|
Michael's Modern Blog
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A breezy review of current events, updated twice weekly
|
TAKING A HOLIDAY BREAK. Rubber rationing doesn’t officially begin until Jan. 4, but there’s no way even now to buy a new pair of tires for my Hupmobile, In any event, I’m spending my Christmas vacation at home this year and will devote some free time to long put-off pursuits -- such as fixing the kerosene-powered laptop. No blogging until Jan. 11, and in the meantime I wish you rest and respite throughout this "strange" holiday season. Let us pray together for victory in the coming year, and for the safety of the gallant defenders now in the hands of the enemy at Guam, Wake, and Hongkong, and who are desperately holding off Japanese onslaughts in the Philippines and Malaya.
. . .
A TALE OF TWO HEADLINES. The December 25 banner headline in the Chicago Tribune two years ago -- "A Merry, Merry Christmas!"
The banner headline today --U.S. May Quit Manila."
The story accompanying the latter is grimmer than the headline. Some 200,000 Japanese troops have landed and are "swarming" across Luzon. According to the United Press, they are approaching embattled Manila "from all directions." General MacArthur is considering declaring the Philippine capital an open city.
Surely we may hope for a future where Christmas Day newspapers can once again afford to be long on festive wishes, and short on tidings of disaster.
. . .
Thursday, December 25, 1941
CHURCHILL'S CHRISTMAS MESSAGE. Prime Minister Churchill made a brief speech in Washington yesterday at the lighting of the national Christmas tree. After being introduced by President Roosevelt, the Prime Minister summed up the "strangeness" of celebrating the Yuletide in wartime, with a handful of exquisitely chosen words --
"I spend this anniversary and festival far from my country, far from my family, and yet I cannot truthfully say that I feel far from home. Whether it be the ties of blood on my mother's side, or the friendships I have developed here over many years of active life, or the commanding sentiment of comradeship in the common cause of great peoples who speak the same language, who kneel at the same altars and, to a very large extent, pursue the same ideals; I cannot feel myself a stranger here in the center and at the summit of the United States. I feel a sense of unity and fraternal association which, added to the kindliness of your welcome, convinces me that I have a right to sit at your fireside and share your Christmas joys."
"Fellow workers, fellow soldiers in the cause, this is a strange Christmas Eve. Almost the whole world is locked in deadly struggle. Armed with the most terrible weapons which science can devise, the nations advance upon each other. Ill would it be for us this Christmastide if we were not sure that no greed for the lands or wealth of any other people, no vulgar ambitions, no morbid lust for material gain at the expense of others had led us to the field. Ill would it be for us if that were so. Here, in the midst of war, raging and roaring over all the lands and seas, sweeping nearer to our hearths and homes; here, amid all these tumults, we have tonight the peace of the spirit in each cottage home and in every generous heart. Therefore we may cast aside, for this night at least, the cares and dangers which beset us and make for the children an evening of happiness in a world of storm. Here then, for one night only, each home throughout the English-speaking world should be a brightly lighted island of happiness and peace."
"Let the children have their night of fun and laughter, let the gifts of Father Christmas delight their play. Let us grown-ups share to the full in their unstinted pleasures before we turn again to the stern tasks and the formidable years that lie before us, resolved that by our sacrifice and daring these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world."
"And so, in God's mercy, a happy Christmas to you all."
. . .
A TASTY COLLISION. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "Near Blanchester, Ohio, two trucks crashed. One carried ham, the other eggs."
. . .
HITLER FIRES HIS ARMY COMMANDER. I guess you could call it the nearest thing the Fuehrer can do to admitting failure. Hitler has dismissed Field Marshall von Brauchitsch as commander-in-chief of the Wehrmacht and has replaced him with...Hitler himself! This comes after the Germans have retreated some 70 miles on the Moscow front and, according to the Soviets, continue to be hurled back at the rate of eight to 12 miles per day. The United Press surmises it constitutes "a crisis in German war operations," but Barnet Nover warns us in his Washington Post column to not get too gleeful about its importance, and to watch other parts of Europe for signs of new Nazi-inspired trouble --
"Hitler and Goebbels have found it necessary to make a fervent plea for warm clothes for German troops. They realize that nothing is likely to shatter German army morale more than the Russian winter, if that winter has to be spent out in the open. It is hardly surprising, then, that having failed to take Moscow, where a large German force could have been quartered, the German army has begun to retreat. It cannot yet be assumed, however, that this retreat is a rout. If the Russians prove strong enough and capable enough of taking advantage of the present situation it may turn into a rout. For the time being, we must assume that the odds are against any such development. We must also assume that if the Germans succeed in stabilizing the front in Russia, Hitler will seek to divert attention from the disaster which has befallen German arms in Russia by seeking victories elsewhere. To expect him to stand still is to expect the impossible. So, however pleased we may be with the sudden and gratifying change in the situation on the Eastern Front, there is as yet no occasion for jubilation. Just over two weeks ago the war spilled over into the Pacific. The next weeks may see it spill over into the western Mediterranean and West Africa. Hitler and his allies will not stop until they are smashed. We cannot assume, despite what has been happening in Russia, that the task will be easy, or that it will not take long."
. . .
THE AXIS STAIN SPREADS ACROSS THE FAR EAST. After a stream of reports implying the Japanese had been widely rebuffed in their invasion attempts (except for Thailand, which surrendered quickly), it’s become increasingly clear that Nippon’s troops are in fact advancing on a number of island and coastal fronts. They’ve gained a foothold at Sarawak on the island of Borneo. New landings are reported on Luzon and Mindanao. They’ve beaten the British back some 45 miles through the jungles of the eastern Malay Peninsula. Hanson W. Baldwin explains in Sunday’s New York Times some reasons Tokyo appears to have the upper hand in so many places thus far, despite courageous allied resistance --
"The Allied weaknesses in the Western Pacific are lack of adequate sea power and air power; they have many possessions, but the weakness of the strategic structure is that they have not as yet adequate sea power and air power to bind these possessions together into a mutually sustaining structure. Because of the great Japanese preponderance in sea power and air power in the Western Pacific, . . . it is possible for the enemy to move superior forces against most of our isolated citadels -- and in time, unless they get reinforcements -- wear them down and defeat the allied military forces in detail. The whole Japanese campaign in the Western Pacific is keyed to sea and air power; it is bent upon assaulting and seizing the Allied bastions in the Far East (which offer the only logical bases for eventual offensive action against Japan) before the Allies can recover themselves. . . . The Japanese already possess in the Kuriles, the main Japanese chain itself, the Bonins, the Marianas, the Marshall and the Caroline Islands, a far-flung screen of "stationery aircraft carriers" and atoll bases that virtually sever our direct routes to the Far East. By their operations against the Netherlands Indies and Southern Philippines, it is evident that the Japanese now hope to extend their area of control to all the sea approaches leading to Singapore and the Philippines."
Mr. Baldwin notes that the allies have succeeded this week-end in reinforcing their hard-pressed troops and that the Japanese armies are "extended and very widely dispersed with little or no grip on some of the territory they had attacked." But Tokyo has also scored successes at the expense of British failures --
"The worst of the aspects of Far Eastern operations to date has been the surprising weakness of the British in Malaya and Hong Kong. Fighting in the jungles of Malaya along a narrow isthmus, the Empire troops, had they been of sufficient number and experience, should have held their front far more firmly than they were apparently able to do last week. Perhaps the Japanese superiority in jungle technique had something to do with the enemy advance; certainly their unexpected air superiority was a major factor."
. . .
Tuesday, December 23, 1941
CHURCHILL’S IN WASHINGTON. Here’s a whale of a Christmas surprise, as reported by Marshall Andrews in this morning’s Washington Post --
"Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain, arrived by air in Washington yesterday and last night was closeted with President Roosevelt in conference on the conduct of the war against the Axis. A White House statement said that this conference and others to follow in the next few days are 'preliminary to further conferences which will officially include Russia, China, the Netherlands, and the Dominions.' From them, it was forecast, would be evolved 'an overall unity in the conduct of the war.'"
The secrecy surrounding Mr. Churchill’s flight to the U.S. caused the Administration to hold the White House press corps prisoner for a brief time, as it were. According to the Post, once the correspondents were gathered before Press Secretary Early for the announcement, Mr. Early told them that "no one would be permitted to leave" until the White House received word that the British people had been notified of the trip.
. . .
THOSE MILITARY PRIORITIES. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting a headline in the Washington Evening Star -- "Gen. Drum Says Army Should Have More Military Ceremony -- Ammunition Also Needed, Commander Announces as Maneuvers End."
. . .
BEING MINDFUL OF "OUR" JAPANESE. The Japanese landings yesterday in Mindanao were said to be aided a great deal by Fifth Columnists. But it’s important to remember that there are Japanese on our side, too. Writing in Friday’s Washington Post, E.O. Reischauer and J.C. Goodbody make an appeal that I’m sure will be echoed in the weeks ahead --
"American public opinion must take a sane attitude toward the Japanese people. We are at war with the Japanese government and its militaristic leadership. We must never forget that there is an extremely strong pro-American sentiment in some sectors of Japanese opinion -- even if for many years there has been little pro-Japanese sentiment in the United States. . . . When the day comes to discuss peace, American public opinion during the war may be a very important factor. A responsible attitude is particularly necessary toward the Nisei -- second-generation Japanese in the United States. There are about one-quarter million Japanese under the American flag. We can all rest assured that our Government has taken the necessary precautions to prevent sabotage and other types of disloyal action from any part of our society. The United States Army has accepted without qualification the Nisei as patriotic Americans, and every community must treat them with respect -- in fact, with more sympathy and understanding than ever before. America is now at war, but its people have the ability to meet the emergency without the bluster and intolerance so typical of the Axis powers."
. . .
HITLER CHANGES HIS TUNE ABOUT RUSSIA. Back on Oct. 3 the Fuehrer bragged that Soviet Russia had been crushed and "would never rise again." Well, that was then, this is now. He sounded a dramatically different tune this past week-end, according to the Associated Press --
"An appeal from Adolf Hitler, read on every radio station of the Reich tonight, acknowledged that his army faced an enemy superior in numbers and material and begged the straitened German people to contribute their warm clothing to enable the soldiers to endure the rigors of the bitter Eastern Front. The appeal, sounded on Hitler’s behalf by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, said the German people must show their gratitude by making a Christmas gift of every article of warm clothing that possibly can be spared to the men in the army."
Meanwhile, the Soviets are helping the clothing drive by reducing the number of German soldiers who have need of it. The Red Army now claims to have killed 40,000 Nazi troops in the last two weeks, and today they’ve announced the retaking of Volokolamsk, an important rail center 64 miles northwest of the capital.
So just why did Goebbels read a Hitler speech? Could those stories about Hitler hiding in Berchtesgaden with a nervous breakdown be true?
. . .
A BAD TURN IN THE PHILIPPINES. As recently as Friday, the Associated Press was referring to Japan’s "small and precarious" footholds at three locations on Luzon. The newspapers have been full of reassuring reports like this throughout the last week. But now something’s up, it’s big, and it’s not good. Saturday’s Chicago Tribune carried a front-page story about a Japanese "landing in force" at Davao, on the southernmost island of Mindanao. The official U.S. communique reports "heavy fighting" in the area, which has a large Japanese population. The War Department also says the invaders have now "increased their ground operations" on Luzon. The vagueness of these reports, in contrast to the specificity of earlier claims we were repelling the Japanese, worries me.
. . .
Sunday, December 21, 1941
ENEMY SUBS SPOTTED OFF OUR COASTS. An Associated Press bulletin in this morning’s Washington Post claims that "enemy submarines are operating off the California coast destroying American shipping." Rear Admiral John W. Greenslade of the Twelfth Naval District said the Navy has confirmed the presence of the subs. Meanwhile, according to an accompanying Post story by Marshall Andrews, "enemy submarines have been detected lurking off the Atlantic Coast." This, according to a Navy Department statement. Combine this with reports of enemy plane sightings along the West Coast, and it’s evident that our coastal cities today face a threat of attack greater than anytime since the War of 1812.
Oddly, the Navy’s revelation of a submarine threat to the Eastern seaboard wasn’t the thrust of yesterday’s statement -- it was a warning about how "routine and seemingly innocent weather reports" for out-of-the-way places such as the Dakotas could aid the enemy in dodging U.S. anti-submarine warfare, and in planning air attacks.
. . .
MAKE UP YOUR MINDS. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Toledo, Ore., Paul Wallace got his draft call the day he enlisted in the Navy. The draft board deferred him, the Navy ordered him to report for duty, then the Army reconsidered, ordered him to report 16 days before his date with the Navy."
. . .
...BUT THE AXIS WON’T COLLAPSE SOON. It’s tempting to think, after reading about the large-scale German reverses on the Eastern Front, that the Axis might somehow collapse in the next few months. But Mark Sullivan’s latest column points out some good reasons why, as much as it would be desired, it’s probably not going to happen --
"The war is likely to be long – no individual or family making plans for the future can safely go on any assumption other than a prolonged war. Of the conditions that might make this war short, none is at this moment convincingly in sight. . . . How about internal collapse on the other side? One would have said, any time the past two years, that entry of America into the war might cause internal collapse in Germany. A very wise man said to this writer a year ago that this war would begin to end on the day that the German people, in towns and villages, say to each other, 'Die Amerikaner kommen wieder' -- 'The Americans are coming again.' The German people will now think of America as a fateful omen, presaging defeat. But our entry is to some degree balanced by the entry of Japan on the other side. The German people may think that, as respects their own fortunes, the entries of Japan and the United States neutralize each other. They may think that America fighting Japan will be a war apart, not directly affecting them. This will not be true – but they may think it for some time to come. As to Japan, no internal collapse is likely at a time when they have just started war against us. There are conditions in that country, including distress among the people, which make strongly for internal collapse; but collapse within Japan is not likely to come until after the country suffers reverses in the war. As to Italy, the materials for internal collapse are abundant and immediate. But probably Italy will not be allowed to collapse. Against her will, she will be held up and kept staggering along by Hitler."
. . .
HITLER’S RUSSIAN DEFEAT BECOMES A ROUT? The headlines from the Eastern Front suddenly seem too good to be true. The latest Associated Press dispatch from Moscow reports the latest Red victories in the most sweeping terms yet -- "Soviet Russia’s armies followed up their rout of Germans on the frozen Moscow plain today with new successes in the west, north and south in a campaign of extermination which already appears to be taking on the complexion of a full ‘Napoleonic retreat.’" Specifically, the Soviets now appear to have pushed the Germans back about 100 miles on the Moscow front, and have obliterated the Nazi pincers which threatened the capital from the north and south. This week they’ve retaken Klin, 50 miles northwest of Moscow, massacring 13,000 Germans in the process, and then blasted six German divisions out of strategic Kalinin, 40 miles further northwest. The A.P. calls Kalinin "the most sensational single victory so far in the great Soviet counteroffensive."
No doubt this is driving officials in Berlin batty, and the United Press makes it official -- "Adolf Hitler was reported in informed German circles in Turkey tonight to have been forced by an imminent nervous breakdown to quit the Russian Front and retire to his Berchtesgaden retreat for a rest." He probably should avoid reading the newspapers for awhile.
. . .
Thursday, December 18, 1941
HAWAII’S COMMANDERS KICKED OUT. The five-man Pearl Harbor board of inquiry has been in existence for less than two days, but the Administration isn’t wasting time firing the men who were (or should have been) on watch Dec. 7. Gone are Admiral Kimmel, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet; Lieut. Gen. Walter Short, commander of the Hawaii Department of the Army; and Maj. Gen. Frederick Martin, commander of the air force in Hawaii. The new Pacific fleet commander is Real Admiral Chester Nimitz,. Lieut. Gen. Delos Emmons has been given command in Hawaii, and Brig. Gen. Clarence Tinker takes over as Hawaii’s air commander. Secretary Stimson’s statement doesn’t spend much time assessing blame, but it points to Secretary Knox’s report on the reasons for our "unpreparedness," and says in effect that the outgoing commanders will be too busy parrying with the board of inquiry to be of help in reorganizing Hawaii’s defenses.
. . .
ALL IN A DAY’S WORK. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Richmond a gunman held up a filling station, escaped after phoning his wife: 'I’ll be home to supper in a few minutes.'"
. . .
DANGERS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC. Newspaper front pages for the last week have given us no end of banner headlines touting the destruction of Japanese naval vessels and the stout defense of Wake, Midway, and the Philippines. But Hong Kong is tottering in the face of the Japanese air and ground onslaught, and Washington Post columnist Barnet Nover warns that Tokyo’s threat to the other strategic points on the Pacific map, including the ore mines of the Dutch East Indies, plus Singapore and the Burma Road, are very grave --
"The most serious danger confronting the Allies is the one embodied in the Japanese drive south from Thailand to Singapore. Thailand’s resistance was, at most, perfunctory and soon after the Bangkok government raised the white flag the Thai government allied itself with the conqueror. Thailand’s military and air bases are now being used for the assault on Malaya s well as for a drive on Burma. The distance between the southernmost points reached by the Japanese in Malaya and the great naval base and fortress of Singapore is not to be minimized on that account. The loss of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse was a terrific blow to the British. It upset the naval balance of power in southeastern Asia and made it possible for the Japanese to accelerate their offensive in Malaya. The results are now apparent. Once Hong Kong falls the Japanese might couple their drive on Singapore from the land side by an assault on Singapore from the sea. The only thing that would prevent such a development would be the dispatch of a significant Allied fleet to the British naval base to make Japanese naval operations in that area very costly, and a considerable strengthening of American bomber strength in the Philippines. From the latter vantage point the Japanese supply route as well as Japanese bases in Formosa and Indo-China could be subjected to attacks from the air."
But Mr. Nover warns that even if we do manage to defend Singapore from the sea, there’s still the need to protect the Burma Road, which may drawf everything else in importance --
"If Burma is conquered the last remaining supply route to the armies of Free China would be cut off and Chinese fighting power would be considerably reduced. . . . The Chinese have remained in the field for more than four and a half years. They continue to immobilize a very large Japanese force. At almost any cost the Burma Road must be kept open."
. . .
THE PROPHECIES OF BILLY MITCHELL. Hopefully you didn’t miss Arthur Krock’s article on Billy Mitchell in the Sunday New York Times, which shows how the closed-minded obstructionism of U.S. military commanders of one decade helped bring on danger and ruin in the present day --
"In Berlin the Japanese air attaché contributed the information Friday that the Pearl Harbor attack was made with formations of high bombers and of dive-bombers using the fish torpedo with deadly effect. Prime Minister Churchill, explaining to Commons how the big ships went down off Malaya, mentioned the same tactics. All this was foreseen years ago, and by an American. He was court-martialed for criticism of superiors to which he was provoked by his temperament and by the stubborn obtuseness of the generals and admirals. He resigned from the Army and died five years ago at the age of 56. But as the news from the Pacific comes in more and more the memory of Brig. Gen. William Landrum Mitchell is as alive as he ever was. . . . To the day of his death he never changed the opinion for which he was court-martialed: that the high command of the American Army and Navy were 'guilty of incompetence, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the national defense.' He based this view on resistance to what seemed to him the obvious fact that control of the air was essential to military or naval victory."
Mr. Krock relates how General Mitchell sank an ex-German military ship, the Ostfriesland, with bombing planes in a 1921 test, and how U.S. Navy brass explained away the incident, stubbornly maintaining that battleships would always be an "unlikely" target for air attacks. He was mocked for predicting in 1922 that planes would soon travel at 250 miles-per-hour, even though within ten years they were traveling twice that. The Times points out how much we're paying now for the military's rejection of General Mitchell --
"He made other prophecies which have steadily been coming true. But the obstructions placed against him by those who declined to believe that the airplane could ever become anything more than a scout and aerial cavalry for the Navy drove him to fury and despair. . . . As the steady succession of events in war has now completely proved, General Mitchell was always right. Had he been able to persuade his government, a great many hundreds of millions now afloat or lying on the floors of the oceans would have been spent for bombers instead. The Germans might never have been permitted to gain air supremacy while the democracies relied on sea power, an dthis would have shorted and confined the war."
. . .
BRAVE FILIPINOS HOLD OFF THE JAPANESE. The War Department assures us that the situation in the Philippines right now is "well in hand." If that really is the case, it’s due to the work of not only U.S. troops, but home-grown soldiers like the ones who are defending Lingayen Beach, 110 miles northwest of Manila. Their heroism was described yesterday by Frank Hewlett of the United Press --
"The battle lasted three days. It began last Wednesday night and at last report the Filipinos were holding the beach and the colonel in command sent word to Manila that his force would stand their ground 'to the last man.' Details were brought here by a correspondent of the Daily Herald. He quoted the colonel, who he did not identify, as saying: 'We eagerly awaited the Japanese attempt to land. The enemy showed up Wednesday night. I counted 154 motor boats in all. We held our fire until they were near.' (The dispatch did not say so, but Army officials believe the Filipinos used flares to light up their targets). 'Then,' the colonel continued, 'our army roared into action. Most boats were destroyed. A few managed to escape to warships which must have been anchored far beyond the horizon. Since then the enemy has attempted to land but each time he has been frustrated.'"
Meanwhile, an International News Service dispatch reflects growing confidence that the three Japanese positions on Luzon are being reduced to insignificance -- "Only handfuls of Nipponese forces remain in possession of the small beachheads at Aparri in the north, Vigan in the west, and Eegaspi in the south . . . and these are being gradually hammered to bits."
. . .
Tuesday, December 16, 1941
FINALLY, A REPORT ON PEARL HARBOR. And one figure stands out above all -- the War Department now says nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in the attack on Hawaii. That’s double the previous, unofficial estimates, which themselves were much greater than what was revealed in the scanty reports initially given by the Administration. Secretary Knox’s report, just made public, breaks down the number of dead as 2,729 Navy personnel and 218 Army men and civilians. Japanese bombers destroyed the battleship Arizona and five smaller ships, including three 1,500-ton destroyers. The battleship Oklahoma capsized and was earlier considered lost, but Secretary Knox says the vessel can be righted and repaired.
The good news that can be gleaned here is that Japan’s raiders failed to knock-out U.S. naval defenses. As the Secretary puts it -- "The entire balance of the Pacific fleet . . . are uninjured and are all at sea seeking contact with the enemy."
The report doesn’t try to explain how we were caught unawares that fateful Sunday morning, but there will be much more scrutiny of that. As John G. Norris writes in the Washington Post’s story today, "The Navy Chief said flatly that ‘the United States services were not on the alert against the surprise air attack’ . . . (The phrase 'on the alert' has a specialized significance in the Army and Navy meaning that certain measures have been taken and units are ready for action.) 'This fact,' Knox added, 'calls for a formal investigation which will be initiated immediately by the President.'"
. . .
WATCH FOR THOSE TELL-TALE SIGNS. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section -- "Premier [Tojo] said that representatives of all nations constantly had expressed good will and friendship to Thailand -- particularly the Japanese envoy, who, he said, had given assurances that the forces in Indo-China were not meant for aggression against Thailand. Thailand should not regard such things as military preparations in Indo-China or Malaya as directed against her until the shooting starts, he said."
. . .
MORE AIR RAID ALARMS, STILL NO PLANES. Four consecutive nights of alerts in southern California. But the main focus is still on San Francisco, which went through what the Associated Press calls a "weird wartime blackout" Friday night. Once again, no bombs fell, but from the A.P. dispatch it sounds like mayhem out there --
"Unidentified airplanes roared low over the city during the two hours and thirty-four minutes of total darkness. Unverified reports said flares were dropped in the financial district and into the ocean, but police were inclined to discount them. Dogs howled in all parts of the city and many accidents were reported. 'People were running around like wild,' declared Elmer Combs, booking steward at Central Emergency Hospital. 'A lot of people came in that we couldn’t even begin to handle. There were accidents from all kinds of things -- autos, streetcars, streetcars sliding down hills. Some people blew their tops.'"
A modest proposal -- why bother with comprehensive blackouts at all? There was a story in the New York Herald Tribune yesterday quoting Samuel O. Hibben, the director of applied lighting for Westinghouse. He said that a blackout of all the street lights in New York City would be "more deadly than bombs" and that blackout-induced traffic accidents in London last year killed more people than raids. Yes, Mr. Hibben says, turn out the advertising signs and home and business lights. But darkening the streets would lead to "confusion, death, and destruction." Judging from what’s happening on the West Coast, it sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
Meanwhile, the Herald Tribune also reported that Emil Davies, a British official who headed the London County Council during the worst of last year’s blitz, says it’s "likely" there were be German nuisance raids on New York City. The story says German pilots might "do what they did over England: drop their load of bombs over New York, fly on for some 300 miles, bail out and give themselves up as war prisoners." I still think the West Coast is where we have to worry most about getting raided, but East Coast raids are probably more plausible than I thought.
. . .
THE GERMAN CENTER COLLAPSES. That’s what it sounds like, anyway. A week ago the Nazis announced they had given up attempting to take Moscow until next spring, and would dig in their current positions for the winter. I didn’t give it much credence, and in any case, it’s become academic whether Berlin really meant it or not -- the Russians have no intention of letting the Germans rest in place. Rest in peace, maybe. This is how the Washington Post reports the latest Red claims --
""Russia announced the utter defeat of a crumbling German army of 750,000 men on the Moscow front . . . with 85,000 Germans killed and 23 of an original 51 divisions either smashed, routed, surrounded, or retreating. A special communique reported German troops in flight along both flanks of the encirclement front on the frozen Moscow plain. Red Cossack detachments were said to be slashing through the German lines, isolating division after division and leaving them behind for battles of annihilation to come."
Soviet claims have sometimes been as extravagant as Nazi boasts, but it’s hard to believe that Stalin’s regime would be crowing on this large a scale unless there was something to it. And coupled with the German defeat at Rostov, Axis morale on the Eastern Front has to be falling through the cellar about now.
. . .
WE’RE HOLDING ON IN THE PACIFIC. The Administration says that Guam, which was guarded by a scant 550 American soldiers, is "probably" lost. But our troops are holding on at Wake Island, at Midway, and in the Philippines. In fact, the brightest spot at the moment appears to be the latter, where according to Saturday’s headlines, U.S. and native Philippine troops repulsed three Japanese landing attempts on Luzon. Enemy parachutists have landed at two other locations on northern Luzon, but neither is considered a major threat to Manila. And there are good tidings on the sea -- Navy planes have sunk two Japanese battleships off Luzon, and Dutch submariners have reportedly sunk four Japanese transport ships off Malaya, killing 4,000 of the enemy.
Still no official word on the toll from the Hawaii attack, though. The newspapers seem to be blacking out the story since Wednesday, but the rumor mill is going full steam. Does the Administration realize the adverse consequences of blacking out critical news? When will we hear some hard facts?
. . .
Sunday, December 14, 1941
WILL MEN AND WOMEN BE DRAFTED? Not for combat, of course, but Brig. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey says that "we undoubtedly are soon going to consider the registration of women" between 18 and 65 for war work -- taking the place of men on assembly lines, working in civil defense, or doing noncombatant jobs in the military. According to the Associated Press, General Hershey envisions that 20,000,000 women could be put into national service this way. When you read things like this, you realize what an unprecedented situation we’re in.
As reported by Samuel W. Bell in the New York Herald Tribune, the current draft bill is sweeping enough. All men between 18 and 65 must register. All men between 18 and 45 are subject to military service in the land or naval forces. That’s a potential of 10,000,000 men available for military duty and another 30,000,000 who could be inducted for non-combat service. That’s what the War Department’s put before Congress, and there’s no doubt it’ll pass, of course.
Plus the Senate approved $10,572,350,000 in war appropriations Friday -- a figure so massive that the Chicago Tribune followed it with an exclamation mark in their front-page banner headline.
After a year of fitful attempts at "preparedness," we’re finally taking the job seriously. And it only took a direct, immediate threat to our national survival to get us to do it.
. . .
AND A PARTRIDGE IN A PEAR TREE. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Newcastle, Ind., a woman reported to police the loss of her purse, containing: two watches, four rings, two automatic pencils, one fountain pen, several pins, a social-security card, a driver’s license, two books, an American flag, one pearl-handled knife, one sliding-blade knife, one flashlight."
. . .
PEGLER SALUTES THE PRESIDENT. One of the fiercest and barb-worded critics of the Administration, columnist Westbrook Pegler, took his hat off to the President yesterday in a piece titled "Roosevelt Was Right" --
"No American has more angrily detested and suspected most of the internal operations of the New Deal, but no American more admires now the tenacious bravery of President Roosevelt in his war policy than this author of many criticisms of the Roosevelt Administration. Long before the war began with the sneak-punch invasion of Catholic Poland, the President had made his own decision that Adolph Hitler was determined to see the German nation loose, armed beyond the poor, dumb power of Britain’s military men or the best of ours to imagine, in a campaign to enslave Europe and conquer the United States. Having made up his mind on the basis of plain evidence, Mr. Roosevelt determined that this country must fight for its life against Hitler and Japan and set about creating a war psychology in the American people so that we would not be caught entirely unprepared spiritually or entirely unarmed. In the earlier phases of his preparations he stood almost alone, and it may be remembered that his dramatic Chicago speech about a quarantine for aggressors was savagely denounced . . . . As the war developed, Mr. Roosevelt was accused of surrendering his own country to the British for Britain’s own sake and the cry of war-monger, raised from Berlin, where this war was made, was taken up by many of the President’s own people at home. . . . But all the way from the hour when he first realized that war with Hitler was inevitable down to the moment when Hitler’s ally in the Pacific suddenly bombed a sleeping American city, Mr. Roosevelt stood by his conviction, often under conditions which would have made a weaker man give ground and look for excuses."
. . .
WHAT TO DO WHEN THE SIRENS SOUND. Good advice, from the front page of yesterday’s New York Herald Tribune --
"In Case of an Alarm. Above all, keep calm. Don’t create a panic. Get off the streets but don’t run – walk. If within five minutes of home go there. If at home stay there. Home is the safest place. Don’t mingle with crowds. If more than five minutes from home seek shelter in the center portions of nearest building. Avoid top and lower stories of buildings. Stay away from windows and outside walls. Avoid elevators. Motorists should park cars and seek shelter. Stay out of subways. They are not safe. Put out lights. Avoid use of the telephone. Stay calm."
"In Case of a Raid. Shut off all gas ranges, heaters, and furnaces. Turn off pilot lights. Fill bathtub and buckets for use of firemen if mains break. Go to room with fewest windows and lie down. Keep radio turned on. Leave at least one window open. If incendiary bombs fall, spray water on them. Never use splash or stream of water, as the bomb will explode. Bomb will burn fifteen minutes if left alone, only two minutes if sprayed. Don’t use a chemical fire extinguisher on bombs. Co-operate with air-raid wardens. Obey instructions. Above all, keep calm."
. . .
AIR RAID ALARMS IN NEW YORK, LOS ANGELES. The two air raid alarms in New York City yesterday are now said to be "a gigantic war-time misunderstanding." Writes John G. Rogers in the New York Herald Tribune -- "Official sources, annoyed by the indifference with which the city’s millions confronted the bright face of danger, disclosed that there were never any planes bearing down on New York. They explained that a series of accidents translated a rumor into a crisis which electrified those responsible for the defense of the world’s largest city." According to C.B.S., the alert was sparked by a single telephone call from a civilian, asking air force authorities about a rumor enemy planes were two hours away. So, nobody was hurt, but the "raid" did break up a meatloaf luncheon held for a group of newly enrolled air-raid wardens.
Much more serious are the air raid alarms on the West Coast. One broadcast report says that the Army ordered Los Angeles radio stations off the air Tuesday night due to an alarm. General DeWitt, the 4th Army commander, warned San Franciscans in stark terms after their two air raid alerts Monday night that "death and destruction are likely to come to this city any moment." He’s even madder about civilian apathy than New York’s authorities are, and at a civil defense council meeting he even seemed to hope that the Japanese might drop some bombs --
"The people of San Francisco do not seem to appreciate that we are at war in every sense. . . . Unless definite and stern action is taken to correct last night’s deficiency, a great deal of destruction will come. Those planes were over our community . . . for a definite period. They were enemy planes. I mean Japanese planes. They were tracked out to sea. Why bombs were dropped I do not know. It might have been better if some bombs had dropped to awaken this city."
That’s going a little too far, but in any case the West Coast could definitely get some bombs soon.
One creepy note of possible confirmation in this morning’s Washington Post – "the War Department . . . reported that Fifth Columnists had lit signal fires on the Pacific Coast."
. . .
WHAT ABOUT GERMANY AND ITALY? (II). We’re still not "officially" at war with Hitler or Mussolini, however much that matters. Both sides are acting like there’s a state of war, and the Germans might be getting ready to make it official in any event -- the Associated Press quotes a Swedish source in Berlin as reporting the Reichstag will meet later this morning (Eastern time) "to hear a government declaration reaffirming German-Japanese solidarity under the tripartite act." There is another possibility, though -- does Hitler, instead of declaring war himself, want to goad the U.S. into declaring war first, for propaganda purposes?
Perhaps that’s why President Roosevelt used this particular wording in his radio speech Tuesday night -- "Remember always that Germany and Italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the United States at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with Britain or Russia." He could well have mentioned that the Reich’s campaigns against Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Norway, Greece, Russia, etc., never showed a regard for such diplomatic niceties as a declaration.
Associated Press wires between Berlin and Switzerland were cut Wednesday night, and American newsmen in Germany have been placed under house arrest. Apparently this is retaliation for the F.B.I.’s roundup of Axis newspapermen. All German and Italian nationals are now considered enemy aliens, just as Japanese nationals are.
. . .
Thursday, December 11, 1941
"THE NEWS HAS ALL BEEN BAD." In his Tuesday night talk, President Roosevelt made no attempt to sugar-coat the extent of our defeat. While rejecting Japanese claims that they held mastery over the Pacific in the wake of the Hawaii attack, he told the largest radio audience in the history of the U.S. that more bad news will come --
"We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized."
The main action involving U.S. forces appears to be in the Philippines right now. According to John G. Norris in this morning’s Washington Post, the War Department admits to a successful Japanese landing on the main island of Luzon, after American troops repelled an earlier attempt on the west coast of Luzon with "apparent heavy enemy losses." This new landing is considered strategically unimportant, but if Japan does succeed in gaining a foothold on Luzon’s west coast, "they would then be in a position to fight down the narrow coastal plain to the Lingayen Gulf." So, that’s the area to watch in the next few days.
. . .
YES, PERHAPS WAY TOO FAR. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting Premier Tojo’s recent comments in the New York Times -- "It would be going too far if anyone were to interpret Japan’s program for the East Asia co-prosperity sphere as aiming at the immediate liberation of the oppressed races."
. . .
THREE CHEERS FOR THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE. In a front-page editorial Monday, America’s most rabidly isolationist newspaper offered a message that extremist Roosevelt-haters need very badly to hear right now --
"War has been forced on America by an insane clique of Japanese militarists who apparently see the desperate conflict into which they have led their country as the only thing that can prolong their power. Thus the thing we have all feared, that so many of us have worked with all our hearts to avert, has happened. That is all that counts. It has happened. America faces war through no volition of any American. Recriminations are useless and we doubt that they will be indulged in. Certainly not by us. All that matters today is that we are in the war and the nation must face that simple fact. All of us, from this day forth, have only one task. That is to strike with all our might to protect and preserve the American freedom that we all hold dear."
. . .
HOW WE COULD LOSE THE WAR. Walter Lippmann’s column in the New York Herald Tribune this morning reminds us that the stakes of this war are the survival of America itself --
"Overnight we have, it is true, become at long last a united people. Yet that alone will not avail us unless we also become an awakened people -- wide awake to the stark truth that the very existence of the Nation, the lives, the liberties and the fortunes of all of us, are in the balance. We are not facing a feeble and contemptible little enemy on the distant shores of Asia but the most carefully prepared, highly organized, and shrewdly directed combination which has ever set out to conquer the world. This is not a separate little war in the Pacific between Japan and the United States. This is the world war in the complete and literal sense of the words -- a war which can only end in our victory or our defeat. If it ends in our defeat, let no one imagine that we shall be treated mercifully, or generously, or honorably. Let no one imagine that the price of defeat is anything less than invasion and occupation upon the North American continent itself -- if ever the bastions of British and American sea power are conquered. The planes which bombed Hawaii could just as easily have bombed San Francisco or Panama if the fleet did not bar the way. The troops which have been landed in Malaya could -- if American and British command of the seas were lost -- be landed in Brazil or Alaska. We are fighting as the British are fighting, as the Russians are fighting, as the Chinese are fighting, for our own survival. Only by opening our eyes to this grim fact can we cast off the deadly delusion that behind the protection of our oceans we could sit around waiting and arguing whether we chose or did not choose to move until our own soil was violated. If we do not purge ourselves absolutely of this delusion, we can lose this war."
One would hope that we realize this by now. But I remember the Congressional debate last year on whether to fortify our outpost on Guam, how the isolationists railed at spending defense dollars on something that was sure to "provoke" Japan. After all, they reasoned, Guam was so far away from U.S. shores, and as Colonel Lindbergh told us again and again, what more do we need than the wide expanses of the Atlantic and the Pacific to protect us?
Yesterday Guam fell to the Japanese. Tokyo says it did so without resistance. Let us never again cede territory, or surrender a battlefield, in order to prop up a delusion.
. . .
WHAT ABOUT GERMANY AND ITALY? So far I haven’t heard much about whether the war on Japan means a war on Germany and Italy, though most people seem to assume that we’re going to fighting the whole of the Axis. The F.B.I. wisely began rounding up German and Italian nationals yesterday, and as Elmer Davis said on C.B.S., we could well find ourselves at war with Japan’s axis partners in a short time without lifting a finger ourselves --
"What is to be done about Japan’s allies is a problem which has not been decided perhaps in Washington, and which perhaps those allies will decide for us. The Triple Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan provides that every one of them comes to the rescue of the others in case it is attacked by a power which was not engaged in the war at the time of the signing of the alliance. Theoretically it must be attacked, but we have seen in the history of the Axis states that they can always represent themselves as attacked, and there have been indications from the European Axis capitals that they will so represent this operation. The Germans insisted yesterday that the war-incendiary Roosevelt was solely responsible for the breaking out of hostilities. They repeated that statement over and over, and so it seems probable that they will represent this as an attack on Japan, which they could easily persuade their peoples, or at least suppress any evidence of dissent, so that the operation of the Triple Alliance will come into effect automatically. And that of course would lead to a state of war between the United States and Germany and Italy."
. . .
HOW BAD IN HAWAII? It sounds worse by the hour. Both the New York Herald Tribune and Chicago Tribune cite anonymous sources as putting U.S. casualties at Pearl Harbor far higher than what the White House has told us so far -- 1,500 dead and another 1,500 wounded. The Chicago Tribune story, by Walter Trohan, says that according to "unimpeachable sources" the Japanese raiders sunk or disabled six capital ships, an aircraft carrier, and "numerous" support vessels. Another source says told Mr. Trohan that the U.S. "clearly has lost its margin of superiority in the Pacific" in the wake of the raid. "Washington officials" say it’s the "greatest reverse of its kind in history."
Already, amidst the cries for national unity, there are calls for an investigation. Edward T. Folliard writes in this morning’s Washington Post that there’s been at least one call to court martial the Army and Navy commandants in Hawaii. "No one can tell me they weren’t sound asleep," one Congressman said. The chairmen of the House and Senate Naval Affairs Committees, Senator Walsh and Representative Vinson, have called upon the Navy Department to explain how the Japanese struck some 3,500 miles from their home bases without being detected.
I want to hear those answers too -- but wouldn’t Tokyo want most of all to hear about our military weaknesses? This kind of inquiry can wait.
. . .
"INFAMY." I have never heard the President speak with such righteous indignance as he did in the joint session yesterday. His voice turned contemptuous as he recounted the peace talks with Nomura and Kurusu -- negotiations which took place as the warlords of Tokyo cynically planned, "many days or even weeks ago," the massive offensive which has now lit the fires of war throughout the Far East. Congress didn’t need any further encouragement to declare war. The two branches of government set records for efficiency -- the President spoke for about six minutes, the Senate and House passed the war resolutions within 51 minutes of the President’s address. The Senate voted 82-0, the House 388-1. Let Miss Rankin’s dissenting vote be treated with the lack of interest it was shown by the morning papers, which generally relegated it to the inside pages.
It’s interesting to note that the war resolution was not a "declaration of war" in the straightforward sense. Senator George and several other Congressmen agitated Sunday evening for a resolution that didn’t "declare" war, but instead acknowledged an already-existing "state of war" provoked by Japan’s attack. This, they reasoned, would put the blame for the war where it belongs. Judging from the President’s words, that’s what they got -- a declaration stating simply that "since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan . . . a state of war has existed."
. . .
"HOSTILE PLANES" NEAR SAN FRANCISCO? The Associated Press quotes Brigadier General William Ryan of the 4th Interceptor Command as saying a "large number" of unidentified planes approached San Francisco from the sea last night, coming as far as the Golden Gate and then turning southwest. The air-raid sirens sounded in San Francisco, amidst a tremendous amount of confusion as authorities alternately said the alert was merely a test, then claimed a real raid had been expected. There’s no proof the mystery planes were Japanese bombers, but General Ryan said, "They weren’t army planes, they weren’t navy planes, and you can be sure they weren’t civilian planes."
If they were Japanese planes, that’s pretty alarming for any number of reasons. San Francisco is 2,408 miles west of Honolulu, and the presence of a sizeable number of Japanese bombers in the area would suggest that Japanese carriers feel comfortable to roam the Pacific virtually at will. Of course, Tokyo’s overall offensive has already shown a massive Japanese capability to press their military strength over a vast area. They’ve attacked Thailand (which according to reports has already surrendered), Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Borneo, the Philippines (six separate air attacks), Hawaii, Guam, Midway, and Wake.
The Japanese war machine is no joke. This fight will go on for a long time.
. . .
Tuesday, December 9, 1941
ROOSEVELT TO SPEAK TONIGHT. In case you haven’t yet heard, President Roosevelt will address the nation tonight at 10 o’clock Eastern time.
. . .
MAYBE TOKYO’S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? I can’t recall ever listening-in to Upton Close before. He’s a "Far Eastern expert" for N.B.C., and judging by his comments on the Pearl Harbor bombing, he’s also flakier than a coconut pie. I don’t know his political leanings, but his comments today are drawn deep from the well of crackpot isolationism.
His theory, as broadcast this afternoon -- the Japanese government is innocent of complicity in the attack, which was launched by rogue elements in the Japanese Navy, assisted by Nazi conspirators who are trying to embroil the U.S. and Japan in war. His evidence -- he spoke by telephone to the Japanese consul-general in San Francisco, who denied knowing anything about plans for the attack! Well? What more proof do you need? Obviously, Tokyo was in the dark about this.
Here’s a transcription of his comments, from acetate --
"I suppose that if the attack on Honolulu had been made in such force as to destroy the American naval base there, we might believe that the Japanese government is behind it as a matter of policy. But you notice that the news gives us every assurance that it is far from destroyed, and that the only thing left there now as a result of the first attack are a few parachute troops wandering around on the sand somewhere on the north end of Oahu Island. They will soon be pulled in the bag and we’ll find out who sent them. It is possible, my friends, that this is a coup engineered by German influences and with the aid of German vessels in the Pacific. . . . engineered by a small portion of the Japanese navy that has gone fanatic and decided to precipitate war."
Shortly after this, Mr. Close leaves the surface of the Earth --
"Still again, it is possible that this is a coup engineered by the group in Japan that wants the group that wants war kicked out of office. And that when the thing is brought home to the Tokyo government, it might be possible for the Tokyo government to repudiate the action, call upon the nation to repair the injury to America, by agreeing to American terms, and precipitating a complete revolution in the government in Tokyo. All these things are possible."
In other words, the Pearl Harbor attack could lead to peace. But only if the Roosevelt Administration doesn’t overreact to it. After all, Mr. Close surmises, Secretary of State Hull’s nastiness might have caused the Japanese to strike in the first place. Yes, that’s what he said --
"You’ll notice, we are told, that Mr. Hull burst out in true Tennessee language and told the Japanese that their reply was ‘crowded with infamous falsehoods and distortions.’ I have been in many a Japanese brawl, I am sorry to say, and I have seen many an argument with Japanese that would have ended just an argument, suddenly burst into violence because something was said by one of the so-called 'white' people in the brawl that suddenly lashed across the Japanese face. Now, it is possible that the Japanese completely lost face and descended to the status of being willing to engage in a violent brawl as a result of this answer, although it might be that this answer and Secretary Hull’s message came at the same time. But it sounds like one of those Japanese arguments that suddenly descends into violence."
Then, finally, Mr. Close gives what he describes as San Francisco’s man-in-the-street response to the Japanese attack -- "If they did it on purpose, they have certainly got guts." Somehow I doubt that’s what the cabbies in San Fran are saying this afternoon.
And even if somehow, it turned out that the Pearl Harbor attack was a military decision, and not a political one, does it matter? This is clearly a major raid, not some kids tossing a string of firecrackers on Grandpa’s front porch. If "rogue" military elements in Japan have the capability to launch a major attack involving large forces of the Japanese military, that gives them the status of a government. Of course, General Tojo’s cabinet is not exactly composed of pacifists, and the idea that the current Tokyo regime would oppose such an attack is ludicrous in the first place -- not to mention contrary to Tojo’s own recent comments.
N.B.C. listeners deserve better on this critical day than this kind of hooey.
. . .
BOMBING RAID OR PRELUDE TO INVASION? It’s hard to say for sure yet. Here’s what we do know, taken from a bulletin broadcast on N.B.C. a little while ago, and compiled by reporters for the Honolulu Advertiser --
The first group of planes attacked Ford Island at Pearl Harbor. Japanese planes attacked Hickam Field and Wheeler Field as well. Bellows Field "bombed very heavily." At Pearl, three ships were attacked -- the Oklahoma was set afire. All lines of communications down. No statement from the Navy Department yet. Civilians are to stay off the streets. After attacking the airfields, several squadrons of planes came in from the south over Diamond Head, dropping bombs and incendiary bombs on Honolulu. One bomb fell in front of the governor’s mansion, another near the Honolulu Advertiser. "Heavy bombing" in two residential districts. A direct bomb hit on a barrack at Hickam Field killed 350 men.
As grim as this sounds, other reports are are even more worrying. One N.B.C. bulletin says that "parachute troops" have been sighted off Harbor Point. An unverified report from a United Press correspondent in Honolulu says that "cannon fire" could be heard from a "foreign warship" sighted off Pearl Harbor. Another N.B.C. bulletin this afternoon says "at least one enemy aircraft carrier" is participating in a "naval engagement" near Pearl. All this suggests that Tokyo has more in mind than a quick strike against the U.S. Navy -- they plan to seize the islands and complete the destructive work their air raiders have begun.
On the other hand, I’ve only heard one direct eyewitness report of the raid, which came from KGO in Honolulu via a telephone line to N.B.C.-Red. The correspondent, whose name I didn’t catch, described the raid as "very severe," almost three hours in duration, but said "the navy and army appear to have the air and sea under control." Let’s hope and pray that's the case.
. . .
Sunday, December 7, 1941 (afternoon)
THE AIR RAID ON PEARL HARBOR. So much for the guesswork this past week over whether a Japanese strike in the South Pacific would lead to a U.S. declaration of war, a "war of nerves," or something in-between. In one brash, audacious, and villainous move, Tokyo has made things crystal-clear. America is now at war -- not an undeclared war such as the one we’ve been fighting with Nazi vessels in the Atlantic, but an all-out war of survival. Whether Congress votes a declaration of war or acknowledges a "state of war" or does nothing, it does not matter now. What matters is that the Japanese Empire has cold-bloodedly decided to try and kill us. To save ourselves, we must kill the Japanese Empire. It’s as simple as that.
H.V. Kaltenborn’s mid-afternoon commentary on the N.B.C.-Red network offered some reassuring words -- "You may rest assured that both our army and particularly our navy and our air force were not caught by surprise by this attack. They knew what they might have to expect and they were ready for anything that might happen. They have been ready for along time." I so hope that’s true. But all I know is my first response was -- Hawaii?? There’s been a lot of press speculation about where the Japanese could strike -- Thailand, Burma, the Dutch East Indies, Siberia. But not Pearl Harbor.
. . .
WE’LL KEEP THAT IN MIND. From the New Republic’s Bandwagon section, quoting the heading on Dr. Irving S. Cutler’s column in a recent edition of the New York Sunday News -- "Driving Automobile Risky When One Is Ill or Doped."
. . .
A LOOK BACK AT 1942. Time magazine had a double-page subscription advertisement in last week’s issue, listing some of the major events of next year that Time’s writers and editors will report on. And they include some good tidings on the war (which the Time-sters seem to think America will be fighting by then) --
February 12, 1942 - Uprising of Zagreb. Here began the armed disorders which swept the Nazis from the Balkans."
"April 14, 1942 -- Isle of Dordrecht. Here Britain began a successful invasion of the continent."
"May 11, 1942 -- Over the Great Deep of Japan. A U.S. fleet under Admiral Stark here defeated the flower of the U.S. Navy."
"May 21, 1942 -- Battle of Bornholm. Where a small British fleet wiped out the Nazi navy in 27 minutes."
"November 5, 1942 - Santos, Brazil. Here the exiled Benito Mussolini broadcast Hitler’s secret plans to the world."
"November 23, 1942 - Berchtesgaden. Adolf Hitler deposed by Goering. Riots in Berlin, Munich, Mannheim."
Time isn’t claiming to have a working crystal ball. "But it would be much more amazing still," the ad reads, "if the decisive year ahead failed to produce stories even stranger, news even more historic, discoveries and inventions and achievements even more significant than those [described here.]"
Well, let’s hope that at least a couple of Time’s imagined events really do come to pass.
. . .
"WE FACE A WORLD WAR." Mark Sullivan’s column today looks at the need for an A.E.F.-style commitment to send troops abroad in event of war --
"At the moment this is written we are extremely close to war with Japan. If that comes -- thus it is thought by many -- it will be wholly a war for our naval and air forces, not for our soldiers. They think there will be no need for soldiers of the United States to fight outside the limits laid down in the Draft Act: the Western Hemisphere, together with our territories and possessions including the Philippine Islands. But can we be sure? If we should fight Japan it would be greatly to our advantage if our air force could have bases at Vladivostok and elsewhere in Russian Siberia. If we have such bases it would be desirable to have soldiers there to guard them. It might even be desirable to have a considerable Army in Siberia. Also, if we are at war with Japan, Britain will be united with us. Prime Minister Churchill has said that Britain would be at war with Japan within an hour after the United States is. With the United States and Britain united in a war with Japan, a most important base of operations would be Singapore on the Malay Peninsula, occupied by Britain. It might readily become desirable for us to have an armed force at Singapore, either supplanting the British force or in place of the British force. Wholehearted cooperation between ourselves and Britain in a war with Japan might call upon us to provide practically all the necessary soldiers in Singapore, releasing British soldiers for service where Britain needs them sorely, in Europe and Africa."
. . .
THE TRIBUNE PRINTS SECRET DEFENSE DOCUMENTS. Last Thursday, while the rest of the press was focused on the deteriorating state of affairs in the Pacific, the Chicago Tribune claimed a whale of an exclusive -- the publication of what they grandeloquently called "F.D.R.’s Secret War Plans." These documents are said to "reveal" that the President plans a massive U.S. Army of ten million men, including a five-million-strong American Expeditionary Force which would sail to Europe and seize the entire continent. Since then successive Tribune front pages have crowed about its "history making" revelations.
But it looks like there’s less here than meets the eye. While the Tribune may have hoped its scoop would be "history making," it didn't stop the House from voting $8,000,000,000 in supplemental defense appropriations the following day (by a vote of 309-5). And according to Secretary Stimson, the Tribune’s "exclusive" is really a secret War Department study on the feasibility of such an offensive, one of the many such studies the government undertakes on what the military might face in a war. But while not a statement of actual U.S. policy, its contents still could be useful to our potential enemies. For that reason, according to the Secretary, the Tribune was "wanting in loyalty and patriotism" for publishing this document.
"Wanting in loyalty and patriotism." Gosh, somebody else has noticed.
. . .
A HOT ONE FROM TOKYO. The Tojo government has replied to President Roosevelt’s inquiry about Tokyo’s big buildup in Indo-China. According to the Japanese, it’s merely a "precautionary measure" in response to Chinese troop movements. I can’t even imagine the most fire-breathing America Firster buying that, and Secretary Hull doesn’t even consider it worthy of rebuttal. According to the Washington Post – the Secretary, "in what appeared to be an understatement of the official view in Washington, said in response to a press conference question on the Japanese explanation that he had no feelings on the matter now which he had not had before the note was delivered."
. . .
Sunday, December 7, 1941
AN EVENTFUL WEEK-END. Until this morning it looked like the big news of the week-end would be Britain’s declaration of war on Finland (along with the Nazi satellite states of Rumania and Bulgaria). Then came word of President Roosevelt’s dramatic appeal to Japan’s Emperor Hirohito, which James M. Minifie of the New York Herald Tribune calls "a last-minute bid for peace." Mr. Minifie’s account describes just how tense things have gotten in the South Pacific --
"The President took this dramatic action as information came in that Japanese troops were moving while the British prepared to meet them by ordering their fighting men in Singapore to action stations and the American authorities in Manila decreed the immediate evacuation of non-essential civilians from the Philippine capital."
Mr. Minifie writes that the State Department puts the number of Japanese troops in Indo-China now at 125,000. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Administration also has gotten wind of "two heavily escorted Japanese convoys" sailing from Indo-China into the Gulf of Siam -- presumably heading for landing points in Thailand.
And if this wasn’t enough cause for worry, the Associated Press reports this morning that a new Nazi assault on Moscow, comprising some 1,500,000 men, has put the Soviet capital in her "direst peril" yet. Both sides are making their usual extravagant claims and counter-claims. One thing that is not in dispute is that the fighting is taking place in temperatures of thirty below zero.
. . .
THE MARK OF A CROOK. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Alameda, Calif., a gunman robbed a grocery store, poured a bottle of ink over the proprietress, walked out."
. . .
WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON? (III). Arthur Sears Henning puts the Pacific crisis in perspective in a Chicago Tribune "news" story --
"The Japanese . . . were already seeking an accord with the United States. They had been hit hard by the American commercial embargo imposed after they occupied Indo-China. They were unable to get American aviation gasoline and other oil products, cotton, steel, and scrap iron, ands other essentials for their war machine and civil industry. In the last few days Tokio has become belligerently vocal, in much the same tone regarding Japan’s role in the far east as our own in the Cleveland administration when Richard Olney told Britain that 'the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.'"
In other words, those nice men in Tokyo want peace, but they’ve been provoked by a nasty U.S. embargo. And if they’re being bellicose now, well, they’re no different than we were back in the Gay Nineties. Remember the days of President Cleveland, when the U.S. proclaimed it had a "heaven-sent" right to send millions of troops into Canada, Mexico, and all of Central and South America and confiscate their economic assets, while massacring their women and children?
No? Well, that’s the way Mr. Henning apparently remembers it. And that’s another sample of the increasingly bizarre world that the isolationists inhabit. One really does wonder, if we end up at war in the Pacific, whether the America First crowd would even put up a token show of support for their own country.
. . .
WHY JAPANESE AGGRESSION MATTERS. For anyone who might need it, Mark Sullivan’s current column offers a primer on just why a new round of Japanese aggression in the South Pacific is a threat to America --
"As to China, if Japan continues to fight that country, and conquers it, a great nation disappears, which is important for us to preserve. Further, if Japan conquers China, China comes under the Axis – Japan, Germany, and Italy. The Axis covers that much more of the earth, becomes that much more powerful -- hence that much more of a menace to us. As to Japan going south, into Thailand toward the Dutch East Indies -- if Japan did that she would hold a kind of a semi-circle, surrounding our Philippines. The Philippines would become much more difficult for us to hold, perhaps impossible to hold. Further, if Japan took the Dutch East Indies, she would control raw materials, important for us and Britain in war, and difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. As to Siberia, if Japan seizes part of that, she comes very close to our Alaska, and much closer to the United States. Siberia in Russian hands we do not regard as a menace, because Russia has never been aggressive toward us, in the military sense. But Siberia in the hands of Japan, we would regard as a direct threat. Against the possibility of it, we are energetically setting up defense in Alaska, and otherwise taking defensive measures."
I remember some months ago the fire-breathing isolationists of the Chicago Tribune tackled the question of whether Japanese aggression might threaten America’s possession of the Philippines, and their response was, in so many words -- "Well, the U.S. is planning to give up the Philippines in 1946 anyway." That seems to sum up the America First response to foreign threats -- "Run for your lives!"
. . .
JAPANESE TROOP MOVEMENTS IN INDO-CHINA. President Roosevelt was right yesterday in calling public attention to them, and to pose the obvious question -- why is Japan rushing powerful air, land, and naval forces to their bases in Indo-China while they’re supposedly talking peace in Washington? Tokyo hasn’t responded, but the answer seems to be likewise obvious -- Japan’s next move will be to attack Thailand, or to cut the Burma Road, or both. There’s no sign they’re doing this as a negotiating ploy, though they could back down in the face of the united resistance of the ABCD powers, whom the Washington Post says are now on a full war footing.
But what will the U.S. do if Japanese troops attack Thailand? President Roosevelt shrugged off a question to that effect at his press conference yesterday, and a New York Herald Tribune story earlier this week, based on Administration sources, suggested that we would move into a state of "not peace, not war" with Tokyo if they attack in Southeast Asia. But according to Bert Andrews in today’s Herald Tribune, a prominent Democrat, Representative Mays, chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee, says that if the President asks for a declaration of war following an attack on Thailand, he’ll get one -- "Congress will support a declaration of war now if Japan moves southward. Unless the Japanese renounce their aggression, we’ll blow them off the land and we’ll blow them off the water." If the President asks for a declaration. In other words, while the Administration has been saying that the question of war or peace is up to Japan, it’s also up to whether the President is willing to pursue a declared or undeclared war in the face of any new Japanese aggression.
And while reports from Tokyo now say the Japanese are going to give the Washington peace talks two more weeks, yesterday’s press conference by Secretary Hull has all but slammed the door on any lingering hopes for a settlement. According to the account by Hedley Donovan in this morning’s Washington Post, the Secretary said that seven months of talks have done nothing to narrow the gap between Washington and Tokyo and that the current negotiations with Envoy Kurusu are "near collapse." It is because, he says, Japan holds to a doctrine of conquest "identical" with the doctrine of Hitlerism -- and will not waver from that doctrine.
If that’s the case, then the only questions left regarding the future of U.S.-Japanese relations are -- Declared war? Undeclared war? Or a state of "armed truce"?
. . .
Thursday, December 4, 1941
HOUSE HEARTILY ENDORSES ANTI-STRIKE BILL. Finally, Congress gives some indication of actually believing we are in a state of "unlimited national emergency" proclaimed by President Roosevelt so many months ago. No doubt there were more thoughtful curbs under consideration than the Smith bill, which goes the farthest of any proposal to put rigid controls on unions working in the defense industry, and regulates organized labor as never before. But surely John L. Lewis’ vituperative handling of the captives mines coal strike made numbers of Democratic and Republication congressmen ready to stand up and say "Enough!" Not even the settlement of the threatened rail strike, which was set to begin Dec. 7, could satisfy the conviction that we can no longer afford labor stoppages in vital defense industries. The bipartisan 252-136 vote is a recognition that nothing must stand in the way of defending the United States.
. . .
AT LEAST HE WAS HONEST ABOUT IT. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Philadelphia, police accosted a suspicious-looking stranger, asked him what he was doing. ‘Waitin’ for my partner,’ he said. They asked, ‘Where’s he?’ The stranger replied, ‘Robbin’ a house down the street.’"
. . .
WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON? (II). It would be crazy for the United States to fight Hitler because of the fantastic strength of the Third Reich and its gallant, loyal allies. Nope, that’s not from the Völkischer Beobachter – it’s another missive from the America First crowd at the Chicago Tribune. Here’s a snippet of their wildest anti-war editorial yet, focusing on the anti-communist treaty which Berlin has now forced upon its vassals and subject states --
"The so-called anti-comintern pact has now been signed by 11 nations. They have formally leagued themselves to pursue a common policy in Europe and Asia. It would be a mistake to laugh at this understanding as if it were the product of fear, constraint, and nothing else. Denmark’s signature was no doubt forced, but the other nations, in greater or less degree, may well have joined because they found it in their interest to do so. . . . Hungary has been given her old boundaries again and there is some evidence to indicate her armies are fighting hard in Russia. Rumania has been given Bessarabia and in return Rumanian divisions have given a good account of themselves in the Ukraine. . . . Finland is grateful to the Germans for the recovery of the territory taken by Russia. Slovakia and Croatia are in a somewhat similar position and have sent troops to fight with the Germans. . . . Today we see the larger part of Europe in alliance with the axis for reasons of self-interest, or sentiment, or both, and most of the rest of Europe occupied by axis troops."
One could very, very charitably interpret this as an expression of an anti-communist, not a pro-Nazi, point of view. But then the Tribune, apparently not having heard the latest news from Russia and Libya, tries to convince us once again that only at a staggering cost could we possibly ever defeat the mighty Nazis and their faithful friends, so let’s leave them alone --
"Germany has at her disposal some 200 divisions, equipped and trained, and perhaps 70 divisions of allied troops which may be called upon. It is that formidable force which the war shouters in this country are demanding that we crush. To achieve this end we must raise, train, and equip a far larger army than Germany can muster and send the troops thousands of miles across the ocean to force a landing and conquer Europe. When we have conquered it at stupendous cost we must then police it. The considerations of interest and sentiment which have created the anti-comintern alliance will persist and only superior force, continually applied, will maintain any balance we may succeed in instituting or restoring. It is doubtful if ever in the history of mankind a nation was urged to take a more insane course from which it had so much to lose and so little to gain."
By next April, expect a special edition of the Tribune celebrating Hitler’s birthday.
. . .
WHY THE "LIMITED AGREEMENT" FAILED. Walter Lippmann explains in his latest New York Herald Tribune column why Premier Tojo is so angry at the Roosevelt Administration’s alleged intransigence, and just how unpalatable the "limited agreement" was which Japan’s special envoy Kurusu pitched to Secretary Hull last week --
"The question . . . is what is the purpose of Mr. Kurusu’s mission; what has he been trying to do? From what is known about the ‘limited agreement,’ which was proposed, examined, and rejected last week, the answer is clear enough. The immediate object of Japanese diplomacy has been to drive a wedge between China and the United States and then, having convinced the Chinese that they have been abandoned and sold out, to make with the help of their Nazi agents in the Far East a negotiated peace with the demoralized Chinese in which their resentment would be exploited by raising the cry of ‘Asia for the Asiatics.’ This was to be accomplished by persuading us to make an agreement in which Japan would temporarily withdraw somewhat from her advanced positions, and would temporarily promise not to attack anyone ‘but the Chinese.’ In return we were to supply Japan with oil and with cotton for gunpowder so that she could prosecute more vigorously her war against China. The plain purpose of this proposal was not peace in the Pacific; it was to isolate and infuriate the Chinese and thus to create an irreparable resentment within China against the United States and Great Britain."
Unlike some observers, Mr. Lippman believes the Japanese might still come around. But he emphasizes that it’s important to make Tokyo realize that the U.S. will not make a deal at the expense of China, or anyone else --
"Here remains the question of whether Mr. Kurusu, having failed to break up the Far Eastern coalition, has a second set of instructions which might lead to a general settlement by negotiation in the Far East. We shall see. In the meantime what we know for certain is that there can be no settlement in the Far East which is not a general settlement, and that there can be no general settlement if there is any weakening of the common diplomatic front that now includes America, the British Commonwealth, China, Russia, and the Netherlands. No concession of any kind can be made to Japan if it is made at the expense of any member of this coalition. The defensive position against Japan is a chain of which these nations are the links, and the whole defensive position will be fatally impaired if any one of the links is weakened or broken. . . . [W]e cannot retreat. The elementary dictates of prudence forbid it. Honor, which among nations is force without violence, prevents it. Duty, which is our obligation to those who come after us, compels ux to say that we shall not deliver those who come after us to a mortal conflict between east and west."
. . .
MORE STIRRINGS OF ALLIED VICTORY. The Soviet recapture of Rostov last week-end appears to be turning into a full-fledged rout of German forces in the south. According to the Associated Press, Russian armies reinforced by troops hastily brought up from Iran have launched what Berlin calls "attacks of extreme recklessness" in an apparent drive on Taganrog, some 40 miles to the west of Rostov. Significantly, the German high command is admitting its withdrawal from Rostov in the face of a great superiority in numbers of Red soldiers. That superiority suggests that the Nazis won’t be in a position to renew their drive on the Caucasus anytime soon, if ever.
And in Libya, the A.P. reports that British imperial forces have sliced through to the Gulf of Sirte, beyond Bengasi. This cuts the Axis’ main supply line far behind the main battlefield, as already-encircled Nazi and Fascist divisions south of Tobruk are being steadily mopped up. The United Press says that an Italian armored division has lost half its tanks in fighting with the British, and one of Mussolini’s own newspapers is fretting over the "great threat" to Libya posed by the British offensive.
And so Hitler’s hope of ultimate victory recedes farther into the distance. Premier Tojo, are you paying attention? Do you really want to stake Japan’s future on a faltering Axis?
. . .
Tuesday, December 2, 1941
WHAT WILL THE U.S. DO IF JAPAN MOVES? James G. Simonds writes in the New York Herald Tribune that the "final showdown on the issue of war and peace in the Pacific" looms as President Roosevelt hurries back to Washington from Warm Springs and Secretary Hull prepares to meet today with the Japanese envoys. Does that mean war is near? Perhaps not. According to the Herald Tribune, the Administration probably won’t ask for a declaration of war on Japan if the Japanese launch an attack in Southeast Asia, though such an attack would probably make such a war inevitable in the long run --
"Should the negotiations break down, diplomatic headquarters in Washington believe that a period of ‘no war, no peace’ may ensue, during which the American government would tighten its economic blockade of Japan while the Japanese Army and Navy prepared for possible action. Even a Japanese attack on Thailand is not expected to bring Japan and the United States into immediate conflict, it was said, but it would probably speed any eventual clash and also might bring about American military preparations in the Pacific in conjunction with the British, Dutch, Australians and Chinese to meet the new threat."
Mr. Simonds says there’s "pessimism and gloom" throughout Washington due to indications Tokyo will flatly reject U.S. proposals for a general settlement and might well break off the talks. We could get word of that as soon as later today.
. . .
AT LEAST HE ASKED. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "At Fort Bliss, Tex., Army officers received a curt wire reading: 'Request Extension of My A.W.O.L.'"
. . .
COULD GOOD NEWS PREVENT A PACIFIC WAR? While the apparent breakdown in the U.S.-Japan talks could lead to a general war in the Pacific, it might lead to something else instead. Namely, a prolonged war of nerves between the ABCD powers and Tokyo while the Japanese calculate the chances of a Hitler victory and ponder whether it’s really worth it to fight on behalf of the Axis. And right now, the Axis prospects look worse than they ever have.
The A.P. report this morning that the Russians have scored a smashing victory in the south, blasting the Germans out of Rostov and sending them reeling in a disorganized retreat, only a week after the Nazis had claimed that vital city, a gateway to the Caucasus, as a prize. The Germans are now in full fight toward Taganrog, some 40 miles to the west. Also, Daniel T. Brigham writes in the New York Times that the worrisome German spearhead northwest of Moscow, at Klin, is now cut off by Soviet counterattacks, and the latest Nazi attempts to relieve the Klin forces have been beaten back by Red artillery. A second German thrust has also apparently been stopped cold in the Moscow region.
Also, according to the A.P., the best of General Rommel’s forces in eastern Libya are now battling desperately to escape westward and avoid annihilation at the hands of the British.
Just perhaps Tojo’s men in Tokyo are mulling hard over these latest developments. Do they really want to jump into a major war on the side of an ally whose prospects for victory look right now more distant than ever?
. . .
SAME SONG, NEW VERSE. The isolationists are responding to the latest crisis with Tokyo with a new refrain of the same old song – "It’s Not Our War." The Chicago Tribune’s editorial page once again instructs us how it’s in our best interest to sit by and watch while a fascist aggressor knocks off our democratic allies (Britain and the Netherlands) in another pivotal part of the world --
"Certainly the American people want no war with Japan. The crisis arises over the threatened invasion of Thailand, or Siam, as it was called until recently. Siam, Americans know principally as a dreamy land where the white elephant is sacred and whose king came to the United States 10 years ago to have his eyes treated. Bangkok, its capital, is 9,000 miles from San Francisco. Singapore, the far eastern outpost of Great Britain which guards the road to the treasury of India, is just around the corner from Siam. . . . It is not supposed to have American soldiers and sailors die for the independence of Thailand and more than it is proposed to have them die for our interests in that area, because we have none worse such a sacrifice. The dying, if any, will be done for the perpetuation of the British and Dutch empires in the far east."
. . .
Sunday, November 30, 1941
THE U.S.-JAPAN CRISIS INTENSIFIES. So now we know why Secretary Hull did a brusque about-face late in the week about the possibility of a "limited agreement" between Washington and Tokyo. As the newspapers make clear this week-end, the Japanese have been massing troops in Indo-China for an attack on Thailand. Apparently this has been going on while Kurusu and Nomura have been dangling Hull the prospect of a Japanese withdrawal from Indo-China in front of Secretary Hull. (I guess the punch line is that Tokyo didn’t say which direction they'd withdraw their men.) There’s not many specifics in the dispatches on the latest Japanese build-up, although said dispatches are being carried in newspapers as diverse as Washington Post (by Hedley Donovan) and the Chicago Tribune (by Sam Bowers). There are these details in the Tribune account, provided by "unimpeachable sources" --
"Japanese troop ships have been plying, between Japan, China, and French Indo-China, carrying large numbers of soldiers with full equipment and supplies for an extensive campaign. Virtually every available boat in the area has been requisitioned by the Japanese, and large stores of gasoline and ammunition are being and have been moved into French Indo-China. At Haiphong, in north Indo-China, additional divisions of men, with artillery, anti-tank guns, and other equipment have been put ashore. The Japanese navy appears to be standing by for action. Word of these operations convinced Hull, according to reports, that the Japanese were not acting in good faith in the negotiations."
No kidding. While a few days ago the Administration seemed to have reached a "basis for negotiation" with Japan on a limited agreement, Mr. Donovan writes in the Post that Tokyo’s apparent adventurism has the White House singing a different tune today, according to a "source of unquestioned authority" --
"The Government’s constant endeavor, it was explained, has been to preserve peace in the Pacific, but there has never been any question of American acceptance of a ‘limited agreement’ which would sanction the presence of Japanese troops in parts of China or Indo-China. There is no opening for a compromise on that issue, it was flatly stated."
Would President Roosevelt ask for a declaration of war on Japan if the Japanese launched an attack on Thailand and sought to cut the Burma Road? Nobody’s making such a blatant statement, but the White House is saying this week-end that new Japanese aggression in the South Pacific would jeopardize "fundamental American interests." That sounds to my ear like the kind of thing you fight wars over. Moreover, President Roosevelt said Saturday, in so many words, that whether there’s a war doesn’t depend on what we decide – it’s completely up to Tokyo.
And what does Tokyo say? According to an Associated Press dispatch this morning, Premier Tojo has declared in a speech Japan’s intention "to purge British and American influence from Asia 'with a vengeance -- for the honor and pride of mankind.'" If that’s Japan’s answer, there clearly is nothing left for the two sides to talk about.
. . .
WARDEN, BLACKOUT THYSELF. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In North Harrow, England, investigators went to a building showing lights during a blackout, found the lights came from a meeting of air-raid precaution wardens."
. . .
Thursday, November 27, 1941
SECRETARY HULL REJECTS A "PACIFIC MUNICH." Just a couple of days after reports hit the press that the U.S. and Japan had achieved a "basis of negotiation" for a limited agreement to keep peace in the Pacific -- at least for a while longer -- the State Department has acted to slap those reports down, and hard. And officially, too -- Hedley Donovan’s story in today’s Washington Post says that Secretary Hull has given the Japanese special envoy, Kurusu, "a document rejecting suggestions for a 'Pacific Munich' and reaffirming America’s long-standing refusal to recognize Japanese conquests in China."
Some speculation -- it could well be that the problem with a "limited agreement," from the Administration’s point of view, is that by loosening our trade restrictions on Tokyo it would amount to tacit U.S. recognition of Japan’s "special role" in China. The Japanese don’t seem to have done anything to discourage this interpretation. And, Perhaps Tokyo’s "urgent" communication to Kurusu and Nomura the other day has something to do with this sudden turn of events.
Outside of that, I’m not sure what this means, though it obviously appears to take the life out of hopes for any kind of Pacific settlement. If the Administration has turned its back so quickly on the limited-agreement idea, then it likely indicates that President Roosevelt and his men have lost any faith they had that the Japanese would live up to such an agreement, or that there’s any conceivable chance it would lead to a general settlement which would include Japan’s withdrawal from China. The talks aren’t completely finished off by this development, but Mr. Hedley’s story pours on the doom and gloom --
"The sixth -- and possibly the last -- conference between Hull and Kurusu was followed by a State Department announcement that the United States Government is not retreating from any of the basic principles which have governed its Far Eastern policies. Neither Hull nor Kurusu gave any indication last night as to whether or how soon they might meet again, but the American note was not thought to have closed the door on all possibilities of further negotiations. At the same time, it was felt in many quarters that war or peace in the Pacific may hinge on Japan’s next move."
I guess now we’ll just have to see what that "next move" is.
. . .
WHAT THE WELL-DRESSED CROOK IS WEARING. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Dallas, police frisked a burglary suspect. He was wearing: a pair of overalls, two pairs of trousers, two swim suits, two suits of long underwear, seven pairs of shorts, eighty pair of women’s lace panties. In his pockets were: three knives, five pairs of dice, two pairs of scissors, five fountain pens, nine corks, a ring of keys, eight lead sinkers, twelve fish lines, 51 pencils, 14 marbles, one pecan, a box of snuff."
. . .
WHAT THE BRITISH ATTACK IN LIBYA MEANS. Barnet Nover’s Washington Post column Monday made short work of the notion that the British offensive in Libya comprises anything resembling a second front --
"Of the 750,000 British and imperial troops which, according to Winston Churchill, are now in the Middle East, probably not more than 200,000, if that many, are available for the drive into Libya, which Gen. Cunningham launched last week. Nor can that offensive, cheering as it is a demonstration of Britain’s reviving military strength, be regarded in any real sense as the answer to the clamor in Great Britain and Russia for a ‘second front.’ It is doubtful whether British pressure on the Axis in Africa at this time can have any immediately favorable bearing on Russia’s plight. If the British offensive makes headway Hitler may feel compelled to withdraw part of the Luftwaffe from the Eastern Front to Libya in order to prevent the British from overrunning that Italian colony. Considerations of time and transport, however, would suggest that the defense of Libya wil depend for the most part on the Axis forces already on the spot and those that can easily be rushed there. In other words, while the British offensive in Africa may not directly help the Russians, the fact that the Red army is still in the field, has inflicted great losses on the enemy and has compelled the Nazis to keep in the east a large part of their Wehrmacht, may considerably help the British."
Although Britain’s attack won’t be of much help to the Russians in the short going, Mr. Nover pointed out it could reap big dividends in other ways --
"If, this time, the British do manage to win a ‘total’ victory in Libya the development might prove of tremendous importance with respect to the entire course of the war. The British would then be in a position to exercise a magnetic attraction on those French soldiers in Tunis, Algeria and Morocco who are dissatisfied with Vichy’s collaborationist policy but who are today in no position to do anything about it. Furthermore, the conquest of Libya would provide the British with naval and air bases considerably to the west of those they now possess and thus tend to neutralize the use by Hitler of any bases Vichy may place at Hitler’s disposal in North Africa. It would also release a large number of men for use in a spring campaign against Germany either in western Europe, should an invasion there become possible, or in the Caucasus. Perhaps the most important development . . . would be its effect on Italy. That country’s war effort has been reduced to a shadow. Another severe blow might knock Italy out of the war altogether."
. . .
Tuesday, November 25, 1941
A BREAKTHROUGH IN U.S.-JAPAN TALKS? There’s no sign an agreement is imminent, but Wilfrid Fleisher writes in today’s New York Herald Tribune that something appears to be happening at the negotiations in Washington --
"Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, was understood last night to have reached a ‘basis of negotiation’ in his talks with Saburo Kurusu, Japan’s special envoy to the United States, and Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura, the Japanese Ambassador, looking toward a limited agreement with Japan on Pacific problems. In face of the apparent impossibility of reaching a general Pacific settlement due to fundamental differences in the views of the two countries, it is learned that Hull’s latest talks with the Japanese Envoys have turned to consideration of a limited accord which would serve to ease American-Japanese tension and prevent a war from breaking out in the Pacific."
The Herald Tribune article describes Japan’s obligations under consideration --
"Japan to renounce further aggression either in the southern Pacific or in eastern Siberia. Japan to withdraw her troops from Indo-China, thus removing the immediate danger of a Japanese thrust into Thailand or toward the Dutch East Indies and minimizing the possibility of a Japanese attack on the Burma Road which would cut china’s sole line of supplies."
In return, the U.S. would --
"Undertake to unfreeze a certain amount of Japanese funds in this country and partially lift the trade restrictions now in effect, which amount to embargoes. Would assure Japan of greater access to the raw materials she needs in the Southern Pacific, meaning Indo-China and the Dutch East Indies."
While Secretary Hull takes up these proposals with America’s Pacific allies, Tokyo appears to be responding quickly. The Associated Press reports that Japan’s foreign office "has sent a new communication to its mission negotiating with the United States government in Washington, and a new development is expected ‘very shortly,’" according to the authoritative Japanese news agency Domei. "It was understood that the foreign office regarded its message to the Japanese delegates as urgent."
. . .
A BUSY MAN. From Time magazine’s Miscellany section -- "In Detroit John Fletcher Jones was arrested for driving 48 miles an hour with one hand while he shaved himself with an electric razor plugged into the dashboard."
. . .
NO DEAL UNLESS JAPAN QUITS THE AXIS. For weeks we’ve been hearing that U.S. demands for a Japanese withdrawal from China were holding up the prospects of U.S.-Japan peace agreement. But now, writes Wilfrid Fleisher in the New York Herald Tribune, Japan’s membership in the Axis is said to be the chief sticking point --
"So far the Japanese have shown no disposition, either during the protracted Hull-Nomura talks over the past six months or in the recent conversations in which Saburo Kurusu, Japan’s special envoy to the United States, has taken part, to relinquish their link with Germany and Italy, and so long as Japan continues to be a partner of the Axis, there remains little prospect of an agreement with the United States. Japan’s role in the Pacific as a nuisance value on behalf of the Axis, immobilizing a large part of the American Naval Force, a large British sea and land force, Russia’s Far Eastern Army, and calling for growing military preparations by the Dutch East Indies and Australia, is a factor which is claiming close attention on the part of the Administration . . . . The feeling is that Japan cannot continue to play this role and at the same time expect to come to terms with America."
It seems to me that there’s always been little chance that Tokyo would withdraw from the Axis unless it was clear that Hitler faced defeat. So, wouldn’t the best hope here be for a limited agreement in which the Japanese agreed, by some diplomatic wording, to make their Axis membership inactive for the time being? In other words, I can’t see what a big difference this makes in the chances of avoiding war. It’s clear from multiple reports that the U.S. and Japan have no chance for reaching a general settlement, and in fact Mr. Fleisher writes that "recent talks have turned to the possibility of a limited agreement whereby Japan would withdraw her troops from Indo-China, thereby eliminating the Japanese menace to the Burma Road, in exchange for a partial lifting of American trade restrictions." Secretary of State Hull seems to indicate that the U.S. will continue talks on such a basis.
. . .
|
. . .
|
|
