Newspaper Page Text
With Bandar Morning Edition. THEODORE W. NOYES. Editor. WASHIN GTON, D. C, The Evening Star Newspaper Company. Mata Office: 11th St. and Pennsylvania Av*. New York Office: 110 East 42d St. Chicago Office: 435 North Michigan Av*. Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area. ? Regular Edition. 4 Sundays. 5 Sunday*. venlng and Sunday. 80c per mo. 00c per mo. he Evening Star_ 60c per month The Sunday Star 10c per coor __ Night Final Edition. 4 Sundays. 5 Sundays. Night Final and Sunday 00c mo. Sl.OOmo. Night Final Star_ 65e per month Outside of Metropolitan Area. _ _ Delivered by Carrier. The Evening and Sunday 8tar_.S1.00 per month The Evening Star- 60c per month The Sunday Star_ 10* per copy Rates by Mail—Payable in Advance. Anywhere in United States. £. 1 month. 6 month*. 1 year, entag and 8undaV_.si.00 $0.00 $13.00 e Evening Star_ .75 4.00 8.00 e Sunday Star_ .50 2.60 6.00 Telephone National 5000. Entered at the Post Office. Washington. D. C.. a* second-class mall matter. Member of the Associated Press. The Associated Press 1* exclusively entitled to the use for repuollcatlon of all news dispatches credited to It or not otherwise credited in this MP*r and also the local news published herein. All rights of publication of special dispatches herein also are reserved. MONDAY, May 22, 1944 BSSBBSSBSS8BSaSS=S=S=aSS=SS=SS==S3aS NLRB Under Fire The attack which Philip Murray and the Executive Board of the CIO have made on the National Labor Relations Board does not come as any great surprise. From the time of its organization under a law which was frankly weighted on the side of labor, the • board has been openly and often milltantly “prolabor.” The original members of the board went so far in their efforts to promote the growth of the CIO that the Presi dent, despite his own wishes in the matter, was forced by the opposition of the AFL to replace them. These changes in personnel have brought to the board men whose sympathies incline to the labor point of view, but who also have a sense of balance and restraint that was not a characteristic of the original members. Despite the claims of the CIO, the present board is not at all partial to emplpyers. It seems evi dent, however, that the members now serving have a keener regard for the public interest than was the case in the past, even though this occasionally necessitates the refusal of some unreasonable labor demand. For instance, the present board has refused to extend the benefits of the Wagner Act to employes who strike in an effort to force their employer to grant an illegal wage increase. They have held that fore men, while protected by the act against discrimination, cannot or ganize and compel their employers to bargain collectively with them. And now, for the sole purpose of expediting the handling of disputes which hamper the prosecution of the war, the board is considering a change in its rules which would per mit employers, during the war, to ask for elections where there is doubt as to whether a particular union represents a majority of employes. All of this is very alarming to Mr. Murray and the CIO executive board. The NLRB and particularly Gerard Reilly, one of its members, are accused of evidencing a “sense of irresponsibility and a complete lack of understanding of our war prob lems.” The proposed change in elec tion rules will have a “terrifying impact” upon war production. The protection afforded labor by the law is being seriously “undermined.” And so on. Actually, the board is attempting to do nothing more than show a decent regard for the public interest and to facilitate the prosecution of the war. But this will not serve to shield the members from the fury oT labor leaders who have become so accustomed to special treatment that they resent the mildest show of independence on the part of the men picked to administer the law which is known as “labor’s Magna Carta.” Terms for German Arms It is a matter of historical fact that the Kaiser’s armies surren dered in the First World War because they had been smashed in the field, because LudendorfT and other top German commanders had become convinced that the game was up, because the combined might of the Allies had made the defeat a mathematical certainty. Yet, in the after years, the rise of the Nazis was helped in no small measure by Hitler’s constant repetition of the lie that these armies were never beaten, but were, instead, “betrayed” by the Reich home front and “swin dled” into laying down their arms by President Wilson and his four teen points. By 1939 this distortion had been so ably exploited by the Goebbels propaganda machine that most of the German people belfeved it to be true, and probably still believe it. The same thing cannot be allowed to happen again. When this war comes to an end, it must be made clear beyond the shadow of a doubt —so clear that no future Hitler will be able to twist it to serve his ambitions—that the defeat of Ger man armed power was total. Ac cordingly, even though it may stiffen Nazi resistance, the report that Britain, Russia and the United States are planning to make the Wehrmacht surrender completely, without any conditions or prior bargaining, is reassuringly in keep ing with the lesson we have learned from the past. It was not enough, last time, to get rid of the Kaiser and do nothing about Germany’s militarism. Nor will it be enough now to get rid of Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy and do nothing about the general staff and the armies fighting us. Germans for genera tions to come must be convinced that their soldiers, their sailors and 4 their airmen were completely de feated this time, and that it was thus a ruinous madness for the Reich to have tried to enslave the world. To this end, according to the report, Britain, Russia and the United States propose to make the German forces lay down their arms as prisoners everywhere and to take such steps as to insure that they will not be able to reorganize for later aggressions. Apparently there are to be no armistice negotiations; the only terms will 'be terms of complete surrender. Beyond that, as a long-range matter,' Prussian militarism, as nurtured by the gen eral staff after the last war, is to be broken up, with special measures designed to guard against the creation of shadow armies. This Allied policy—still in the formula tion stage—is a stern one, but the German war machine, which has brought more heartache to the world than any other in modern history, has merited it. As for the German people themselves, terms of a different sort can be offered to them, giving them hope. In due time they will undoubtedly have the opportunity to rebuild and reform their country into a trusted mem ber of the family of civilized nations, always remembering the lesson they learned in the Second World War— that ruin came to them because their might was used for evil ends and that “the massed angered forces of common humanity” therefore rose up against it and struck it down. Mr. Welles Scans the Future Sumner Welles, former Undersec retary of State, has Just delivered an address the scope and tenor of which is aptly expressed by its title: “The Shaping of the Future.” Mr. Welles’ basic thesis and intellectual approach to this thought-provoking topic have already been indicated in his previous speeches and writings, but his latest address has a peculiar timeliness in view of recent diplo matic developments and the crucial stage of the war in both Europe and the Far East. Mr. Welles contends that the sole alternative for the postwar world is one between a planet-wide organ ization based on the full sovereignty of all independent states, large and small, and that of the hegemony of the major partners in the present United Nations. That continuing partnership of America, Britain, the Soviet Union, and possibly China, es sentially military in character, would, in Mr. Welles opinion, in evitably engender a new balance of power which would contain within itself the seeds of competing im perialisms, arouse the antagonism of the lesser nations, and eventually set the stage for a Third World War. Mr. Welles does not deny many hopeful events which indicate awareness of such dangers and a widespread desire for a postwar set tlement insuring lasting peace and stability. Yet he deplores the failure of the big three to implement the principles announced at various times, from the Atlantic Charter to the Moscow, Cairo and Teheran Conferences, by setting up a political agency representing all the United Nations, which could lay the founda tion for settling postwar problems by general agreement. He empha sized the need for making a start now, while the war is still in prog ress, and deplored the tendency of the great powers to deal with those problems by exclusively joint or even unilateral action. One of the most interesting points in Mr. Welles’ address is his em phasis on the time element. Unless truly international machinery is promptly set up, public opinion may come to look upon the hegemony of the great powers as a realistic neces sity “and that nothing more than lip service need be offered to the ideal of an international organization representative of all free peoples— both small and great.” The in evitable psychic let-down of victory could well accentuate this trend into a cynical, short-sighted “realism” like that after Versailles a genera tion ago. To avert that moral fail ure and its sinister consequences is the warning message of Sumner Welles, spoken from the background of his rich diplomatic experience and intimate acquaintance with the special field of postwar reconstruc tion. As such, his words are de cidedly worth pondering and heed ing. Victory Triangle It is a sound thing for our Allied world to proceed on the assumption that the hardest battles of the war may yet lie ahead, for if we build our hopes too high or let our ex pectations become over-wishful, we may create within ourselves a psychological mood so optimistic that relatively insignificant set backs may be magnified in our mind’s eye beyond their true pro portions, filling us with a sense of demoralizing disillusionment and disappointment. This does not mean, however, that we must be resigned to the idea of a protracted struggle. On the con trary, assuming that we maintain a balanced view of the realities, we have every reason to gear our collec tive effort to the objective of bring ing the war to an early end. This in itself—this aim to speed up the arrival of peace—can be an impor tant stimulant in our Allied drive for the final, conclusive victory, and it is an aim, moreover, about whose fulfillment we can be reasonably hopeful and confident. Moderate optimism in this respect can be based solidly on the firm and cheering facts of the present mili tary situation, especially as regards the Nazis and Europe. For, as has just been pointed out by Field i Marshal Jan Christiaan Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa and one of the world’s foremost soldier statesmen, our Allied forces now have Hitler caught in a triangular squeeze, in a three-way vise, from which there is no escaping, and which is made all the more deadly because of what we are able to do in the air in conjunction with our land and sea operations. Apart from the sea and air, where we are endlessly on the go, only one side of the triangle is currently pressing with major force against the Nazis. This is in Italy. The second side—the vast Eastern Front —is relatively inactive while the Red Army regroups, reorganizes and draws up supplies for a smashing new all-out offensive. And the third side—the imminent Invasion from the British Isles—is likely at any moment to erupt into action of unprecedented violence in Western Europe. Hemmed in by all this, his war industries forever being bombed and his Luftwaffe incapable now of putting up a truly effective fight, the enemy must rely chiefly on his network of land fortifications. But formidable as these may be, they are not enough to save him; they are no more impregnable than the celebrated Maginot Line; they can at best but delay the consummation of our complete victory. Indeed, given the application of overwhelming Allied power every where when all three sides of the triangle are fully activated, these fortifications may not be able to effect even an appreciable delay. In this connection, Field Marshal Smuts bids us to look at Italy, and when we look there, we see how our forces—with great rapidity—have smashed the vaunted Gustav Line in its entirely and how they are now doing the same thing to the Hitler Line, which was said to be stronger still. This speaks pretty much for itself; it means, in effect, that when the Red Army strikes again in the east and when the in vasion comes in the west, the fixed positions of the Nazis may prove far less forbidding than the Goeb bels propaganda machine has tried to make them seem. The latest from Goebbels says that the Allies have been unable to prevent German units from “reach ing lines farther to the rear.” It is just this sort of annoying incom petence on the part of the Allies that will result in victory. This and That By Charles E. Tracewell. “EUCLID STREET. “Dear Sir: "Yes, I am one of your fans. You have helped me to identify some of these birds, but there is a little gray one about as big as a sparrow that has a white "V” in its tail when it flies away. I can’t see quick enough to tell whether the white feathers are on the outside, but I think not. “We watch the birds in the Cook School garden from our kitchen window. Mockers, cardinals, sparrows, starlings, black birds are the most common, but there are some others I don’t know. My real purpose in writing is to get your advice on a bird book. We have the 10-cent store ones, but I saw two which look good, only I don’t know which would be more useful to us. “We are not technically inclined, and are just beginners. One was ‘A Field Guide to Birds,' by Roger Tory Peter son. The other was ‘The Illustrated Encyclopedia of American Birds,’ by Leon Augustus Hausman. Which do you think is better, or is there some other book which would be easier to use? “Very truly yours, N. M. W." * * * * “CHEVY CHASE BLVD. “Dear Sir: “ "Thank God for a Garden—’ and for Mr. Tracewell’s column! “May I ask your help? Can you iden tify a bird about the size of a robin, its breast more red that a robin’s, wings edged and tail tipped in white? “Can you identify a pair of rather large birds, about the size and form of bobwhites, with round full bodies and longish tails? One is smooth gray like a pigeon, the other brownish with pronounced black spots on his lower back. They look like game birds. They come daily and feed on the wild bird seed in our garden. They go about the business of eating in a most solemn and thorough manner. They are in separable. “Can you recommend a not too costly yet complete and in color book on birds? Preferably one specializing in birds to be seen in this vicinity? “Sincerely, R. I. O.’’ * * * * "ARLINGTON, VA. “Dear Sir: “I have been a reader of your column for some time, and my 10-year-old daughter is studying birds and must have some pictures. We have asked at several stores but cannot find any. Could you tell me where we would be able to get them? “Thank you for a very enjoyable column. “Very truly yours, W. P. R.” ii * * * "N STREET. “Dear Sir: “The other day I noticed a ‘bird’ of an incident which may or may not have constituted a serious interference with romance. A young lady walking leisurely in Lafayette Park dropped a dainty white handkerchief. Back of her about 50 feet a young Army lieutenant gal lantly hastened forward to retrieve the historic token, but before he could reach it a black bird swooped down and picked it up almost out of his outstretched hand, much to his apparent chagrin. He stood transfixed to the spot, gazing with the oddest of expressions after the bird as it flew directly across the street into a big tree in the White House grounds. “Sincerely, M. A. B.” * * * * Our Euclid street correspondent’s bird was the Junco, or snowbird. The books mentioned are good. Others are Chester Reed’s "Bird Guide, Land Birds East of The Rockies,” published by Doubleday, Doran; “Bird Portraits in Color,” by Thomas Sadler Roberts, published by the University of Minnesota Press, and “Birds of America,” edited by T. Gilbert Pearson, and published by Garden City Publishing Co. Our Chevy Chase Boulevard corres pondent’s first bird was the towhee or chewink, the second were turtle doves. Our recommendation for a simple and easily used bird book is the Reed pocket volume. Our Arlington correspondent may find out about the sort of pictures desired by addressing the National Audubon 8ociety, New York City, 4 Letters to The Star Booth Mystery Discussed By Critic of Dr. May* To th* Editor of The Sur: An editorial in The Star for May 12. entitled “Booth Mystery Again,’' opens up an interesting field of Inquiry into the incident of the assassination of President Lincoln. Prom that incident have stemmed the Lincoln myth and the Booth legend, and I am sure that you are correct in saying that “probably the mystery of the fate of the assassin of Abraham Lincoln never will be solved to the satisfaction of everybody.’’ There are several reasons why this is so. Barnum was not speaking idly whqn he said the public likes to be fooled, and this mystery puts money in the pockets of those who perpetuate it. A lie once set in motion can never be overtaken. There should be no mystery about the fate of John Wilkes Booth to those careful scholars who have dug deep into all the known records of his life and found the facts. The scholars of this type—and they are not publicity seekers, nor do they claim to know everything about Booth and his horrible crime—have no doubt that he died in Virginia on the 26th of April, 1865, and is now buried in the family lot in Greenmount Cemetery, Baltimore. Another type of scholars, so-called, seems to delight in casting doubt on this. They quote all sorts of “evidence" in support of their thesis that Booth was not killed at Garrett’s farm, but escaped and lived to a green old age under various names. Dr. Robert Gar rett, who witnessed Booth’s death, col lected some 50 stories of 50 escaped Booths. I have nearly as many, and two of them concern very prominent Southern clergymen—one an Episcopal rector and the other a Baptist minister. There are many people in Atlanta, where both lived, who still believe that each man was John Wilkes Booth. Some careful scholars have been puzzled by an oft-quoted statement of Dr. John Frederick May of Washing ton, regarding his identification of the corpse of Booth. If this statement, which he wrote in 1887, and read before the , Columbia Historical Society, is correct, there is a reasonable doubt that Booth was captured. It sHould be remembered, however, that this paper was written when Dr. May was 75 years of age and 22 years after the death of Booth. Comparing it with his sworn statement made at the autopsy on April 27, 1865, one mercifully con cludes that the venerable man’s memory had played him truant. Booth’s connection with Dr. May was only transitory. On April 13, 1863, the doctor removed a pistol ball from the actor’s neck. He had carried it there for more than two years, an angry and jealous actress having shot him in Montgomery, Ala., in December, 1860. That fact is fully attested; also the fact that the ball continued to lodge in the actor's neck until it produced a large lump or swelling which detracted from his good looks and gave him unnec essary pain. Its removal could not have been a very serious operation, for that very night Booth began his engagement with “Richard III,” in which he dis played all the power and energy for which his great father was noted. The wound promptly reopened and had to heal by granulation, which caused the scar by which Dr. May identified the corpse two years later. In his testimony at the autopsy, Dr. May referred to this operation as “the removal of a tumor,” and in his his torical paper he characterized it as “quite a large fibroid tumor.’' In the latter, but not in the testimony, he said that Booth particularly enjoined him “to say (if questioned upon the fact of his having undergone a surgical opera tion) ‘that It was for the removal of a bullet from his neck.”' In both statements Dr. May avers that the actor told him that Miss Char lotte Cushman gave him a bear hug on the stage and tore open the wound. Booth could not have made such a statement, for Miss Cushman at that time was living in Rome, Italy, and Dr. May not only attended some of his per formances as Booth’s guest, but he could have read in the Washington papers that Annette Ince, Effle Germon and Susan Denin were the actor’s leading ladies during this engagement. Booth never in his life acted with Miss Cush man. In the autumn of 1863 she re turned to America to give a limited number of performances for war relief, and appeared in Washington October 16, when President Lincoln and every body else attended. This may account for Dr. May’s confusion. This lapse of memory on the part of the doctor is further strikingly illus trated by a statement in the historical paper which had not only been widely quoted but has actually been made the basis of a book; to wit: “The right lower limb (of the corpse) was greatly con fused, and perfectly black from a frac ture of one of the long bones of the leg.” If this was true, then the corpse was not that of Booth. But it was not true, for immediately after the autopsy, Surgeon General Robert K. Barnes, U. S. A,, who con ducted it, met the newsmen and told them that the body was fully identified as Booth’s, and that “the small bone of his left leg was badly fractured, one of the smaller arteries ruptured, and the leg badly swollen.” Of course Gen eral Barnes was correct. No one denies that Booth broke his left leg. And the general's statement has been cor roborated over and over again by over powering evidence. It is to be regretted that Dr. May did not follow his sworn testimony given at the autopsy when writing his historical paper, which has misled so many per sons. Had he done so, he could not have said: “There was to me no re semblance of the man I had known in life.” In the presence of the corpse, after having identified it before Gen eral Barnes and his assistants, he made this sworn statement: “I think I can not be mistaken. I recognize the like ness. I have no doubt that it is the person from whom I took the tumor, and that it is the body of J. Wilkes Booth.” DAVID RANKIN BARBEE. Sales Tax Advocated To the Editor of The 8tar: It is stated that "Senators and their lawyers are trying to find a way to help small manufacturers, but have been unable to do so.” This seems like a very simple matter for so many wise men to ponder. They must know that a graduated sales tax on the products of manufacturers over an agreed amount would correct the advantage that the "big fellows” have. Gainesville, Fla. C. F. SMITH. a This Changing World By Constantino Brown In what will be one of the lut pre invasion political bombshells, the Soviet government will recognize Gen. Charles de Gaulle’s “provisional government" as the government which will rule France when the nation is liberated. For some time Moscow has extended full recognition to Gen. de Gaulle’s Com mittee of National Liberation, which has had a full-fledged Embassy In the Soviet capital. Ambassador Bogomolov, who until Gen. de Gaulle established himself permanently at Algiers had been the Russian representative to the govern ment in exile in London, has been Mos cow’s ambassador to the committee. Now that the hour of liberation of France is approaching, and Gen. de Gaulle is anxious to appear in France as the fully recognized government of the French people, Moscow has decided to give him that unreserved recognition. Britain has been aware of this Im pending step for some time and Inform ed the State Department last week of Russia’s intentions. There are strong indications that London desires to fol low in Moscow’s footsteps but does not wish to act without consulting the American Government, which still Is strongly opposed to any diplomatic measure which goes against our pledges to the French people.* . It is possible, however, that when con fronted with a final decision from Mos cow and London, Washington may re vise Its policies, much as it may dislike to do so. An American military mission com posed of a general and several colonels and majors recently was scheduled to leave for Algiers, but when it became obvious that Russia would recognize Gen. de Gaulle as a*de facto government the mission’s departure was canceled. It is not yet clear whether this means the American Government Intends to re-entrench itself in its old policies and has canceled plans for the mission to indicate ita displeasure with the new setup, or whether the group’s departure has been postponed to enable the State Department to follow Moscow ami Lon don in recognising Gen. de Gaulle. This would require the sending of an ambas sador with a full staff to Algiers. For the time being our “diplomatic’’ relations with Gen. de Gaulle are at a very low ebb. The special representa tive of the State Department with the French Committee, Ambassador Ed win C. Wilson, is now in the United States, having returned from North Africa about two weeks ago because of ill health. There are now only Junior State Department officials with the De Gaulle government. Whether this is intentional or not has not been disclosed by Washington authorities. In spite of the dislike for Gen. de Gaulle of some high-ranking British officials, such as Prime Minister Churchill himself, the British govern ment has never ceased to support the Fighting French leader financially or otherwise. In diplomacy the Interests of state take precedence over personal like or dislike. For some time the British government has been urging President Roosevelt to “bury the hatchet” and regard Gen. de Gaulle and his committee as a govern ment in exile. So far Mr. Roosevelt has refused, pointing out that his deter mined stand was not based on any per sonal animosity but on America’s desire to avert internal strife in France after we have spilled much blood to liberate her. . Mr. Roosevelt insists that France is not in Algiers or London but in Paris and in the tens of thousands of towns and villages where French people have suffered untold hardships in the last four years. These people,-he says, must be given a full chance to decide what kind of government they wish to have and who should be at its head. On the Record By Dorothy Thompson The creation in America of a "Council for a Democratic Germany,” the attack that has been made on it by Re* Stout’s Society for Prevention of World War III, and the acrimonious debate that arose in the ILO Conference in Phila delphia have brought about a confused discussion. The problem of the German future is most difficult and cannot, in any case, be solved on the basis of an ad vance blueprint. But the principle questions can be asked, with various al ternative answers, The wrong ques tions are being asked, and meaningless definitions are being made. For instance, there is the queston: Do we want a "soft” peace or a “hard” peace for Germany? The mere raising of this question gives rein to emotion rather than thought. It is not a con structive question. The question is: How can we get a stable and tolerable peace? It would seem obvious that no real* peace can be maintained without the active support of some Germans, who can get into power and gather behind them a sizable proportion of the Ger man people. The only possible alter native is to make Germany a colony administered by foreign governors. * * * * But what foreign governors? A joint government of Americans, Britons and Russians? Or shall Germany be di vided for administration? Do we want to have three non-German govern ments cheek by Jowl, under conditions where various -German groups will lb intriguing to split the three adminis trations? Can we treat an organised political, economic, cultural and com munications system like a static cake that can be cut with no bleeding? What chance would peace, between the three victors, have to survive in such a chaos? That question—not Germany—is the crux of enduring peace. Peace and collaboration between Britain, America and Russia. Had that condition ex isted we could have prevented this war even with German militarists in power. We could have crushed^ Hitler before he was dangerous. The Treaty of Ver sailles did not fail because it was too soft. It could have been softer, and still been adequate, had it been en forced, but some former victors were not interested. Any peace to be enduring must give people life and hope. Imprisonment for life is not a form of education. Many European countries have been conquered, disarmed and put under military occupation by Hitler. But all his horses and all his men have been unable to administer them in peace because Hitler’s rule was a death sen tence. Some of these countries are nations revived for only a quarter of a century. But with their armies de feated and disarmed, guerrillas still fight in mountains, and saboteurs in fac tories. Since everyone agrees that the Germans are as obstinate as Yugo slavs Mid Poles, one must expect that given similar circumstances the Ger mans would behave the same way. * * * * Mr. Rex Stout’s organization—ad vised, inciddhtally by a number of Germans—takes the line that Germans are an incorrigible people. Yet this organization asserts that It does not want their extermination. If they be right, the only conclusion is: Make Germany a permanent colony—over* which there will certainly be a struggle between the victors—and it will be a colony that will make more trouble than India, and all previous colonies rolled into one. What Hitler could not do to fellow Europeans, with the philosophy, temperament and plan to do it, Britain and America certainly cannot do. * * * * If I have argued logically, then: What consummation is devoutly to be wished? To be wished is a Germany, gov erned by law, restored by parliamentary procedures, drastically and ruthlessly purged of the reckless adventurers who have brought her and the world into this tragedy, deprived of instruments for aggression, compelled to restore, insofar as it is possible, the dreadful destruction she has wrought; with a social stabilization achieved for her working people; with her frontiers, whatever they may be, protected by a system of collective security; and wirh Russia, the western powers, and Ger many herself tied tightly into what ever European and world system is created. This is Jfco be desired, not for the sake of Germany, but for our own sakes—which is. after all, what matters. (Released by The Bell Syndicate, Inc.) Symbol of Unity By Maj. George Fielding Eliot On every battle front of this global war, the essential military unity of the United Nation* is being cemented with the blood of their sons. On every battle front, the very words “United Nations” become, with every added day of con flict and of sacrifice, more of an estab lished symbol of existing fact, and less the expression of a vague and distant aspiration. In Italy, the flags of Poland, Britain, France and America fly together above the ruins of the Abbey on Monte Cas sino. The men of those nations, yes, and the men of India, of Morocco, of South Africa and of New Zealand, died to set those flags on high, a-gleam in the sunshine of victory. Not only na tions, but the continents, the four cor ners of the earth, were there assembled in arms against the forces of darkness. In the British Isles, the young men of those islands, and of Canada, and of the United States gather in their hun dreds of thousands for the decisive bat tle of the west. With them are Poles, Belgians, Dutchmen, Czechs, Norwegians, ready to die that their countries may again be free. Meanwhile the airmen of all these nations fly ceaselessly, day and night, over the enemy’s crumbling citadels, smashing the centers of his power, preparing the way for the final battle of the nations. Along the vast Eastern Front, the battle-tried legions of Russia are gathering for their part in the final struggle. Poles and Czechs are with them, too, and their ranks include men of all the great and varied congeries of peoples who go to make up the popu lation of the Soviet Union. In Burma. Americans and Britons, Chinese and Indians, little Gurkhas from Nepal and Lachin tribesmen from the northern hills are breaking the back of the Japanese power in all the region north of Mandalay, are carry ing forward the road that will bring fresh help to the long-suffering people of China. In the Indian Ocean, a fleet under British command, composed of British, American, French and Dutch warships and planes, is hammering away at the enemy outposts in Sumatra and Java. In the Southwest Pacific, American, Australian and New Zealand forces are pushing back the Japanese from their last footholds on the Island continent of New Guinea. Meanwhile, Chinese armies, supported by American aircraft, fight stoutly for the vital lines of com munication within China itself, and in the North and Central Pacific a vast American amphibious power poises for new blows against the Japanese island defenses. Thus on the fighting fronts, the United Nation* are truly united. Their efforts are co-ordinated. Their soldiers and sailors and airmen give loyal obedience 3 to the orders of commanders In chief who may not be of their own land or their own service, and loyal co-operation to each other when battle is joined. But when we look elsewhere for the same unity, we do not find it. The military unity which we have achieved will end when the need for it has passed with the defeat of the common foe. The political unity which will then be needed to reap the harvest that has been so dearly bought, to perpetuate the victory that has been won at such sacrifice, does not yet exist, and cannot be created. For the pres sures which now hold the nations to gether will be relaxed, the common danger will be dissipated, and the cen trifugal forces of greed and suspi cion and selfishness will be at work upon the minds and hearts of all of us. It is only now, while we are united in a great common effort, while the sons of all the United Nations are dying side by side upon a hundred battlefields, that we can hope to forge enduring links of permanent associa tion to preserve the peace that they are dying to win. Every day that passes without accomplishment in this direction is a day lost which can never be regained. If we continue to post pone, to delay, to wait, to dilly-dally with the fate of the world, one of those days will be the last day; one of those days will be too late. The time has come for the American people to ask their Government why we must postpone further the formation of a United Nations Council as a begin ning toward the political unity of the United Nations which must be achieved if our victory is to be worth the winning. Why must we wait to take the lead in asking our Allies to join with us in this first and essential step? Why must' there be further delay in saying boldly and clearly what we are fighting for, and the sort of world we want to live in, and asking those who are fighting at our side to help us erect this definite symbol of our continued unity? Why cannot we now begin the task of creat ing the instrument of that unity which is essential if the cast and complex problems of the peace to come are to be solved, if the great alliance is not to dissolve on the day after victory is won as every other alliance in history has dissolved? This is no subject for partisan debate. This is no political football. This is a matter which concerns the future of every child in America, of the Nation as a whole, of the world as a place in which human beings may live and work and pursue happiness—or which they can, if they continue along the blind and stupid cgurset of the past, make into a hell which will beggar the imag ination of a thousand Dantes. (Cepyrltht, 1944, New Tork Tribune. Ine.) Writer Believes Peace Hinges on Economics Declares Killings Will Go on Without Postwar Organization By David Lawrenct Somewhere behind the scenes in Lon don end Washington they’re discussing what shall be done when Germany eol lapses—whether it la next month, next year, or the year afterward. Armies must be surrendered, weapons must be given up, but what Is to be dene about the populations that suddenly will find themselves without any government? What will be the best means of preserv ing order and who shall do the Job— Britain, America, Russia or an Allied polibe force? These are the more Immediate ques tions but In the background la the larger problem of what the postwar or ganisation of the world shall be. The American people seem to be a bit bewildered by the vague pledges and psomlses that "this time’’ the "mistakes" that happened "last time’’ will not be repeated. This is probably the biggest illusion and alibi of our day. Some of the same persons who opposed the League of Nations are now finding all the faults they can in that Instrument or blaming this or that personality of J918 And 1920, Republican and Demo cratic, when the real truth is that the crisis came 15 years or more after World War 1 ended. Germany, it is contended, for in stance, was disarmed in 1918, but it is argued that her general staff remained to plan a second World War. This is a smoke screen argument which covers up the terrible negligence of the British and French governments, dominated, as they were, by political parties that deliberately allowed the British and French armament to lag while Hitler built his up from a small nucleus of professional soldiers. Germany was militarily weak before 1933—she was no menace between 1920 and 1933. The rest of the world had more resources than Germany but Britain and France took no steps to match Hitler’s armament or to check his rise. Even as late as 1936, when Hitler boldly marched into the Rhine land, he could easily have been fore stalled. But while France and Russia protested, the British Foreign Office quibbled and delayed and finally ac quiesced in Hitler’s act. What is most needed is a postmortem on British and French lassitude between 1933 and 1939. That was the fateful period and it might also be asked what support American public opinion gave in that same interval whenever the British and French inquired if the United States would ever make good on her moral pledge, implied in the Kellogg-Briand treaties to aid the vic tims of aggression. Today, all this 1933-1939 period of' indecision and negligence is being glossed over by misrepresenting what happened in 1919 and 1920 and by claiming the peace treaty or the ar mistice wasn’t made effective. Like wise, there is an apparent effort'to substitute for an international organi sation of sovereign nations, in which all shall pledge a contribution of force to keep the peace, another system—alli ances of a military nature between Britain, Russia, China and the United States. Gov. Dewey favors a British-Ameri can alliance and President Roosevelt favors a quadruple force to dominate the world organization. Both plans are built on quicksands. For the American people, the British people and other peoples are not going to pay out heavy taxes forever to maintain huge arma ments. The sooner some statesman comes forward with a plan to remove the basic economic conditions that breed wars, some plan to make costly armaments less necessary and some plan in which all sovereign nations will join whole-heartedly Instead of an other balance of power plan, the sooner will the soldiers and sailors who are making the sacrifices in this war be assured that their efforts will not have been in vain. Full Employment Principle. The idea of promoting full employ ment everywhere is a useful principle in approaching the problem. For the question of war is largely at bottom an economic question both internally and externally. So long as nation-wide pov erty exists, there will be opportunities for dictatorship and tyranny. Where higher standards of living and economic opportunity are introduced the chances for peace are better. Too many people are saying that wars are inevitable and we might as well maintain huge armies and navies con tinuously. It's a philisophy of despair. Had it prevailed in medicine and science, the world would never have made prog ress. War is a disease that can be cured. But it first needs honest doctors, men of character who will not mislead their countrymen on the diagnosis and who will put the public interest above political ambition. A union of peoples is a prac tical idea. A union of a few nations merely invites a rival alliance. The ■way to peace is long and tortuous but it can be shortened if statesmen are hon est with themselves and with their constituents and recognize that no mat ter what the military arms may decide, peoples just don't stay conquered for ever. “Peace” must be made economically sound and worthwhile in a survival sense for conqueror and conquered alike or else the business of killing keeps on Indefinitely. Whispering Birch I never knew a tree could comfort no .., Sometimes, I’m sure I hear it speak, and then Each time my heart replies. It seems as though You and the yesterdays are here again. ’Twos on fust ‘Such a day in spring as now I watched you as you set the sapling out. It was so slim and frail. .. . The tallest bough Came scarcely to your chin. Today it’s stout And high with seasons' growth of these two years, And shades the door. Each time as I pass through I hear its whispering leaves repeat, "Let fears Subside, for love so great still shelters you." ROSE MYRA PHILLIPS.