Crucible of a Generation

Home > Other > Crucible of a Generation > Page 4
Crucible of a Generation Page 4

by J. Kenneth Brody


  most of the fighting.

  If opinions clashed, Colorado was involved. The Fowler Progress Club had

  been entertained during the week at the home of Mrs. Eugene Stewart. The

  guest speaker was Mrs. F. H. Trimble, the State Defense Chairman. She talked

  about women’s part in national defense. The club then stepped up and purchased

  a book of defense stamps. Turning to more congenial topics, Mrs. R. D. Lowder

  then presented a paper on homebuilding and furnishing, while Mrs. John Bre-

  vard enlivened and enlightened the proceedings with her talk about “Antiques

  FIGURE 2.2 “America First” costume in Fourth of July parade at Vale, Oregon.

  Photo by Russell Lee. Courtesy of Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsca-12886.

  16 Last Sunday at Peace: November 30, 1941

  and Heirlooms.” Mrs. Trimble concluded with an open forum on national

  defense.

  What was most interesting about the choice of editorials in the November 30

  New York Times Sunday Edition was that none of them dealt with the war in

  Europe or the looming crisis in Asia. The newspaper editorialized on “Class Liti-

  gation.” Its editorial writers foresaw no 1941 tax changes, commented on “Jobs

  for Teachers,” and paid their respects to “Mr. Churchill at 67.” They wrote rever-

  ently about a “New House of God,” the just-opened Cathedral of St. John the

  Divine, and closed with a sensitive essay on “Moonlight.”

  If The Times did not stake out an editorial position that Sunday on isolation-

  ism versus intervention, its letter writers to the editor certainly did. Robert Aura

  Smith of New York wrote that he had just completed a lecture tour in Wisconsin,

  Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri, conducting discussion groups on American policy

  among businessmen, bankers, teachers, and students. He had found no champions

  of isolationism. Among the 4,000 persons interviewed or represented, he had

  found only one admitted isolationist, a congressman from central Wisconsin. Any

  expression of nonisolationist sentiment was greeted with warm applause even in

  Milwaukee’s German precincts, and that was less than twenty-four hours after a

  large America First rally. In general, Mr. Smith found an attitude more of resigna-

  tion than of crusading. What had been done had been done and the involvement

  of the United States was not a fairy tale but a fact. There was a sidebar. Mr. Smith

  reported that many of his respondents lacked a high degree of confidence in the

  domestic policies of the administration. Labor policy and strikes were a concern.

  But overall Mr. Smith concluded that any emergency would find the Midwest

  “extravagantly loyal in its devotion to the declared causes of the United States.”

  Alfred P. Jones of Pittsburgh suggested a world commonwealth, a combination

  of democratic nations as an intermediate step toward further development. His

  proposal echoed Alfred Streit’s then-current call for Union Now between Britain

  and America.

  A negotiated peace with Hitler? Hans Schmidt of Chicago wrote that peace

  with Hitler would mean the doom of decency and liberty. But the alternative, he

  presciently forecasted, was a long war and the total destruction of Germany.

  The peace of the American nation seemed still a matter of debate and choice.

  Meantime, the dark clouds of war were towering ever higher in Asia. America was

  on the sidelines, but for how long? It was making preparations.

  Notes

  1.

  New York Times , November 30, 1941, 1

  2. New York Times , November 30, 1941, 10

  3.

  Washington Post , November 30, 1941, 10

  4.

  Chicago Tribune , November 30, 1941, 1

  3

  FACING THE GATHERING STORM

  A Nation at Peace: Stand-Off

  On October 16, 1941, Prince Fumimaro Konoye, 1 Princeton educated and in the arena of Japanese politics considered to be relatively moderate, had tendered his

  resignation; the Emperor accepted it, expressing suitable regrets. On the next day,

  FIGURE 3.1 Prime Minister of Japan Hideki Tojo.

  Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

  18 Last Sunday at Peace: November 30, 1941

  General Hideki Tojo succeeded Konoye as Prime Minister. The Emperor indi-

  cated to Tojo that he should not feel bound by any prior discussions or policies.

  In modern Japan, there had always been tension and a competition for power

  and influence between the navy and the army. The army was expansionist. Its

  leaders derived from the Samurai tradition, and Tojo was nothing if not a hard-

  liner. The navy had always had a more global outlook, formed and trained as it had

  been in the traditions of Britain’s Royal Navy.

  Tojo confirmed his bona fides as a hardliner in his statement of November 29.

  Hostile nations, he said—and he named the United States and Britain explicitly—

  were trying to exploit the peoples of Asia for their own interest and profit. He was

  gratified, he said, by the unified efforts of three nations, Japan, Manchuria, and

  China’s puppet Nanking government, “to eliminate exploitation by America and

  other Western nations with a view of cutting these accursed chains from your feet

  so that a new era may be ushered in wherein you will be able to live in peace and

  happiness.” Chiang Kai-shek, he said, was dancing to the tune of Britain, America

  and communism.

  On the same day, Tokyo radio declared that the United States had rejected all

  of Japan’s efforts to live in peace. Japan had been patient to the utmost limit, the

  broadcast said. It had given the United States every possible opportunity to coop-

  erate and live together in friendship. The conclusion was ominous:

  We are now in the very last act of this drama and let the whole Japanese

  Nation stand like one man behind its leaders for the highest and ultimate

  proof in her history. 2

  *

  Facing the gathering storm, the President sought refreshment in a weekend in his

  beloved Warm Springs, Georgia, where he had found comfort and recuperation

  from polio. He came by train to Newnan, where he transferred to an automo-

  bile for the forty-mile ride to Warm Springs. He made his way through a crowd

  eager for a glimpse of their president. There were brief formalities, handshakes

  with Mayor C. G. Smith, Sheriff A. L. Potts, and Chief of Police W. B. Sanders.

  Bodyguard Tommy Qualters threw a black cape with a velvet collar over FDR’s

  shoulders. The drive to Warm Springs under a bright sun through the autumnal

  countryside was, The Atlanta Constitution reported, “something of a triumphal procession.” Word had gotten around of the President’s route, and yards and crossroads

  along the route were jammed with people waving “howdy” to him. The President

  smiled and waved back. People stopped in their cars wondering about the delay;

  when they saw the President, they jumped out and waved their hats.

  If the President had come to Warm Springs for a rest, The Constitution observed

  that he needed it. When he emerged from the train, he had looked tired indeed,

  paler than usual, and with the famed Roosevelt shadows under his eyes. But the

  hard work of managing the ultimate crisis had not diminished the President’s

  famous geni
ality, as the greeters clapped and cheered.

  At the President’s favorite retreat, the Little White House, a detachment of

  Marines in full dress played the presidential ruffles and flourishes. After a brief stay,

  Facing the Gathering Storm 19

  the gates opened and the President emerged. At the wheel of his own car, a dark

  blue Ford with its top down, he drove to a nearby cottage where he had a reunion

  with his longtime secretary, Margaret “Missy” Lehand. He would speak at a Warm

  Springs dinner that evening. 3

  The President did not underestimate the seriousness of the situation in a speech

  at dinner to the patients of the Warm Springs Foundation. “I think we can offer

  up a little silent prayer that these people will be able to hold a Thanksgiving more

  like an American Thanksgiving next year. That is something of a dream, perhaps.”

  He went on to say: “In days like these it is always possible that our boys at the

  military and naval academies may actually be fighting for the defense of these

  American institutions of ours.”

  He ended his talk by calling upon Americans to appreciate their blessings, bless-

  ings that had been lost to many nations and peoples across the world. 4

  Shortly after, it was revealed that the President would cut short his visit to

  Warm Springs in response to the belligerent statement by Tojo that had exacer-

  bated an already critical situation.

  The President warned other nations that his country was united behind a pol-

  icy of opposition to aggression anywhere on earth. He wrote this expansive state-

  ment in reply to a letter from Senator Guy Gillette, Democrat of Iowa, a consistent

  opponent of the Roosevelt foreign policy and a steady vote against measures that

  would implement it.

  Senator Gillette’s letter recounted his opposition to many of the administra-

  tion’s enactments based on a sincere belief in their unwisdom. He had not sur-

  rendered his convictions, but he told the President:

  As one who opposed the action the Congress has taken, and as one who

  recognizes the need for the present unified mobilization of all our national

  strength and resources for a victorious attainment of the goals for which we

  are now committed, I am taking the liberty of addressing this letter to you as

  President of my country and Commander-in-chief of her forces, tendering

  my support and service in any capacity or activity where I can be of assistance

  in the work which we have before us to do and for the purpose of enlisting

  myself and all that I have in service for the duration of the emergency.

  To this handsome statement, the President replied in kind. He expressed his

  gratification and went on to say:

  That there is debate or that there are statements of conflicting opinion prior to

  the decision should not be taken by persons abroad as an indication of lack of

  cohesion among our people, though that mistake is sometimes made. While

  there have been expressions of different views in regard to our foreign policy,

  I have always felt that those differences were of degree but not of principle.

  I have been confident that we Americans believe in the defense of our

  country and that such differences as existed concerned only the time and

  place to begin that defense or the methods to be employed to secure ade-

  quate protection to the ideals of political freedom for which our govern-

  ment has ever striven. 5

  20 Last Sunday at Peace: November 30, 1941

  Preeminent among Southern journalists, Ralph McGill of The Atlanta Constitution

  observed that FDR came from time to time to Warm Springs for the same reason that

  Scarlett O’Hara went back to Tara. It was about regaining strength, encouraging the

  soul, and building confidence in the face of the tasks ahead. To the President, McGill

  wrote, Warm Springs was a talisman of luck and success in facing great problems.

  So Roosevelt had come back to Georgia. He had scored “most amazing suc-

  cesses.” He had kept the country out of war, that is to say a war with an expedi-

  tionary force in Europe and a Navy actively fighting the foe. Yes, the Navy was

  on patrol and, yes, there would be an occasional engagement and, yes, some ships

  would be lost. But, he cheerfully observed, it presently looked as if there was no

  need to send an expeditionary force to Europe and, even better, “If Japan keeps

  out we will not have to send one anywhere.”

  So McGill, acknowledging Japan as the big problem, thought that with the

  President’s Warm Springs visit, the Roosevelt luck might triumph and in a seri-

  ous diplomatic crisis the country would emerge peacefully. “If Japan makes an

  agreement with this country,” he concluded, “and stays out of the war on the Axis

  side, ‘The Old Master’ will have scored the greatest of his international triumphs.” 6

  *

  At New York’s Astor Hotel an audience of a thousand heard three knowledgeable

  speakers address the Far Eastern crisis: Tyler Dennett, former advisor to the State

  Department and past president of Williams College; Wilfred Fleischer, former man-

  aging editor of the Japan Advertiser and Tokyo correspondent for The New York Herald Tribune ; and Henry Luce, publisher of Time , Life , and Fortune . They didn’t agree.

  Mr. Dennett thought the prospect of a Pacific war a “phenomenon” in history,

  because of the very real compatibility of the economic and cultural interests of

  the United States and Japan. He viewed the United States as a long-time friend

  of Japan and found it both “foolish” and “utterly stupid” that Japan might try to

  gain by force what it could otherwise achieve through patience. But the United

  States would not, he said, be intimidated.

  Mr. Fleischer took a decidedly different point of view. To him Japan had no

  liking for America. The two countries were in agreement on no major issue. He

  doubted the current negotiations could advance much farther, and concluded that

  the country had come to a most dangerous pass in its relations with Japan and

  stood closer to war with Japan than at any time in the history of the relations of

  the two countries.

  Henry Luce admired the courage and the accomplishments of the Chinese

  people and was confident of their ultimate victory. He pointed to a strong tide

  of public opinion in favor of China (of which he was cheerleader-in-chief) and

  complained that government policy had failed to do what the public (or at least

  Henry Luce) wanted done. 7

  On the same day in a different venue, Professor Pierre Laurin, a longtime scholar

  and teacher at the University of Hanoi, offered a racier assessment of the Far East-

  ern situation. Japan, he said, was simply “bluffing.” In a war between Japan, the

  United States, and Britain, he boldly asserted, Japan would be defeated in a year. 8

  Facing the Gathering Storm 21

  In its News in Review, the Houston Chronicle reported that the talks between

  Japanese envoy Saburo Kurusu and the State Department appeared to be near an

  end. It summarized Washington’s attitude: that the United States would never

  withdraw aid from China, would never appease Japan, and would never recognize

  territory acquired by Japan through aggression; and finally, that America would


  fight to uphold its rights in the Pacific.

  All this was emphasized by the Chronicle ’s Washington correspondent, Howard

  Brayman. The relationship between the United States and Japan had never been

  so critical and so strained. So thoroughly basic and fundamental were the differ-

  ences between the two countries that he found it hard to imagine what kind of a

  settlement could be reached between the two sides.

  What if Japan from its Indo-China bases should attack Thailand, which could

  then serve as a base for an attack on Singapore, or should cut the Burma Road, life-

  line to China? Such developments, extremely serious in themselves, would imme-

  diately raise the question whether to allow continuing Japanese aggression in the

  Pacific until the war in Europe ended, and then to put Japan back in its place, or

  to move now, by military and naval action, to halt Japan’s expanding empire.

  *

  In few places was the debate between proponents of isolationism and interven-

  tion more intense than in the halls of Congress. Five Republican members of the

  House of Representatives journeyed to Britain to examine Britain’s war effort.

  If they remained divided as to the extent of American aid to Britain, the isola-

  tionists in the group confessed to having had to revise some of their opinions.

  Their basis for withholding aid to Britain had been the need for war material at

  home in the face of the threat of war in the Pacific. The question was not, they

  said, whether we should enter the war. It was rather whether Japan or Germany

  was the more logical opponent. But they all agreed that the visit had increased

  understanding of the common problems of the two countries.

  The representatives saw important changes taking place in Britain: a leveling of

  class distinctions, nationalization, and important health and food programs. They

  lunched with the Prime Minister and Mr. and Mrs. Churchill and attended ser-

  vices at Westminster Abbey after inspecting heavily bombed areas. 9

  *

  Nothing could more clearly exemplify Japanese attitudes than resolutions

  adopted at a great rally in Tokyo celebrating the first anniversary of the signing

  of the treaty between Tokyo and its Nanking puppet, and also of a joint declara-

  tion for mutual collaboration among Japan, Nanking, and Manchuko. The reso-

 

‹ Prev