fish amendment surely create result an Army that relies on one-year enlistments, insuring more of the chaos that the isolationists rage against? It’s almost as if the isolationists don’t want a strong U.S. army. And judging from some of their anti-war rhetoric and their constant pooh-poohing of Nazi dangers to our part of the world, it’s a reasonable suspicion that at least a few among this crowd see the Fish amendment as a form of sabotage -- and approve of it for that very reason.
HOW THE FISH AMENDMENT HURTS AMERICA. The Washington Post editors smell politics in Representative Fish’s amendment to the conscription bill, and they don’t mince words about it --
"Congress has already voted approximately $15,000,000,000 for defense preparations. It has recognized that we are unprepared for self-defense in a world where military conquest is running riot. Yet our Congressmen have voted to postpone the operation of an effective military training program until after they have conducted their political campaigns. In other words, the House is willing to falter and fumble because this happens to be an election year. The vote on the Fish amendment thus becomes a grave confession of weakness. It reflects discredit upon the quality of statesmanship in the House. What is far more serious, it suggests that our democratic system is not equal to the stern task of preparing the Nation for defense in the national emergency."
The Post explains concisely just what harm the Fish amendment does -- "It would make hash out of the careful plan represented by the Burke-Wadsworth bill. No one should forget that that under this bill voluntary soldiers would still be sought. Many thousands of men are needed to bring our professional Army up to full strength. These must be obtained through three-year voluntary enlistments. The Fish amendment . . . would bring a drive for one-year enlistments. We would thus acquire a reserve army composed of both volunteers and drafted men. And the Regular Army which must train these one-year recruits would be denied the essential increase in its professional personnel . . . . It appears, moreover, that the Fish amendment would limit the total number of men to be drafted or accepted as volunteers to 800,000. That number is far below the reserve force which the Army believes is essential to national defense."
The Germans have shown signs in the last few days that they are going back to a strategy of mass air raids, after a period of seeming hesitation and small-scale raids by isolated striking groups. James M. Minifie writes in Saturday’s New York Herald Tribune that Saturday’s raids over England "followed one after the other so fast that the southeastern section of England was virtually under continuous attack." But, he says, the Nazis haven’t come anywhere close to driving the R.A.F. out of the skies, and that German losses are approaching the 4-to-1 mark -- in this case, the British shot down forty-five Nazi warplanes in six separate raids over London yesterday. And as Percival Knath writes in Saturday’s New York Times, British planes continue to hit Berlin, staying over the city for three hours in a single raid earlier that day.
AN UNSETTLING REMINDER. But the stories of Britain inflicting huge losses on the Germans remind one of the newspaper dispatches from last January, which told of the heroic Finns forcing the Russians to pay a terrible price for their invasion. Yes, the Finns killed tens of thousands of Russians and destroyed tons of military materiel. But the Russians kept coming, the Finns ran out of ammunition, their soldiers collapsed from fatigue, and eventually Stalin’s armies prevailed. Could this be something akin to what Hitler is trying to do now? Does Germany have the resources to duplicate Stalin’s success? And if she does, then do the glowing reports of R.A.F. successes mean anything in the long run?
THE HUMAN COST OF BOMBING (II). Drew Middleton writes in Saturday’s Chicago Tribune that the latest wave of London bombings doesn’t seem to be doing much damage to military targets. But it is destroying the lives of the people who inhabit the East End slums. One sad image stands out --
"People of the slums walked silently past bombed houses in the stifling heat. An old man and a young woman, eyes red from weeping, stood outside one house. ‘I’m not going to leave. I’m not,’ the old man kept saying. ‘I’ve lived here 59 years. I’m not going. They’ll steal my clothes.’ An air raid warden said helplessly, ‘I took ‘em to a relief center where they have beds and food. They came right back. They won’t leave.’"
ISOLATIONISTS DELAY CONSCRIPTION. What perfect timing. With London facing the greatest crisis in its history, isolationist Congressmen in the House have thrown a monkey wrench into the Burke-Wadsworth bill. They're trying to delay -- and probably successfully -- the U.S. Army’s efforts to draft enough young men to meet defense goals this fall. The House passed Burke-Wadsworth yesterday evening, by a sizeable margin of 263 to 149 -- but with an amendment introduced by Representative Hamilton Fish, a leading isolationist, to delay the start of conscription for sixty days. The amendment passed by the much narrower margin of 207 to 200, and was sold to the House as giving volunteer recruitment a "fair trial" before a military draft is instituted. According to John G. Norris in Saturday’s Washington Post, the bill, as amended, also requires President Roosevelt to issue "an immediate call for 400,000 volunteers" to serve one-year enlistments, and for the Army to carry out an "intensive campaign" toward this end. If the number of volunteers fails to total 400,000, the President may draft the number of men necessary to reach that number.
It’s more of the kooky reasoning typical of the isolationists, masquerading as common sense. I remember the Chicago Tribune and other isolationist organs thundering last month about the Administration’s lack of planning on national defense. But now, they support an amendment which is designed to introduce elements of happenstance and variability into our plans for manning a modern army. Is there anything in America right now that can less afford to be dependent on the changing desires of individuals? And won’t the Fish amendment surely create result an Army that relies on one-year enlistments, insuring more of the chaos that the isolationists rage against? It’s almost as if the isolationists don’t want a strong U.S. army. And judging from some of their anti-war rhetoric and their constant pooh-poohing of Nazi dangers to our part of the world, it’s a reasonable suspicion that at least a few among this crowd see the Fish amendment as a form of sabotage -- and approve of it for that very reason.
HOW THE FISH AMENDMENT HURTS AMERICA. The Washington Post editors smell politics in Representative Fish’s amendment to the conscription bill, and they don’t mince words about it --
"Congress has already voted approximately $15,000,000,000 for defense preparations. It has recognized that we are unprepared for self-defense in a world where military conquest is running riot. Yet our Congressmen have voted to postpone the operation of an effective military training program until after they have conducted their political campaigns. In other words, the House is willing to falter and fumble because this happens to be an election year. The vote on the Fish amendment thus becomes a grave confession of weakness. It reflects discredit upon the quality of statesmanship in the House. What is far more serious, it suggests that our democratic system is not equal to the stern task of preparing the Nation for defense in the national emergency."
The Post explains concisely just what harm the Fish amendment does -- "It would make hash out of the careful plan represented by the Burke-Wadsworth bill. No one should forget that that under this bill voluntary soldiers would still be sought. Many thousands of men are needed to bring our professional Army up to full strength. These must be obtained through three-year voluntary enlistments. The Fish amendment . . . would bring a drive for one-year enlistments. We would thus acquire a reserve army composed of both volunteers and drafted men. And the Regular Army which must train these one-year recruits would be denied the essential increase in its professional personnel . . . . It appears, moreover, that the Fish amendment would limit the total number of men to be drafted or accepted as volunteers to 800,000. That number is far below the reserve force which the Army believes is essential to national defense."
Monday, September 5, 2016
Thursday, September 5, 1940
ROOSEVELT’S DEAL -- DESTROYERS FOR BASES. The story was rumored for awhile, denied more than once, and now it turns out to be true. Wednesday’s papers headline the Administration’s dramatic announcement that America will send fifty old U.S. Navy destroyers to Britain in exchange for eight strategic air and sea bases on British possessions in the Western Hemisphere. The action will not be submitted to Congress for approval. The bases will establish what Frank Kluckhohn in Wednesday’s New York Times calls a "new American defense line" that will extend 4,000 miles from Newfoundland to British Guiana. Other bases will be set up on Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Antigua. Another interesting tidbit in the agreement, says the Times, is a British pledge to not surrender nor scuttle the British Fleet "under any conditions."
The reaction is largely predictable. The Times’ Raymond Daniell reports in a separate story from London that "it would be impossible to overstate the jubilation" in Britain, where it’s seen as long-awaited proof that the U.S. is really willing to give the anti-Hitler cause "all aid short of war." But according to Chesly Manly in the Chicago Tribune, the isolationists think the move is an act of war itself. He says the fact that President Roosevelt did this without consulting Congress "will result in a storm of condemnation on the floor of the senate and may lead to an investigation by the naval affairs committee." The President claims it’s the most important agreement for the defense of the nation since the Louisiana Purchase. That may be overstating it, but I think if followed-up promptly with construction of proper military equipment and deployment of troops -- neither one a sure thing -- the it will go a long way toward achieving what the Times describes as calls its intent -- "to make difficult, if not impossible, naval and air attacks upon the United States and much of the New World."
WILLKIE’S TAKE ON THE DEAL. Wendell Willkie’s position makes the most sense -- in favor of the agreement, opposed to the secrecy and undemocratic means used to bring it about. "The people have a right to know of such important commitments prior to and not after they are made," he says. As Mr. Willkie argues, the Administration’s short-cut approach isn’t just a matter of convenience, but a danger to democracy around the world -- "It is the contention of totalitarian rulers that democracy is not effective. We must prove that it is effective by making full use of its process. Congress has constitutional functions as important and sacred as those of the Chief Executive." And frustrating as it is to put up with to the prattle of congressional isolationists, it’s irresponsible to refuse them the right to debate such a vital question. After all, this is Senator Nye’s country just as much as it is Senator Pepper’s.
The transfer of the destroyers, a fine idea in itself, does raise some important questions. Legal scholars have written that a World War-era statute flat-out forbids the transfer, and the statutory language itself seems clear in that regard. Even if the statute could be quickly amended, might it be an "act of war" to give Britain the vessels? Arguably, no, but as Mr. Willkie says, "That is one of the things debate and discussion would have completely clarified." It all just gives more support to Republican arguments that the New Dealers are concerned much more with ends than with means. And it may be a short-sighted course as well. After all, the Administration’s position on the peacetime draft prevailed in the Senate by only two votes. What effect will congressional outrage have the next time the President needs support on a critical defense issue? Next time he might not be able to sail by with a glibly-worded "It’s O.K." from Attorney General Biddle. He might have to actually follow the democratic process. And he may have just done great harm to his chances of prevailing over House and Senate isolationists the next time.
WHAT THE PRESS SAYS. The New York Herald Tribune gave over an entire inside page of its Wednesday editions to excerpt editorial comments on the destroyer-for-bases-deal from around the country. Some highlights --
Philadelphia Inquirer -- "The fact that this, in the words of the President, ‘is the most important action in the reinforcement of our national defense that has been taken since the Louisiana Purchase,’ makes it all the more necessary its establishment on a firm, undoubted, legal foundation....If the President had submitted this unprecedented proposal to Congress in advance, for its approval or rejection, it would have gone a long way toward preventing some of the criticism heard yesterday in Washington."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch -- "Mr. Roosevelt today committed an act of war. He also became America’s first dictator. Secretly, his Secretary of State, Mr. Hull, entered into an agreement with the British ambassador that amounts to a military and naval alliance with Great Britain. This secretly negotiated agreement was consummated yesterday, Sept. 2. Today Congress is informed of the agreement. Note well the word ‘informed’...He hands down an edict that may eventually result in the shedding of the blood of millions of Americans; that may result in transforming the United States into a goose-stepping, regimented slave state....If Congress and the people do not rise in solemn wrath to stop Roosevelt now -- at this moment -- then the country deserves the stupendous tragedy that looms right around the corner."
Newark Star Ledger -- "There will be debate concerning the novel methods employed by the President in settling the destroyer problem. In any event, the President should at the appropriate time explain to the people why he did not consult with Congress a month ago or earlier when, it is clear, he had not yet been assured by the Attorney General of his right to act without Congress. The President has done a magnificent thing in a doubtful manner."
Des Moines Register -- "What we have got is two things that we want. First is a strengthening of the British fleet at its weakest point, destroyers, which at least somewhat increases the chance that the war can be kept on the far side of the Atlantic. Second is the strengthening of our own position in this hemisphere, a strengthening in the very fundamental of naval and air operation, which will do more in any emergency to make us invulnerable clear down to the middle of South America....no American is likely to kick because we got the best of the bargain."
Portland (Maine) Press-Herald -- "Even if the majority of the American people actually believe that we should give away, at a time when we are struggling for national preparedness, more than a fifth of our destroyer fleet, a bigger majority may be expected to hold that, if this action is to be taken, it should be taken by their representatives in Congress and not under the imperial ukase of a single man. Those fifty destroyers may prove in fact to be destroyers of American peace."
Cleveland Plain Dealer -- "The question of method aside, most Americans will agree that the President’s securing of these base sites constitutes a major step in national defense. At the same time the act of turning the over-age destroyers over to Britain is a recognition of the truth that she is now fighting for the safety of American democracy, as well as her own, as she turns back wave after wave of Nazi bombers darkening the English sky. Frankly, we would like it better if some degree of co-operation on the part of Congress had been sought in spite of what the Attorney General says."
Los Angeles Times -- "It appears at least a fair inference that the transfer was made contingent, among other things, on Britain’s pledge that we shall not be left without prospective naval help from England in case she is forced to abandon the home islands. If that is the proposition, it would pretty well make us an ally in fact of Britain. It could be inferred that, if Britain so urgently requires 50 over-age destroyers, her situation may be considerably worse than is publicly admitted. A third possibility is that this and other similar steps are calculated maneuvers to ease us into the status of active belligerency. There is no doubt of the real necessity of the air and naval bases. Whether we have paid too high a price for them, in thus being brought nearer to war, is a question that only time can answer."
HOPEFULLY A SAFE DISTANCE. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting Sidney Skolsky’s column in the New York Post -- "Leland Hayward has purchased 26 acres near Albuquerque and intends to move his wife, Margaret Sullavan, and their child there. He fears a Japanese invasion in California."
The reaction is largely predictable. The Times’ Raymond Daniell reports in a separate story from London that "it would be impossible to overstate the jubilation" in Britain, where it’s seen as long-awaited proof that the U.S. is really willing to give the anti-Hitler cause "all aid short of war." But according to Chesly Manly in the Chicago Tribune, the isolationists think the move is an act of war itself. He says the fact that President Roosevelt did this without consulting Congress "will result in a storm of condemnation on the floor of the senate and may lead to an investigation by the naval affairs committee." The President claims it’s the most important agreement for the defense of the nation since the Louisiana Purchase. That may be overstating it, but I think if followed-up promptly with construction of proper military equipment and deployment of troops -- neither one a sure thing -- the it will go a long way toward achieving what the Times describes as calls its intent -- "to make difficult, if not impossible, naval and air attacks upon the United States and much of the New World."
WILLKIE’S TAKE ON THE DEAL. Wendell Willkie’s position makes the most sense -- in favor of the agreement, opposed to the secrecy and undemocratic means used to bring it about. "The people have a right to know of such important commitments prior to and not after they are made," he says. As Mr. Willkie argues, the Administration’s short-cut approach isn’t just a matter of convenience, but a danger to democracy around the world -- "It is the contention of totalitarian rulers that democracy is not effective. We must prove that it is effective by making full use of its process. Congress has constitutional functions as important and sacred as those of the Chief Executive." And frustrating as it is to put up with to the prattle of congressional isolationists, it’s irresponsible to refuse them the right to debate such a vital question. After all, this is Senator Nye’s country just as much as it is Senator Pepper’s.
The transfer of the destroyers, a fine idea in itself, does raise some important questions. Legal scholars have written that a World War-era statute flat-out forbids the transfer, and the statutory language itself seems clear in that regard. Even if the statute could be quickly amended, might it be an "act of war" to give Britain the vessels? Arguably, no, but as Mr. Willkie says, "That is one of the things debate and discussion would have completely clarified." It all just gives more support to Republican arguments that the New Dealers are concerned much more with ends than with means. And it may be a short-sighted course as well. After all, the Administration’s position on the peacetime draft prevailed in the Senate by only two votes. What effect will congressional outrage have the next time the President needs support on a critical defense issue? Next time he might not be able to sail by with a glibly-worded "It’s O.K." from Attorney General Biddle. He might have to actually follow the democratic process. And he may have just done great harm to his chances of prevailing over House and Senate isolationists the next time.
WHAT THE PRESS SAYS. The New York Herald Tribune gave over an entire inside page of its Wednesday editions to excerpt editorial comments on the destroyer-for-bases-deal from around the country. Some highlights --
Philadelphia Inquirer -- "The fact that this, in the words of the President, ‘is the most important action in the reinforcement of our national defense that has been taken since the Louisiana Purchase,’ makes it all the more necessary its establishment on a firm, undoubted, legal foundation....If the President had submitted this unprecedented proposal to Congress in advance, for its approval or rejection, it would have gone a long way toward preventing some of the criticism heard yesterday in Washington."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch -- "Mr. Roosevelt today committed an act of war. He also became America’s first dictator. Secretly, his Secretary of State, Mr. Hull, entered into an agreement with the British ambassador that amounts to a military and naval alliance with Great Britain. This secretly negotiated agreement was consummated yesterday, Sept. 2. Today Congress is informed of the agreement. Note well the word ‘informed’...He hands down an edict that may eventually result in the shedding of the blood of millions of Americans; that may result in transforming the United States into a goose-stepping, regimented slave state....If Congress and the people do not rise in solemn wrath to stop Roosevelt now -- at this moment -- then the country deserves the stupendous tragedy that looms right around the corner."
Newark Star Ledger -- "There will be debate concerning the novel methods employed by the President in settling the destroyer problem. In any event, the President should at the appropriate time explain to the people why he did not consult with Congress a month ago or earlier when, it is clear, he had not yet been assured by the Attorney General of his right to act without Congress. The President has done a magnificent thing in a doubtful manner."
Des Moines Register -- "What we have got is two things that we want. First is a strengthening of the British fleet at its weakest point, destroyers, which at least somewhat increases the chance that the war can be kept on the far side of the Atlantic. Second is the strengthening of our own position in this hemisphere, a strengthening in the very fundamental of naval and air operation, which will do more in any emergency to make us invulnerable clear down to the middle of South America....no American is likely to kick because we got the best of the bargain."
Portland (Maine) Press-Herald -- "Even if the majority of the American people actually believe that we should give away, at a time when we are struggling for national preparedness, more than a fifth of our destroyer fleet, a bigger majority may be expected to hold that, if this action is to be taken, it should be taken by their representatives in Congress and not under the imperial ukase of a single man. Those fifty destroyers may prove in fact to be destroyers of American peace."
Cleveland Plain Dealer -- "The question of method aside, most Americans will agree that the President’s securing of these base sites constitutes a major step in national defense. At the same time the act of turning the over-age destroyers over to Britain is a recognition of the truth that she is now fighting for the safety of American democracy, as well as her own, as she turns back wave after wave of Nazi bombers darkening the English sky. Frankly, we would like it better if some degree of co-operation on the part of Congress had been sought in spite of what the Attorney General says."
Los Angeles Times -- "It appears at least a fair inference that the transfer was made contingent, among other things, on Britain’s pledge that we shall not be left without prospective naval help from England in case she is forced to abandon the home islands. If that is the proposition, it would pretty well make us an ally in fact of Britain. It could be inferred that, if Britain so urgently requires 50 over-age destroyers, her situation may be considerably worse than is publicly admitted. A third possibility is that this and other similar steps are calculated maneuvers to ease us into the status of active belligerency. There is no doubt of the real necessity of the air and naval bases. Whether we have paid too high a price for them, in thus being brought nearer to war, is a question that only time can answer."
HOPEFULLY A SAFE DISTANCE. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting Sidney Skolsky’s column in the New York Post -- "Leland Hayward has purchased 26 acres near Albuquerque and intends to move his wife, Margaret Sullavan, and their child there. He fears a Japanese invasion in California."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)