The New York Times Book of World War II, 1939-1945
Page 13
There is no secret about which side in the conflict enjoys the sympathy of President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Hull, the entire Administration, nearly all of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American public. The President’s job in the difficult days to come will resemble that of Woodrow Wilson in 1914, 1915 and 1916 in that he must, to carry out his promise of yesterday, try to curb the natural sentimental reactions of public opinion in order to follow a pragmatic course of conduct that will have as its goal only the enlightened self-interest of the United States.
QUESTION OF WAR GUILT
So far as public opinion can be gauged here, there is every indication that the American people do not want to be involved in the European war as it stands at this writing.
Professional feelers of pulses believe that this frame of public mind will continue for some time—perhaps for a year or more. Then, the accumulation of dislikes (likes are not very important in determining mass psychology in wartime, experts believe) will bring national reaction to a focal point.
The question of war guilt has already been argued, and it will be a subject for argument in the free forums of American public opinion for a long time. Chancellor Hitler, replying to President Roosevelt’s peace appeals, asserted that he had tried in every conceivable manner, including an acceptance of the British offer of mediation, to arrive at a peaceable solution, but that the Poles were too determined on armed arbitrament.
Prime Minister Chamberlain, in his speech to the House of Commons yesterday, was equally certain that the German Chancellor had done nothing of the kind and that on the Fuehrer’s shoulders rested the responsibility for the catastrophe that seemed about to engulf Europe.
FINGER POINTED AT HITLER
Even those who have disagreed with Mr. Roosevelt’s foreign policy concede that he has consistently pointed to Chancellor Hitler as the potential aggressor who might plunge the whole world into war. The President’s conviction on this score, which has been fully shared by Mr. Hull, has been expressed on repeated occasions in language that was not even veiled by the niceties of official usage.
In his struggles with Congress the President has tried to keep before the eyes of the legislators the spectacle he envisaged of a growth in aggression, whether military, political or economic, which would eventually involve the interests of the United States. That is to say, he fore-saw a time, even if that should be years and years ahead, when the United States would have to decide, perhaps all alone, whether it could live in a world where brute force was the only determinant.
Believing that this country’s answer would be in the negative, when and if the issue were directly posed, the President has tried to lead the nation into taking part in the prevention of the very situation which has now arisen. He has had little success.
The United States Government has undoubtedly taken greater precautions than were dreamed of in 1914 to cushion the impact of European war on this country’s national life. Plans drawn in advance (largely as a result of the war scare preceding the Munich agreement of last September) have thus far worked efficiently to promote the evacuation of American citizens from danger zones, to keep the financial structure of the country, including the Stock Exchanges, functioning as nearly normally as possible, and to approach closely as that can be done to “business as usual.”
There has been complete absence of hysteria on the part of hard-worked and sleepless officials. Each one appeared to know in advance what he was supposed to do and has done it. The advent of the current European situation undoubtedly found the United States in a much better state of preparation than was the case twenty-five years ago.
Even under these favorable conditions, however, there has been an appreciable upset in the nation’s normal routine in the two days that hostilities have been actually under way. Stock and bond quotations fluctuated up and down. Investors and speculators were trying to divine what the value of these securities would be in a world pretty generally involved in war.
UPSET TO NATION
The mere fact of cutting off telephonic communication with most of the continent of Europe, for private users, had an unsettling social and economic effect. Distressed Americans were unable to talk with relatives traveling or living in Europe. Merchants and bankers were unable to conclude quick deals involving profits to be made only with dispatch.
Thus, if Congress should come into session immediately the isolationists would be in a confused situation. They would have to admit that the war makes some difference to the United States. On the other hand, they would be prodded by a measurable segment of public opinion at home urging them to keep out of “that mess” at all costs, the implication to them being that the best thing to do would be to do nothing.
FLUIDITY IN OUR POLICY
All of these divergent thoughts must course through President Roosevelt’s mind as he weighs the best path to follow in these early days of the conflict. In this time of lightning developments he has resolved, and has told his helpers to resolve, that fluidity of policy is of the essence. Every department and agency in Washington is on an hour-to-hour basis for an indeterminate period.
For the moment the war news naturally outweighs all else in importance here. For the moment the 1940 Presidential campaign has been forgotten, but that situation will not last long. The President will have to appease fears that he will exploit the situation in favor of a third-term candidacy, or for the purpose of perpetuating the Democratic party in power, as time goes on.
Just now it can be reported that national anxiety has produced at least a semblance of national unity behind the President’s declared policy of keeping the country out of war. That is not to say that there will be lacking, a little later, tedious and tendentious arguments about the best way to realize that aim.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1939
SOUTH AMERICANS SEE GAINS
They Hope Sale of Surpluses to Warring Nations Will Give Them Prosperity
By JOHN H. WHITE
Special Cable to The New York Times.
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, Sept. 2—South America’s reaction to the European conflict has been almost exclusively commercial. War means immediate wealth for virtually all South American countries by creating a heavy demand for their raw materials.
At present there are huge unsold stocks of almost all these raw materials in all South American countries. War in Europe, therefore, offers an easy, painless remedy for existing serious economic ills.
This would react favorably on more than one shaky government, as political troubles in South America are closely linked with economic troubles. When times are good and prices stationary, almost any kind of government can stay in power. When prices fall and banks begin closing on notes and mortgages, it is difficult for any government to remain in office except by force.
BUSINESS MEN WANT WAR
It is no exaggeration to say business men—Britons, Americans and other foreigners, as well as Argentinians—welcome war. They make no attempt to hide their eagerness.
It is also true than many economists in government positions welcome war in Europe as an opportunity to get themselves and their governments out of some of the monetary and other financial and economic messes into which they have got themselves. But they are not openly expressing their hopes, as are business men.
With very few exceptions the economic ills of virtually all South American countries have been aggravated rather than alleviated by the remedies applied. In most cases these remedies have consisted of South American versions of directed economy measures designed in the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere to cure industrial ills. They have not worked when applied to non-industrial new countries that depend almost exclusively on agriculture and mining.
To say that business men greet with glee a war to put an end to such a situation is to put it mildly—provided the war occurs in Europe, of course.
With the exception of the Chaco war between Bolivia and Paraguay and several serious civil wars in Brazil, the prese
nt generation in South American countries does not know what war means. Even those that followed the United States into the World War on the side of the Allies felt none of war’s suffering or hardships. They have no direct political interest in the present conflict in Europe and contemplate no trouble in maintaining a detached and profitable neutrality, unless the United States should be dragged in.
In that case several South American republics would undoubtedly join the same side as the United States, although probably not in an active role.
PREFER ITALIAN FASCISM
The ideology of Premier Mussolini and Generalissimo Francisco Franco of Spain has a much stronger appeal to South Americans than Chancellor Hitler’s. Unless Italy or Spain becomes seriously involved, South American countries probably will have little difficulty in maintaining a purely academic interest in the political issues at stake.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1939
London Kills Zoo Snakes Lest Air Raid Free Them
Wireless to The New York Times.
LONDON, Sept. 2—All poisonous snakes and insects and the deadly black widow spider at the London Zoo have been destroyed in case they should obtain their freedom during an air raid.
All the zoo’s valuable animals are being evacuated to the Whipsnade Zoo in Bedfordshire. Ba-Bar, the baby elephant, made the journey there today. Two giant pandas, four of the eight chimpanzees who amuse children with their daily tea party, the rare zebras and the orangutans are already safely in their new home.
Thousands of Londoners are having pets destroyed at clinics, particularly dogs which would be terrified by gunfire.
SEPTEMBER 4, 1939
Chamberlain Talk Announcing War
By The Associated Press.
LONDON, Sept. 3—Following is the text of the address by Prime Minister Chamberlain this morning: I am speaking to you from the Cabinet Room from 10 Downing Street.
This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed to the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were preparing at once to withdraw their troops from Poland a state of war would exist between us.
I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and in consequence this country is at war with Germany.
You can imagine what a bitter blow it is to me that all my long struggle to win peace has failed.
Yet I cannot believe that there is anything more or anything different that I could have done that would have been more successful.
Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to arrange a peaceful and honorable settlement between Germany and Poland but Chancellor Hitler would not have it.
He had evidently made up his mind to attack Poland whatever happened, although he now says that he put forward reasonable proposals which were rejected by the Poles. That is not a true statement.
British Prime Minister Nevile Chamberlain.
The proposals were never shown to the Poles nor to us and although they were announced in the German broadcast on Thursday night Herr Hitler did not wait to hear comment on them but ordered his troops to cross the Polish frontier next morning.
His action shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his intention of using force to gain his will.
And he can only be stopped by force.
We and France are today, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack on her people.
We have a clear conscience.
We have done all that any country could do to establish peace. But a situation in which no word given by Germany’s ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel itself safe has become intolerable.
And now we have resolved to finish it. I know you will all play your part with calm courage. At such a moment as this the assurances of support we have received from the empire are a source of profound encouragement to us.
When I have finished speaking certain detailed announcements will be made on behalf of the government. These need your close attention.
The government have made plans under which it will be possible to carry on the work of the nation in the days of stress and strain which may be ahead of us.
These plans need your help. You may be taking your part in the fighting services or as a volunteer in one of the branches of civil defense. If so, you will report for duty in accordance with the instructions you receive.
You may be engaged in work essential to the prosecution of the war, for maintenance of the life of people in factories, in transport and public utility concerns and in the supply of the other necessaries of life.
If so, it is of vital importance that you should carry on with your job.
Now may God bless you all and may He defend the right. For it is evil things that we shall be fighting against, brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression and persecution. And against them I am certain that right will prevail.
SEPTEMBER 4, 1939
ITALY FAILS TO ACT AS HER ALLY FIGHTS
Rome Plans to Stay Neutral Unless Attacked—Fascist Moves Kept Secret
By HERBERT L. MATTHEWS
Special Cable to The New York Times.
ROME, Sept. 4—Although Great Britain and France are at war with Germany, Italy has taken no step to join her Axis partner. She remains friendly to Germany but neutral, and she will make no move against the French and British unless attacked. This was made clear in Premier Mussolini’s newspaper, the Popolo d’Italia, this morning, which reaffirmed the declaration of neutrality contained in the Council of Ministers’ communiqué Friday.
Whether there is any possibility of Italy going beyond that attitude toward one side or the other cannot be stated yet, for the Italians continue to be completely secret. Since history always repeats itself, one may well suppose that the French and British are doing everything they can to win Italian benevolence, if not aid. That is the normal and natural thing for them to do whether they have hopes for success or not. After all, diplomatic relations between Rome and Paris and London continue on a friendly basis, and none need be surprised if André François-Poncet and Sir Percy Loraine, the French and British Ambassadors, who see Count Ciano, the Foreign Minister, so often these days, should be exerting their greatest efforts to win Italy away from Germany. It is their business to do so.
ATTITUDE IS NOT CHANGING
None can say yet what success, if any, they are having. So far as today is concerned there is that Popolo d’Italia article to go upon, which indicates clearly enough that Italy is not changing her attitude because Britain and France have entered the conflict. Although it was printed before those countries acted it was written at a time when there could be no doubt of what was going to happen.
The editorial begins by saying that the Council of Ministers’ communiqué should be “re-read and meditated.” Its words were “sculpted in stone,” says the editorial, meaning that it was meant to last.
From Premier Mussolini’s efforts for “peace with justice,” two things are to be deduced. It continues:
First, that notwithstanding certain foreign interpretations which are too hasty or ingenuous nothing is changed on the plane of Italo-German friendship.
Second, that Signor Mussolini has worked not only for the solution of the German-Polish problem but for all other problems which like this one now being solved by arms, have their origin in the Versailles Treaty.
“It is therefore natural,” the article goes on, “that whatever happens, whether the German-Polish conflict remains localized or spreads to a catastrophe, the Duce’s work—that is to say the work that will give a just peace to the Italian people and Europe—continues.”
There are two things about that editorial that should not be missed. One is insistence on the revising of the Versailles Treaty. The idea first cropped out August 30 in another Popolo d’Italia editorial, thought to have been written by Signor Mussolini himself. It was repeated in the Ministeria
l Council’s communiqué and all Italian comment yesterday, while today it is again emphasized. One should, therefore, feel entitled to believe that so far as Italy is concerned revision of the Versailles Treaty (by which Italians really mean the granting of what was promised to them in the Treaty of London) would satisfy her demands for “justice with peace.” If she could get that “justice with peace” without fighting or by going with one or the other side, one must also suppose she would act accordingly.
Benito Mussolini with Adolf Hitler, ca. 1939.
Premier Edouard Daladier of France in his speech before the Chamber of Deputies Saturday made clear the overtures to Italy. After paying homage to the “noble efforts” of the Italian Government on behalf of peace he said “if the attempt at conciliation were renewed we are ready to associate ourselves with it.”
Italy’s claims are chiefly against France and if the French were now willing to rectify them there is little doubt that M. Francois-Poncet has been telling Count Ciano that in the last few days. However, both French and British embassies deny that there was any contact with the Foreign Minister today.
The other thing to note in the Popolo d’Italia’s editorial is its insistence that Signor Mussolini is continuing his peace work. Signor Mussolini’s first openly mentioned peace work was the cessation of hostilities and the five-power conference, to which Viscount Halifax, British Foreign Secretary, referred Saturday. It was turned down regretfully and no mention that it was an Italian peace move has appeared in this country’s press.