The New York Times Book of World War II, 1939-1945

by The New York Times

  For example, while applauding the Secretary’s tactics of standing up to the Russian Commissar in London on the question of letting France and China participate in the preliminary peace treaty discussions, the committee criticized him adversely for letting Russia in on an advisory committee for Japan.

  Several members of the committee argued that he never should have suggested the creation of a Japanese advisory committee in the first place, and proposed that, in view of Russia’s insistence that the committee should “control” Japanese policy instead of merely advising on it, the United States should forget the whole thing and continue to govern Japan unilaterally, as we are now doing.

  PRESSURE ON BYRNES

  Therefore, it is fair to say that the Secretary is under considerable pressure to “be tough” with Moscow, but his new line, like all other possible policies toward the Soviet Union, is controversial and has produced mixed reactions.

  In the first place there are some officials in Mr. Byrnes’ own department who do not concede the premise that our policy toward Russia has either been “soft” or has “failed.” This group points out that the Roosevelt Administration did not accede to Russia’s demands for a “second front” in 1942 and 1943, that neither Mr. Roosevelt nor Mr. Truman acceded to their requests for heavy machinery under lend-lease, that both Democratic Presidents refused their request for a $10,000,000,000 postwar credit, and that both consistently opposed attempts to keep us out of Eastern Europe.

  Moreover, this faction contends that, as a result of a persistent American policy, the wartime coalition has been kept in being and an international organization has been established which is much nearer to the American blueprint than the Russian. This, they argue, is not “failure” but as much success as can be expected in negotiations between such vastly different nations as the United States and the Soviet Union.

  There is no tendency in the capital to condone Soviet Russia’s tendency to insist that military power is the only basis of authority in the world and that the Big Three should, therefore, make the peace. Nor is there anything but apprehension at the sight of Soviet power moving like a great cloud across the face of Europe and blotting out all information as it goes.

  Consequently, Mr. Byrnes has found very little opposition in the capital to his firmness in opposing the Russian Foreign Commissar in London on these points. But few observers here believe that more progress is to be made in the peace negotiations by stopping bad things than by thinking through and defining good and positive things, and the charge is definitely being made here that we have been in opposition most of the time sometimes against policies we ourselves seemed to be employing in other parts of the world.

  CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS

  For example, the Administration insisted again this week that in the event of any disagreement among the Allies about policy in Japan, the will of the United States should govern. This principle is undoubtedly supported in Congress and is justified by the fact that the United States, almost alone, achieved the conquest of the Japanese islands.

  But in response to our claim for an equal voice in the Allied administration of Bulgaria and Rumania, the Russians say they conquered these countries and insist that like the United States in Japan their policy should govern. Admittedly, they restrict us much more in these countries than we restrict them in Japan, but the controversy raises the point whether we are strengthening the principle of equal control among the Allies by insisting on it in Eastern Europe and denying it in Japan.

  Secretary of State James F. Byrnes arriving in Washington, D.C. after the London Conference, 1945.

  Similarly the Administration insisted on the acquisition of bases in the Pacific islands but opposed attempts by Russia to gain a sole trusteeship over Eritrea, and originally we suggested that the Dardenelles be put under an international commission, though we would hesitate to accept a similar device for the Panama Canal.

  It cannot be argued that these are exact parallels, but it is being argued both within the Administration and within the ranks of the United Nations, that American foreign policy is liberal, if not radical, in its proposals for other countries and generally conservative where our own vital interests are concerned.

  On the one hand, it is argued against us, we exclaim against Russia’s exercise of national power and on the other insist on our exclusive rights to the atomic bomb. In one case we put pressure on Britain to admit thousands of Jews into Palestine and put restrictions on their entrance into the United States. At the Mexico City conference we sought to strengthen the idea of joint action by the Americas on hemisphere problems and we supported the principles of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, and in practice we managed to call off the Rio de Janeiro conference without consulting all the Latin-American nations.

  CAPITOL HILL TALK

  If these problems could be solved with casual conversation, the United Nations would really be united in a hurry, for “the Russian problem” has replaced Franklin D. Roosevelt as the chief topic of discussion in the capital.

  Most of the talk on Capitol Hill at the moment, however, deals with the shortcomings of our Allies and the complexity of the problems. Here and there in Congress, and in the executive branch of the Government, there are men who start from the premise that they can do very little to change the policies of foreign governments, but might have some effect on the future actions of their own Government, but they are definitely in a minority.

  Even in the State Department itself the tendency is to say merely that we must now be “firm with the Russians” and “stand up for our principles,” but Mr. Byrnes and his new team have been so busy negotiating on urgent questions that they have not had time to see each other long enough to find out whether they agree on what our principles are.

  OCTOBER 14, 1945

  RUSSIA’S DISPUTED “ZONE OF INFLUENCE” IN MIDDLE EUROPE

  POLITICAL STRUGGLE STIRS WHOLE OF EASTERN EUROPE

  By C. L. SULZBERGER

  By Wireless to The New York Times.

  LONDON, Oct. 13—Eastern Europe from the Baltic to the Aegean is still, as it has been intermittently throughout the last century, the most troublesome area of the Continent, diplomatically speaking. This was conclusively proved at the Foreign Ministers’ Council.

  This Eastern group of countries could scarcely be called a coalition today despite the fact that Russian influence predominates in all of them, except Greece and European Turkey. On the Thracian-Macedonian boundary British influence begins.

  Broadly speaking, the U.S.S.R. considers that its victory in this war justifies the assumption of special privileges in Eastern Europe for security reasons.

  In all the countries within the broad Russian sphere the Communist party is the dominating and controlling force, although it is neither the majority party nor does it hold a majority of Cabinet posts—rather the key Ministries.

  POLISH COALITION

  In Poland the Beirut Government is a coalition of Communists, Socialists, Peasant party and Democrats. The Christian Democrats are trying to chisel their way in.

  Communist influence is predominant. President Boleslaw Beirut, who calls himself a non-party man, is to all intents and purposes a Communist. A Communist heads the Ministry of Security, another really runs the Foreign Office (Zygmunt Modze Ewaki), and another—Hilary Mine—is virtual economic dictator.

  Economically, Poland’s main job is reconstruction. There should be enough food to go around but transport is very bad.

  Socially, the greatest problem, agrarian reform and land distribution, has been ruthlessly but effectively solved. All large factories have been nationalized.

  Internally, anti-Semitism and guerrilla trouble with remnants of the old Home Army are the big headaches. Although there are not many more than 100,000 Jews left alive in Poland, they are still being persecuted, especially in provincial areas.

  Expulsion of the Germans, relations with Russia and the Czechoslovak frontier are the main foreign pro
blems. The first will be and is done, although in a pretty tough way. The second are bound to remain good because that is the way geography is. The third is something that will have to be solved by mutual agreement.

  A BASIC PATTERN

  Polish difficulties are in a sense a basic pattern for other lands in the eastern belt. They certainly want good relations with the U.S.S.R., but they want more democracy, according to the western interpretation of the disputed word.

  Czechoslovakia has the same problem with the Red Army, with expelling Germans—and, in this case, also Hungarian minorities. She does not have the Polish headache of shifting borders westward while giving up areas in the east. She just did the latter—Ruthenia.

  The Communist influence is not so strong as in Poland, but, especially in Slovakia, it is mighty powerful. President Eduard Benes has such prestige that he is a good figurehead for all the anti-Communist groups.

  Country No. 3 in the Slavic alliance belt created last spring by Moscow is Yugoslavia. There the old guerrilla spirit of the Hajduks is very strong. A visitor recently returning from Belgrade said so many arms were buried beneath the soil that a magnet would point down all over the country.

  Marshal Tito is a most popular figure, but some of his aides are not. The Tito-Subasich agreement has broken down with the resignation of Foreign Minister Ivan Subasich, Vice Premier Milan Grol and Minister without Portfolio Juras Sutej and there may be trouble during or after the elections.

  YUGOSLAV CLAIMS

  Yugoslavia’s frontier claims against Italy—especially Trieste—and to a lesser degree those against Austria and probable eventual ones against Greece, are all of current interest. Tito has also become a kind of godfather to Enver Hoxhas’ Communist Government in Albania, which is proving a useful anti-Greek irritant.

  Austria and Hungary, among the defeated satellites, are in a special category. Their governments, being those nearest the western world—not bloc, as some propagandists would have it—are about to receive western recognition.

  The West has a slightly better peephole into those lands. Freedom of the press is of a rather euphemistic sort in large belts of Eastern Europe. On the whole, London and Washington seem to feel that democracy in Austria and Hungary is not entirely a Molotoff cocktail. The land redistribution of Hungary certainly brought that country’s social structure up from the Middle Ages in a hefty leap.

  Rumania and Bulgaria, old enemies whom Hitler forced into a friendship that Stalin has managed to preserve, are the unwilling troublemakers between Russia and the West. The Communist toehold in both countries goes right up to the thigh.

  GREECE’S MIDDLE WAY

  Both are right next to the U.S.S.R., and do they know it! In each case the agrarian leaders—Dr. Juliu Maniu and George M. Dimitroff (the one Pravda calls a Fascist beast, not the party adherent)—are the propaganda targets every night.

  Last on the list are Greece and Turkey. Since the latter is principally Asiatic, it can be skipped in this review. Greece is trying to get some sort of government going that represents the large but disorganized middle.

  Neither the Right nor the Left is being very helpful in this process and the Left gets the old and curiously harmonious support of Sofia, Belgrade, Tirana and Moscow.

  OCTOBER 16, 1945

  LAVAL IS EXECUTED

  Prosecutor and Judges Find Him Stricken by Poison Smuggled Into Prison

  By LANSING WARREN

  By Wireless to The New York Times.

  PARIS, Oct. 15—Pierre Laval, who led Vichy along the road of collaboration with the Germans, lies tonight in a traitor’s grave in the potter’s field of the Thiais Cemetery, south of Paris.

  The last five hours of his life were as dramatic as any that he ever lived and were marked by a confusion bordering on consternation among the officials who had charge of his execution. When he was notified at 8:45 A.M. that he was about to be taken before the firing squad, Laval drank the contents of a vial of poison that he had kept secreted on his person for more than a year.

  In the presence of prison officials he fell unconscious on the floor of his cell. After resuscitation by a stomach-pump and some hours of rest and formalities, he was taken just outside the prison and shot to death under circumstances unprecedented in French judicial history. The press and the public were kept out of range by a large detachment of police.

  SAY HE DIED BRAVELY

  According to his lawyers and the few officers who were the only witnesses, Laval died bravely. He explained in a letter that he had planned suicide “so that French soldiers should not be involved in a judicial crime.” He said that he had wished to die as a Premier should and had chosen to execute himself as did the ancient Romans. He insisted on being allowed to wear the white tie that he had made famous. Wrapping his throat in a Tricolor scarf, he faced his executioners without a blindfold and died shouting: “Vive la France!”

  It had been planned to execute Laval, as is customary in cases of treason, by a military squad at the Chatillon Fort, some distance from the prison. It was found impracticable to take him there and, after some discussion, the platoon of colonial troops charged with the execution was brought with a hearse to the Fresnes prison, where Laval had been confined. After a wait of an hour or more he was shot at a hastily erected stake in front of the prison’s reservoir.

  Tonight an official inquiry was ordered at Fresnes to determine how Laval had got the poison. He made a formal statement exculpating his lawyers and the prison personnel, declaring that the poison had been carried hidden in the fur collar of his overcoat ever since he left for Germany in August, 1944. His lawyers and his medical attendants expressed the opinion that the suicide attempt had failed because this poison had lost its effectiveness with time.

  OCTOBER 19, 1945

  BIG FOUR INDICT 24 TOP NAZIS FOR PLOTTING AGAINST PEACE; ATROCITIES IN WAR CHARGED

  Goering, Hess, 13 Others Accused On All Four Counts in Bill

  By RAYMOND DANIELL

  By Wireless to The New York Times.

  BERLIN, Oct. 18—An indictment was presented today before the international military tribunal representing the United States, Russia, Britain and France to charge twenty-four of Germany’s war leaders—all Nazi followers of Adolf Hitler—with participation in the bloodiest, blackest plot against peace and humanity that has ever stained history’s pages.

  It was an unparalleled proceeding and never before have men been called on to answer for such heinous crimes on so vast a scale. All the human and material loss that Europe has suffered since Hitler came to power, including the blood of 5,700,000 Jews who were systematically exterminated, was laid to their criminal machinations. They were charged, too, with the ultimate responsibility for forcing more than 5,000,000 Europeans into slavery to Germany’s war machine and for crimes committed by the German armed forces on the battlefield and at sea.

  The prosecution requested the tribunal, which holds the power of life and death over the accused Germans, to declare that the Cabinet and the military and semi-military organizations that helped them to subjugate first Germans and then Germany’s European neighbors be declared “criminal in purpose.” The seven organizations included the Leadership Corps of the Nazi party, the Elite Guard, the Storm Troops, the Gestapo and the General Staff and High Command of the German armed forces.

  WOULD MINIMIZE LATER TRIALS

  If this were done, it was pointed out, it would be unnecessary to hold any more protracted trials such as that to be held soon in Nuremberg. Such action by the court would relieve the prosecution of proving in each instance that the members of those organizations were war criminals and would transfer the burden of proof to thousands of defendants to show that they were unwilling or passive members of the outlawed bodies, thus reducing the proceedings in their cases to the level of magistrates’ hearings.

  The indictment contained four counts. The first traced the historical development of the plot to turn peaceful Germany into an instrument of aggressive war by
submerging everything in the state to the Nazi will as personified by Hitler. All twenty-four defendants were accused under this count.

  The second charged that under their leadership Germany had embarked on a series of aggressive wars in violation of her treaty obligations. The third charged that, in the prosecution of “total war,” Germany had resorted to murder, pillage, torture and destruction in violation of the conventions of civilization and the penal laws of the countries where the crimes were committed.

  The fourth count laid at the door of most of the defendants the responsibility for the extermination, enslavement and deportation of civilian populations before and during the war, and for the persecution, on political, racial and religious grounds, of all those who opposed them or threatened to do so. This count is entitled, “Crimes Against Humanity.”

  Fourteen of the prisoners now in the Nuremberg jail were made defendants on all four counts. Besides former Marshal Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess, who were Deputy Fuehrers, these defendants were:

  Joachim von Ribbentrop, former Foreign Minister.

  Alfred Rosenberg, official “philosopher” of German racial theories and commissioner for occupied Russian territory.

  Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior.

  Fritz Sauckel, commissioner for forced labor.

  Albert Speer, Minister of Production.

  Walther Funk, Minister of Economics.

  Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Hal-bach, armament manufacturer.

  Baron Constantin von Neurath, ‘‘Protector” of Bohemia-Moravia.

  Arthur Seyss-Inquart, commissioner for Austria and the Netherlands.