TODAY’S ITALIAN DEFEATS (PART XXXVII). British troops continue their advance into Italian-held Libya, and the Associated Press reports that the Royal Air Force continues to pound some 20,000 besieged Fascist troops in the fortress of Bardia -- which appears likely to fall shortly. British planes are also bombing Marshal Graziani’s tougher defenses farther west, at Bengasi. This sounds bad enough, but the A.P. makes Italian prospects sound absolutely catastrophic -- "Since there was no apparent move by the Italian leader to send aid to his beleaguered forces in the Eastern Libyan port it was assumed by military sources that the Bardia garrison had been chosen to hold up British forces while Marshal Graziani prepared a ‘last ditch’ stand in Western Libya." Can Mussolini’s armies really be that close to being completely chased out of northern Africa? That’s dumbfounding, but given the extent of the Italian military collapse since October, I suppose it’s now credible.
Italy appears to be putting up a stiffer fight in Albania, where fresh troops have been sent into battle with Greek forces around the towns of Tepelini and Klisura, while wave after wave of Italian bombing planes have been sent out in a desperate attempt to stop the Greek advance. According to Ben Ames of United Press, some 50,000 Italian troops are said to be "locked in a mountain trap" by blistering Greek attacks on three sides. For all of the increased Fascist resistance, the Greek advance appears to continue, albeit slowly.
And Marshal Graziani has just submitted a report to Mussolini which explains that Italian troops have fought well in Egypt and Libya, but were outnumbered in men and machines. An A.P. dispatch says he gives backhanded credit to the British Navy’s blockade for helping to turn the tide -- "The Fascists failed to start an offensive on Matruh, Egypt, early in December because they lacked armored cars, tanks, and other mechanized equipment which had not arrived from Italy in due time."
WHO STANDS AGAINST BRITAIN? Britain has ordered about $2,500,000,000 worth of steel and other equipment from the U.S., and is expected now to receive de facto credits of $3,000,000,000 in additional war supplies during the coming year. But Harold Callender writes in Sunday’s New York Times just who’s trying to derail this urgently-needed aid --
"While all signs indicate that a large majority of the public wants to help Britain win, but without going to war, the dissenting minority, though it may have diminished, remains highly vocal in and outside Congress, and it has not been silenced by the proposed shift of the British credit question from the sphere of finance to the sphere of barter. Some, like Brig. Gen. Robert E. Wood, would prefer that this country press for peace negotiations now instead of placing American industrial resources behind Britain for a perhaps prolonged struggle to defeat Hitler. The new ‘No Foreign War Committee,’ a foil to the White Committee to Aid the Allies, opposes the President’s barter-loan scheme and asserts that Americans again, as in 1917, are being ‘played for suckers.’ Senator Holt of West Virginia suspects some Americans want to plunge into the war to help Britain, and Senator Nye argues that Britain needs no credits and that anyhow she herself declared ths war."
Mr. Callender also aptly sums up the current differences between interventionists and isolationists, and hints at where both sides might even find agreement -- "Mingled together in the minds of the dissenters are fear of America being in war, doubts about the outcome of the struggle and a traditional suspicion of everything British. Some deny that Britain is America’s first line of defense; others question the endurance of that line. Even many who ardently favor helping Britain would recoil from carrying that help so far as fighting by her side and from measures entailing risk of war. The basic division is between those who think the greatest danger for America is involvement in war and those who think the greatest danger lies in a Nazi victory."
HITLER’S WOES SINCE JULY. Why did the German Foreign Office abruptly issue an angry denunciation of American foreign policy last week, after months of contemptuous indifference on the question of U.S. aid to Britain? Washington Post columnist Barnet Nover says it reflects a growing lack of confidence among the Nazis. In detailing this he offers what amounts to a six-month roundup of Axis troubles, contrasting mightily with their spring and summer triumphs --
"The last few months have been most unsatisfactory from the German point of view. The serial assault on Great Britain has failed to bring that great nation to her knees. But the alternative policy of an attack on Britain’s Mediterranean positions has also proved unworkable. In the first place, Hitler’s diplomatic offensive met with failure; secondly, the Greek resistance placed an unexpected obstacle in the way of an Axis advance to the Near East through the Balkans; and most recently, the defeat of the Italians in Egypt and Libya has made it impossible for Hitler and Mussolini to carry out a pincers movement against the Suez Canal. Indeed, Mussolini will be fortunate if he emerges from the African struggle with his whole skin. Because of these developments Hitler has had to revert to this original plan of winning the war by an assault on Great Britain. He must do so soon for if he waits too long American production may weigh the scales against him. But if such an assault is to be undertaken in the proximate future there must be an intensification of the efforts to wear down Great Britain by means of bombing raids on British centers and U-boat and bombing attacks on British shipping."
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Sunday, December 22, 1940
ROOSEVELT’S NEW "SUPER-COMMISSION." The big story this week-end (except in some of the isolationist papers) is President Roosevelt’s appointment of a four-member "superagency" to oversee the nation’s defense effort. It’s humble title is the Office for Production Management. It sounds like a promising attempt to speed up preparedness and eliminate the monkey wrenches which plague defense production. But the newspaper accounts provide as many questions as answers. The Board will have "full powers," according to George Bookman in the Washington Post -- but it "would not supercede the Army and Navy in the actual signing of contracts." Bruce Pinter in the New York Herald Tribune writes that the Board will be independent and its decisions will not be "subject to [Roosevelt’s] immediate approval." But "if any action was taken which he deemed contrary to the nation’s best interests he would call in the board and put them straight." Will the Board speed up production? Production has been speeding up every day, said the President elliptically.
As is his habit these days, the President claimed constitutional power to form the Board without the approval of Congress. He will form the agency through a series of executive orders, in a process expected to take about ten days. Interestingly, of the Board’s four members -- Secretary of War Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Knox, automobile production wizard William S. Knudson, and union leader Sidney Hillman -- none is a Democrat. That’s a smart move politically, though it seems on the surface to increase the chances that the Board and the President might soon be publicly at odds.
STRAIGHT (AND SCARY) TALK IN TOKYO. If you’re looking for reassurance that the U.S. and Japan might smoothe over their frayed relations anytime soon, you won’t find it in Friday’s New York Times. Hugh Byas’ story on a blunt exchange of views between U.S. Ambassador Grew and Foreign Minister Matsuoka adds up to two things -- (1) the Roosevelt Administration is warning Japan unambiguously that America won’t cooperate with Japan’s plans for a "new order in Greater East Asia," and (2) according to Matsuoka, "Japan’s policy in the future will revolve around the three-power pact" with Germany and Italy.
The occasion was a mixed Japanese-American gathering in Tokyo honoring Japan’s new ambassador to Washington, Admiral Nomura. To Minister Matsuoka’s insistence that Japan’s aggression in China, and now in Indo-China, was a "moral crusade," Ambassador Grew retorted, "Let us say of nations as of men, by their fruits ye shall know them." On the other hand, Matsuoka warned that if the Administration brought the U.S. into the European war, the result would be "Armageddon and total destruction of our culture and civilization." This contrasts with the foreign minister’s tone a week ago, when he emphasized "safeguards" and "delays" in the wording of the three-power pact which would give the Japanese some leeway in its decision-making if the U.S. went to war with Germany.
The upshot of this seems to be that in recent months Japan has been telling America to stay out of Asia, and now they’re telling us to stay out of Europe as well. Fortunately, at least for the time being, they will allow to us remain involved in the affairs of North and South America.
THE ARGUMENT FOR NEGOTIATIONS. Just in time for Christmas, the Chicago Tribune’s editorial page insists once again that Europe’s warring powers should agree to a compromise peace treaty --
"In spite of sea and air attacks, the two belligerents are making no progress whatever toward a decision. If the war isn’t a stalemate, it at least is as far removed from anything promising success to either side. Apparently both can continue to withstand anything the other can throw at it for an indefinite period. There is great loss and suffering, but there is nothing promising a victory in any of the operations. British ingenuity is at work on methods to meet the attacks on its shipping. There has been success at that before and it may be expected that each new development in attack will be followed by a counteracting development in defense....Italy is suffering reverses. Before these reverses go too far the Nazis will probably give their fascist allies some effective aid....Germany’s inability to get at Great Britain for a fight to the finish is matched by Great Britain’s inability to get at Germany....People who reject all idea of a negotiated peace and talk of destroying the enemy must reject the facts. Unless something unforeseen or unforeseeable happens, the war remains one in which neither side can see an outcome favoring the continuance of unavailing but destructive efforts. Payment is deferred, but all this will be paid for. The longer it is deferred the more punishing the costs will be. Europe nearly cracked up in 1918."
A chilling possibility to contemplate, but once again the Tribune editors ignore the central question -- could Britain or the U.S. hope to live in peace with a Nazi Europe? Those who believe so "reject the facts" of what happened to Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the low countries, France, and most recently Rumania. Aside from the moral question of turning our backs on the fate of these conquered peoples, it is folly to think that Hitler will miraculously begin living up to agreements with anyone. Every one of these tragic nations once received a hands-off guarantee from Germany. Could anyone really imagine the U.S. enjoying equitable trade relations with such a cynical, deceitful regime ascendant in Europe? Even if every one of the Tribune’s points were true -- pretty debatable in itself -- a negotiated peace could only be worse.
As is his habit these days, the President claimed constitutional power to form the Board without the approval of Congress. He will form the agency through a series of executive orders, in a process expected to take about ten days. Interestingly, of the Board’s four members -- Secretary of War Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Knox, automobile production wizard William S. Knudson, and union leader Sidney Hillman -- none is a Democrat. That’s a smart move politically, though it seems on the surface to increase the chances that the Board and the President might soon be publicly at odds.
STRAIGHT (AND SCARY) TALK IN TOKYO. If you’re looking for reassurance that the U.S. and Japan might smoothe over their frayed relations anytime soon, you won’t find it in Friday’s New York Times. Hugh Byas’ story on a blunt exchange of views between U.S. Ambassador Grew and Foreign Minister Matsuoka adds up to two things -- (1) the Roosevelt Administration is warning Japan unambiguously that America won’t cooperate with Japan’s plans for a "new order in Greater East Asia," and (2) according to Matsuoka, "Japan’s policy in the future will revolve around the three-power pact" with Germany and Italy.
The occasion was a mixed Japanese-American gathering in Tokyo honoring Japan’s new ambassador to Washington, Admiral Nomura. To Minister Matsuoka’s insistence that Japan’s aggression in China, and now in Indo-China, was a "moral crusade," Ambassador Grew retorted, "Let us say of nations as of men, by their fruits ye shall know them." On the other hand, Matsuoka warned that if the Administration brought the U.S. into the European war, the result would be "Armageddon and total destruction of our culture and civilization." This contrasts with the foreign minister’s tone a week ago, when he emphasized "safeguards" and "delays" in the wording of the three-power pact which would give the Japanese some leeway in its decision-making if the U.S. went to war with Germany.
The upshot of this seems to be that in recent months Japan has been telling America to stay out of Asia, and now they’re telling us to stay out of Europe as well. Fortunately, at least for the time being, they will allow to us remain involved in the affairs of North and South America.
THE ARGUMENT FOR NEGOTIATIONS. Just in time for Christmas, the Chicago Tribune’s editorial page insists once again that Europe’s warring powers should agree to a compromise peace treaty --
"In spite of sea and air attacks, the two belligerents are making no progress whatever toward a decision. If the war isn’t a stalemate, it at least is as far removed from anything promising success to either side. Apparently both can continue to withstand anything the other can throw at it for an indefinite period. There is great loss and suffering, but there is nothing promising a victory in any of the operations. British ingenuity is at work on methods to meet the attacks on its shipping. There has been success at that before and it may be expected that each new development in attack will be followed by a counteracting development in defense....Italy is suffering reverses. Before these reverses go too far the Nazis will probably give their fascist allies some effective aid....Germany’s inability to get at Great Britain for a fight to the finish is matched by Great Britain’s inability to get at Germany....People who reject all idea of a negotiated peace and talk of destroying the enemy must reject the facts. Unless something unforeseen or unforeseeable happens, the war remains one in which neither side can see an outcome favoring the continuance of unavailing but destructive efforts. Payment is deferred, but all this will be paid for. The longer it is deferred the more punishing the costs will be. Europe nearly cracked up in 1918."
A chilling possibility to contemplate, but once again the Tribune editors ignore the central question -- could Britain or the U.S. hope to live in peace with a Nazi Europe? Those who believe so "reject the facts" of what happened to Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the low countries, France, and most recently Rumania. Aside from the moral question of turning our backs on the fate of these conquered peoples, it is folly to think that Hitler will miraculously begin living up to agreements with anyone. Every one of these tragic nations once received a hands-off guarantee from Germany. Could anyone really imagine the U.S. enjoying equitable trade relations with such a cynical, deceitful regime ascendant in Europe? Even if every one of the Tribune’s points were true -- pretty debatable in itself -- a negotiated peace could only be worse.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Thursday, December 19, 1940
ROOSEVELT PROPOSES "LENDING" ARMS. Early in the next congressional session, President Roosevelt will propose a novel method of aiding Britain. While gifts and loans to purchase war materials have been discussed (and denounced), the President’s reportedly opting for something that sounds in-between. As George Bookman in the Washington Post explains it, under this plan "the United States would pay for all future British arms orders, and lease or mortgage the equipment to Great Britain, with a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that England would make repayment in kind after the war." In other words, when the war is over Britain will owe the U.S. a debt not of money, but in goods, and she could pay that debt either by returning the goods she has used, or manufacturing new items to replace goods destroyed in combat. It’s the President’s way of getting around the "silly dollar sign" that Secretary Morgenthau warns will soon prevent the British from obtaining further U.S. war supplies. Administration officials have said for some time that Britain is not in financial shape to buy war aid from us much longer.
It’s a smart step, a thoughtful way to get around Britain’s financial concerns without doing damage to the fragile political consensus that aid to the British is necessary for America’s own defense. It also gets around the necessity to alter the Johnson Act. The isolationists think otherwise, of course. The Chicago Tribune’s Walter Trohan writes a fairly balanced story on the plan in Wednesday’s editions, although the opening paragraph declares sensationally that "the full resources of the United States will be placed at the disposal of Great Britain for the duration of the war against Germany, without one cent of immediate cost to the British empire." A more level-headed newspaper reader, on the other hand, has good reason to doubt the British would denude our own defenses, or that the Administration has given Prime Minister Churchill carte blanche over how U.S. military resources might be deployed.
One other clever aspect of the plan in particular -- it would help a victorious Britain stay afloat financially after the war, by providing a ready-made market for production of British goods.
WHY "AID" HAS BEEN A MISNOMER. Up until the President’s announcement, much of the discussion about aid to Britain centered on loans of various kinds. But that reduces the question of Britain’s survival and the cause of democracy to a penny-pinching argument over whether the British are a good credit risk. James S. Pope in the Louisville Courier-Journal has written one of the best critiques of this narrow, penny-pinching approach, in words reprinted in this week’s issue of Time magazine --
"The phrase of the moment is ‘Aid to England.’ I, for one, am sick of it. Dr. Gallup says practically all Americans favor ‘aid to England.’...Columnists speak learnedly of the ‘aid’ we already are giving Britain. Our President delivers himself of the odd observation that our ‘aid to England’ has reached its peak....In heaven’s high name, how have we aided England? When? Whose sacrifice produced the aid?...We have sold England an indeterminate number of military airplanes. She has paid cash. She has come and got them. We have sold England, I understand, some old rifles and various shipments of ammunition. She paid cash. She came and got them....Finally, in a moment of benign generosity, we traded England some rotting destroyers for some air and naval bases so valuable to our defense that even Mr. Churchill had difficulty justifying the deal to his Parliament."
"We are going to sell her more and more planes, if our factories will just decide to push them fast enough. We are going to sell England practically anything she wants – if we don’t want it first.... And Napoleon called England a nation of shopkeepers! Oh, America, thou valiant, thou strong. Land of freedom. Eternal foe of cruelty and oppression. defender of men’s minds and men’s properties – of men’s ‘rights.’ What an inspiration we are....We are opening our hearts. We are opening our order books....We are in the throes of a pleasant national orgy of ‘aid to England.’ Ain’t it wonderful?"
A WINTER INVASION OF BRITAIN? It’s a real possibility. At least that’s what they’re saying now -- Lord Beaverbrook in a British radio broadcast Tuesday night (as reported in the New York Herald Tribune), and Alf Landon, quoted in an Associated Press dispatch. Speaking from Topeka, Mr. Landon said that while in Washington recently "from reliable official resources I was advised that Hitler plans to start his English invasion in the middle of February." An earlier date makes more sense to me than a later one. It’s not in the Fuehrer’s personality to fulfill widely-held expectations that he would wait until sometime in the spring. Moreover, the element of surprise would by now be indispensable to the success of any invasion plan, given the toughness of British resistance.
It’s a smart step, a thoughtful way to get around Britain’s financial concerns without doing damage to the fragile political consensus that aid to the British is necessary for America’s own defense. It also gets around the necessity to alter the Johnson Act. The isolationists think otherwise, of course. The Chicago Tribune’s Walter Trohan writes a fairly balanced story on the plan in Wednesday’s editions, although the opening paragraph declares sensationally that "the full resources of the United States will be placed at the disposal of Great Britain for the duration of the war against Germany, without one cent of immediate cost to the British empire." A more level-headed newspaper reader, on the other hand, has good reason to doubt the British would denude our own defenses, or that the Administration has given Prime Minister Churchill carte blanche over how U.S. military resources might be deployed.
One other clever aspect of the plan in particular -- it would help a victorious Britain stay afloat financially after the war, by providing a ready-made market for production of British goods.
WHY "AID" HAS BEEN A MISNOMER. Up until the President’s announcement, much of the discussion about aid to Britain centered on loans of various kinds. But that reduces the question of Britain’s survival and the cause of democracy to a penny-pinching argument over whether the British are a good credit risk. James S. Pope in the Louisville Courier-Journal has written one of the best critiques of this narrow, penny-pinching approach, in words reprinted in this week’s issue of Time magazine --
"The phrase of the moment is ‘Aid to England.’ I, for one, am sick of it. Dr. Gallup says practically all Americans favor ‘aid to England.’...Columnists speak learnedly of the ‘aid’ we already are giving Britain. Our President delivers himself of the odd observation that our ‘aid to England’ has reached its peak....In heaven’s high name, how have we aided England? When? Whose sacrifice produced the aid?...We have sold England an indeterminate number of military airplanes. She has paid cash. She has come and got them. We have sold England, I understand, some old rifles and various shipments of ammunition. She paid cash. She came and got them....Finally, in a moment of benign generosity, we traded England some rotting destroyers for some air and naval bases so valuable to our defense that even Mr. Churchill had difficulty justifying the deal to his Parliament."
"We are going to sell her more and more planes, if our factories will just decide to push them fast enough. We are going to sell England practically anything she wants – if we don’t want it first.... And Napoleon called England a nation of shopkeepers! Oh, America, thou valiant, thou strong. Land of freedom. Eternal foe of cruelty and oppression. defender of men’s minds and men’s properties – of men’s ‘rights.’ What an inspiration we are....We are opening our hearts. We are opening our order books....We are in the throes of a pleasant national orgy of ‘aid to England.’ Ain’t it wonderful?"
A WINTER INVASION OF BRITAIN? It’s a real possibility. At least that’s what they’re saying now -- Lord Beaverbrook in a British radio broadcast Tuesday night (as reported in the New York Herald Tribune), and Alf Landon, quoted in an Associated Press dispatch. Speaking from Topeka, Mr. Landon said that while in Washington recently "from reliable official resources I was advised that Hitler plans to start his English invasion in the middle of February." An earlier date makes more sense to me than a later one. It’s not in the Fuehrer’s personality to fulfill widely-held expectations that he would wait until sometime in the spring. Moreover, the element of surprise would by now be indispensable to the success of any invasion plan, given the toughness of British resistance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)