Newspaper Page Text
W ffoenmg ptaf
With Sunday Morning Edition. THEODORE W. NOYES, Editor. “ WASHINGTON, D. C. The Evening Star Newspaper Company. Main Office: 11th St. ana Pennsylvania Ave. New York Office: 110 East 42d St. Chicago Office: 405 North Michigan Ave. Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area. Effective October 1. 1944. Regular Edition 4 Sundays. 5 Sundays. Evening and Sunday 90c per mo. $1.00 per mo. The Evening Star . tSOc per month The Sunday Star 10c per copy Night Final Edition. 4 Sundays. Sundays. Night Pinal and Sunday $1.00 mo. $1.10 mo. Night Final Star 75c per month Rates by Mail—Payable in Advance. Anywhere in United States. a 1 month. 6 months. 1 year. Evening and Sunday $1.00 $0.00 $12.00 The Evening Star._ .75 4.00 8.00 The Sunday Star_ .50 2.50 5.00 Telephone National 5000. Entered at the Post Office, Washington, D. C.. as second-class mail matter. Member of the Associated Press. The Associated Press is exclusively entitled to the use for republication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and also the local news published herein. All rights of nubllcatlop of special dispatches herein also are reserved A—8 * SATURDAY, December 2, 1944 Threatened Hostages The people of this country, and of all civilized communities, denounced the Germans as willful murderers when they began shooting innocent hostages as a measure of reprisal against their enemies. There can be no question that this sentiment was fully justified, and it is the more surprising, therefore, to learn that a French general, apparently with some Allied support, is now threaten ing to adopt similar tactics in deal ing with the Germans in the Stras bourg area. This threat has come from Major General Jacques Leclerc, who is said to have posted announcements in Strasbourg that five German hos tages will be shot for every French soldier killed as a result of guerrilla activities. Allied authorities have said that this cannot apply to pris oners of war, thereby implying that those to be shot—if any one is shot— will be civilians. The civilians, fur thermore, need not be guilty or even suspected of any offense. They will ! simply be picked at random from the community and put to death, j five of them for each Frenchman I killed. It is not surprising that the Ger mans have reacted to this proposal by threatening to dissociate them selves from the rules of war as estab lished in the Geneva and Hague conventions. To a considerable extent this threat is an empty one, since the Germans have paid scant heed to the established rules during this war. But if the warring nations j are to resort to what the Nazi high I command calls “reciprocal slaughter" j there is no doubt that the Germans ; can and will take a terrible toll of ; French and possibly other Allied | prisoners who are in their custody. American opposition to a policy of j killing hostages will not be based exclusively on fear of reprisals, how ever. More important is the knowl edge that to descend to this level ; would be to place ourselves on a par j with the worst of our enemies and j to make a mockery of our stated ' reasons for fighting this war. Criti cism of a policy adopted in the field can be voiced by those who remain at home only with the greatest reluctance, but in this instance there is compelling reason to express the hope that General Leclerc’s order, if still in effect, will be promptly countermanded by higher author ities. — A Time for Extra Effort A short time ago, although ad- J mitting the possibility of a sudden : German collapse, Prime Minister I Churchill warned that the European war might not end until early next summer. Now% in his statement at the opening of the new session of Parliament, he is even more cau tious, feeling disposed to drop the word “early.” Mr. Churchill still is willing to concede that our Allied victory may come sooner, but he emphasizes the fact that the Germans—with their land invaded and their backs against the wall—are strengthened by the “supreme stimuli” which such an immense danger creates for the endangered, the same kind of stimuli as galvanized the British in the dark days after Dunkerque. Indeed, the character of Nazi resist ance in the West, mounting daily in bitterness, tends so much to confirm this point that the prospect of several more months of war in Eu rope no longer seems out of the question and must certainly be be reckoned with. Yet reckoning with it does not mean resigning ourselves to it. On the contrary, the mere fact that such a possibility exists should lead to a maximum effort to achieve what is at least equally possible—a much earlier defeat of Germany, before winter’s end or by spring at the latest. In being cautious, Mr. Churchill is not being pessimistic: actually, far from being that, he strongly suggests that he entertains a highly hopeful view of what may happen in the next few w^eeks around Cologne and he makes the significant announcement that the great port of Antwerp—which Nazi propagandists have pictured as being battered into uselessness by rocket bombs—“is now receiving large convoys of ocean-going ships,” thus giving our armies an “incom parable sea base” of the utmost value in rushing mountains of sup plies to the most decisive sectors of the western front. At this critical point in the war, with Antwerp available and with our forces moving inexorably forward in the region of Cologne, anything can happen. It may be, of course, that the battle will go on through the winter, through the spring and beyond the early summer, but there is still good reason to hope other wise. If there is no letup anywhere, either on the home front or the firing line, if there is instead an increased effort—especially in keep ing our armies fully supplied—then the brightest of events may develop with the most gratifying speed and the Nazis may be finished before the new year grows aged. Mr. Churchill’s caution by ’no means denies such a happy possibility. Southeastern Front Perhaps the most difficult war theater in Europe to evaluate is what can best be termed the southeastern front. One reason for this is its complexity. The southeastern front is an irregular battle line extending with many sinuosities some 500 miles from Southern Poland to the middle Balkans. Although, in the large sense, it is a strategic unity, wide differences in terrain and commu nications break it up into at least three distinct subcampaigns which tactically have little in common. A series of Russian armies, with some aid from Romanian units and Yugo slav Partisans, are pushing westward against German forces assisted by Hungarians, Croats and other puppet troops. The central Red push, through the Hungarian plains up the Danube, naturally holds the spotlight of public interest, but the fighting on the flanks, in Slovakia on the north and in Yugoslavia on the south, are important parts of the general picture which should not be overlooked. About a month ago the Russians reached the outskirts of Budapest, the Hungarian capital, but were seemingly unable to storm this very strong position which effectively blocks the Danube Valley. Since then, they have been expending their main efforts in Slovakia, seemingly with the idea of outflanking Buda pest from the northward. However, difficult mountainous terrain plus the snows of early winter have made the going slow and minimize a break-through there until spring. A few days ago the Russian high command started a new phase in its strategy. This was a successful cross ing of the Danube in Southern Hun gary about 90 miles south of Buda pest, at a point just north of the Danube’s junction with the River Drava. That new bridgehead has already been firmly established, and can form the base for an advance either up the Danube directly at the Hungarian capital or northwestward in an outflanking move on a wide arc aimed at the Austrian border not I far from Vienna. However, it is too soon to consider j seriously such far-reaching possibili- | ties. Those Russian forces across j the Danube are operating at the end of very long and tenuous commu nications. Advances either towrard Budapest or Austria from the present bridgehead would be exposed to attacks both from the main German forces in Northern Hungary and from flank movements by other enemy forces in Croatia. We know very little concerning either , the ’ strength or the logistics of this en tire Russian campaign in the south east front. Hence, speculation should be tempered with caution. Bank Symbol The Bank of England, most notably famous of all institutions of its kind, was organized just about two hun dred and fifty years ago. An article in the November issue of Britain Today tells how it was started as an incident of a war which King Wil- j liam III was carrying on against the | French. His majesty needed money, ' and a gentleman by the name of j Paterson obliged him—in exchange for a charter enabling the city group to which he belonged to do business with the government at 8 per cent. The interest rate thus stipulated was relatively low for the time and in the circumstances, but the total sum wanted by the sovereign—one mil lion two hundred pounds—immedi ately was made available in the form of “sealed bills.” And on the face of those bills or notes there was impressed the in signe of the new corporation. The design portrayed “a not very youthful or comely Britannia ‘sitting on a bank of money’ and was, according to repute, later responsible for the nickname ‘The Old Lady of Thread needle Street’ ” still applied to the establishment. Such a symbol obvi ously was subject to an infinite variety of interpretations. It has appeared in one form or another on coins and stamps of many different portions of the British Empire as well as on the currency circulated by the bank as the “central bank” of the whole system of British Com monwealths, not Britain exclusively. The bank itself meanwhile de veloped from its original status as a limited lending agency until by 1764 it “had become, by habit, not by law, banker to the state and most of its departments.” It still at that date, however, shared with the South Sea Company, the East India Company and othe~ corporations the business related to the national debt. The notes it produced became full legal tender in 1833 and a monopoly be ginning in 1844. A gold standard reserve principle was maintained until the commencement of the First World War in 1914. It also was in effect for six years prior to 1931. Oscar Hobson, author of the Britain Today review, says: “From then on and a fortiori during World War n, the bank has become more and more a department of the treasury, tendering it expert advice, but lack ing all power of independent action.” Britannia on that account prob ably now should be represented seated upon a pile of engraved paper. To be entirely modern, she likewise should be shown in the neighborhood of “a great pool of gold and the currencies of all nations” partici pating in the international monetary fund proposed at the recent Bretton Woods conference. Educating the Nazis On its face, the proposal to teach democracy to Nazi prisoners in the United States seems sound enough, but it can be much more easily advo cated than applied. For apart from the question whether it would be in keeping with the Geneva convention governing such matters, there is some reason to believe that any effort to put it into practice would be self-defeating. Arguing along this line, in a letter to the Harvard branch of the Amer ican Defense Organization, Secretary Stimson makes out a convincing case for the War Department’s present program. That program, however imperfect it may be, at least offers certain opportunities for learning about our free way of life. But it does not make any organized effort to teach democracy because, in Mr. Stimson’s words, any such procedure would probably create “suspicion, hostility and resistance" and thus do more harm than good. In proceeding on this assumption, the War Department seems to be on sounder psychological ground than those who would try to convert the prisoners. In a measure, at least, political faith is not unlike religious faith. The classroom approach will not change the mind of a dyed-in the-wool Nazi, and the lukewarm Nazi probably would resent it enough to become warm. People like that are not going to be won away from Hitlerism by textbooks and lectures; if they can be convinced at all, what will convince them more than any thing else of the wrongness of their leadership will be their awareness of total defeat when they return to the homeland and see what has hap pened. After the war is over, Germany will of course need the profoundest kind of re-education, but it is doubt ful that the process can ever be ef fectively carried out by anybody but the Germans themselves. Faith in democracy, after all, is not some thing that can be imparted to a people in six easy lessons. Books and teachers and organized schooling can be most helpful, and are indeed indispensable, but a feeling for free dom cannot be forced upon a nation. The future Germany, if it acquires that feeling, will acquire it, not be cause of what we teach or fail to teach the prisoners here, but pri marily because of what the Germans learn from their past and present experience as a regimented mass. If they do not learn from that, they are not likely ever to have a society in which liberty can thrive. This and That By Charles E. Tracewell. In complimenting this column on. sticking up for the local squirrels a correspondent says that he does not understand how any one could find any particular fault with them. That, we believe, is easy to answer. The fact is that our common gray squir rel often interferes with something in which some one is particularly inter ested, such as a garden or house. A great many people regard all such animals as vermin, and the fact that the squirrel belongs to the rodent family, merely sets them in their belief. Vermin, according to the dictionary, means a noxious or mischievous animal, especially noxious little animals or in sects, collectively. Noxious means hurtful, harmful, bane ful, pernicious, injurious, destructive, unwholesome, insalubrious. According to these dictionary defini tions then any one who dislikes squir rels has a right to call them vermin perhaps. In doing so, however, he overlooks their great inspirational quality, inher ent in their good humor, their real abilities as acrobats and their Influence oh the mind and heart of those wTho ad mire them. * * * * If they would be just to themselves all persons who call squirrels vermin would try to find out what it is which so pleases many other persons. We know many most particular per sons who by no means would be sus pected to like "vermin,” in the ordinary sense, and yet these people not only like squirrels but are very fond of them. How come, in the vernacular? It basically is because of the com pleteness of the squirrel as an animal. It is only now and then, at the most, that our gray squirrels endanger man kind, rarely by disease and only now and then by stepping on his toes, as it were, in some of his pursuits. The squirrel will eat tomatoes and com in the Victory Garden and some times consume apples in the orchard or yard. He will dig up tulip bulbs occasion ally or even eat the tender sprouts of the crocus as it comes up in spring. He will get into attics, chaw holes in awnings and now and then nest in the wall of a house, particularly if he can get a shingle loose. Now and then he does real damage by getting into a locked house and not being able to get out again. His efforts to escape result in damage to doors and windows. He usually digs four or five holes in a lawn before he buries a seed or nut, and even his friends suspect that he never finds them again. Lastly he does to some extent inter fere with feeding the birds, since he eats much of the seed, especially the expensive sunflower seed, put out for the cardinals and other songbirds. These comprise most of the charges against the animal. All in all he does not do much real damage except now and then, when any one would be justified, even an admirer of squirrels, for putting a stop to the damage. Most of the hurts, however, are in the nature of petty interference with the perfect running of some hobby of the home owner. If the squirrel were the only creature which interfered some thing of a case might be made out against him, even here, but the plain truth is that many somethings or other are always interfering with our activi- ’ ties, large or small. If it ifn't the weather, it is a race of people around on the other side of the world; if it isn’t one of our own native insects, it is an in vader brought in by some unsuspecting airplane' from the far reaches of conti nents many thousands of miles away. All in all the gray squirrel is the least of our enemies and we had better save our fire and fury tor the real persons and creatures who and which intend us ' genuine harm because they hate us. Letters to The Star Disagrees With ‘Union Now’ On Nationalistic Basis To the Editor of The 8tar: For some time past, letters laudatory of Clarence Streit’s “Union Now” pro posal and advocating its adoption have appeared in your columns. A recent one, signed Janice Holland, appeared in your November 24 issue. Inasmuch as this is a time when clear thinking if imperative, will you permit some comment on that proposal? In the first place, Miss Holland is misinformed, for, at the Federal Union ists' convention of 1943, the proposal was enlarged to include all the peoples of the world. This changed the nature of the proposal and disposed of the objections numbered 1 and 2 in Miss Holland's letter. Again, Miss Holland says there would be no attempt to force democracy on those who prefer other types of govern ment, yet, in Section 5, Article III, of the illustrative constitution, it is laid down that the union will guarantee a democratic form of government to every member state, which is quite impossible except as to external appearance. The democratic spirit cannot be enforced. Miss Holland further states that the foundation of the union would rest on principles, not nations. But, when the proposal is examined critically, it be comes evident that it is not founded on demonstrable principles and, when it is proposed to set aside both nations and nationalism, it violates human nature and natural laws which have made nationalism the most powerful spiritual force extant. It calls nationalism ir rational and maleficent, which is on a par with saying that the airplane is irrational and maleficent. It speaks of Switzerland as three nations, which it is not, as Freeman’s essay showed. Mr. Streit's book is so full of inconsistencies and irrationalities that it is a cause for wonder how any one can be persuaded by it, and the fact that many have been is a sad commentary on their reflective faculties. Thus, it states as its major premise that the exercise of absolute sovereignty is the “germ” of war. But it lists 15 nations exercising absolute sovereignty which, it states, have not warred upon each other during the past 100 years. And that number includes two abso lutely independent nations which not only abut directly upon each other but have a long, common border which is wholly artificial. One of them is, moreover, infinitely more powerful than the other. In short, all the excuses for war are available if either of them were Inclined to war, yet war between them is unthinkable. They are Canada and America. The case of these 15, and especially that of Canada and America, directly controverts the thesis that the exercise of absolute sovereignty (nation alism) is the “germ” of war. Yet many (including Miss Holland, no doubt) ac cept Mr. Streit’s dictum despite the fact that his own book disproves it! Says British Hare Done It. That book is an outstanding example of how the right conclusions may be reached by wrong reasoning. In ad vocating the organization of democratic nations to suppress war if for no other purpose, Mr. Streit is simply proposing something the need for which is self evident and something already accom plished by the British Commonwealth of Nations, instancing once again how much further advanced in democratic ways the British are than we. But the forces making for such unions are so far from being understoood by or even known to Mr. Streit that none of them are to be found in his book. They are not understood by the general public, either; but the intuitive common sense of the public does operate to make it wary of any proposal which would abro gate and dispense with the spirit of nationalism, the only sure foundation of internationalism. The reasons why nationalism cannot be dispensed with can be shown; but the publication of them, now and under present conditions, is not permissible since it requires an expose of the forces antagonistic to nationalism in general and democracy in particular, and those opponents are powerfully organized. Democracy, therefore, must blunder along in ignorance, resorting to ex pediency, because it has no option. Happily, both expediency and natural law coincide in requiring democratic internationalism. But to extend the pro posed union to all the peoples of the world is to run counter to natural law and invite disaster. I have not mentioned the absurdity of placing representation on a popula tion rather than a national basis. Should it be adopted, then the most backward peoples would dominate. For it would be the Chinese, the British Indians and the Russians who would preponderate and be in a position to control. Brave Russia, for all its gallantry, is not yet a democratic nation, nor is China, while India contains literally hundreds of millions who have no faintest idea of what it is all about, or will have for years to come. A far more equable and realistic basis of representation could be ' worked out, one which would remain so far into the future. But it is not to be found in Union Now. Mr. Streit has been heard to remark publicly that, for him, the term, the family of nations, has no meaning at all! Could anything be more revelatory? As for Miss Holland’s fear that democ racy will not survive, let her be re assured. Natural law requires it and, if it should go down, it will rise again, as it has already done in past times. A. A. WILLIAMSON. Laughs at Congress Members To the Editor of The Star: In the news columns of The Star It is announced that 17 House members, including Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, have arrived in London on an inspection tour. The spokesman for the group is reported to have announced the purpose of the trip as being “to bring to the people at home a first-hand report of what the men are doing.” With experienced and capable re porters on the job, official communiques and daily reports of casualties appearing in the newspapers and reports hourly over the radio, there is little doubt that the people back home will wait breath lessly for the proposed first-hand report of what the men are doing over there. Though serious as the situation it, it is to laugh! E. M. PETERSON. Oldsters, Too! From the Jackson County (Kansas) Signal. The editor of one of our exchanges suggests that an important lesson for the youth of today to learn is that they live in a community and not off of it. 1 This Changing World . By Constantine Brown The return of Gen. Chou Kn-lai, the representative of the Communists, to Yenan, where he will submit the latest proposals of Generalissimo Chiang Kai shek for closer co-operation between two Chinese factions, is not expected here to bring much improvement in the rela tions between the Kuomintang and the Communists. Chiang is willing to work with the Yenan leaders but refuses to place him self under their jurisdiction. There have been several attempts in the last few years to bring about har mony between these two groups. They have failed because the generalissimo is convinced that the aim of the Com munists is to remove him from China's political scene. In spite of this situation the presence of “new American faces" in Chungking lends some hope that things may im prove before it is too late. Maj. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, who has replaced Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell, and Maj. Gen. Patrick Hurley, the newly appointed Ambassador to Chungking, are not “experts” on China. They do not know enough of the complex and complicated background of China’s in ternal troubles to obscure their judg ment regarding the immediate situation, which can be summed up in the three words, “Stop the Japs." * * * * Gen. Wedemeyer is looking around to see how he can best use the meagerly armed Chinese forces and Gen. Hurley is endeavoring to bring about a tempo rary agreement with the Yenan group so that Chiang can withdraw from that area several divisions which are engaged in “watching” the Communists. The question of a permanent solution of the complicated political situation in China does not enter in Gen. Hurley’s calculations at present. All he expects from his strong intervention and plain talking is some sort of a “patchwork" between the two factions to enable Chiang to stem the Japanese advance. Besides being one of the best American war-planners, Gen. Wedemeyer also is a very tactful officer. He realizes that war-planning alone will do neither him nor the Chinese Army good unless there is force to make those plans work. The situation is not, however, without remedy. Chiang is said to have been objecting for some time to the division of the inflowing supplies between his ground forces and the air forces of Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault. According to available figures, about 70 per cent of supplies are going to Gen. Chennault and only 30 per cent to Chiang. The over-all figure is still meager. If we could send them by sea they would hardly represent the cargo contained in three Liberty ships. The transportation by air also is extremely costly. For every one gallon of high octane gas the Chennault air force is receiving we must spend about 200 gal lons for the trip of the transport planes. The aviation, Chiang admits, has done superb work. But its usefulness as a raid force ffom China will end the dav we lose all the airfields to the Japs. The pace of destruction of these fields increases with the inability of the Chinese ground forces to fight the enemy because of lack of equipment and supplies. * * * * Chiang is reported to have urged Washington some time ago to reverse the proportion of supplies coming by air, asserting that he should receive the bulk of them while the gasoline and plane parts for the Chennault forces should be kept to a minimum—just enough for some fighter planes to pro tect the ground forces. Chiang feels that if he could receive between 15,000 and 25,000 tons of war material every month for a period of several months the whole military pic ture in China would change to his ad vantage. In order to comply with a certain amount of pressure exercised on him from outside, he has signified that he is willing to make wide concessions to the Communists. But he regards China’s problem at present as a strictly military problem and this can be solved only by a quick increase in supplies. He is said to be fully backed by the two realistic American generals, Gen. Wedemeyer and Gen. Hurley. The Political Mill By Gould Lincoln Lo, the poor Congressman. Come high taxes and higher living costs, he must get along on a salary scale which was adopted 20 years ago. If he has no outside income, it is tough going. With a Federal income tax, to meet, around $2,000 to $2,500, and in most instances a State Income tax, his $10,000 salary dwindles to about $7,000. He must maintain a residence in Washington, where he does his work, and a home in his own State or district, depending upon whether he is a Senator or a Repre sentative. He must make trips back home, sometimes frequently, and the cost of these trips exceeds the travel allowances granted by law. He is sub jected to constant and ever-increasing demands for subscriptions to all kinds of worthy projects. Representative Celler of New York is fathering a drive for a pay raise for members of the House and Senate—to $12,500. If he cannot tack an amend ment to the coming deficiency appro priation bill, he will seek to have the salary Increase carried in the next legis lative appropriation bill, due to come before Congress early next year. Mr. Celler realizes that a proposal to increase the pay of members of Congress may meet with criticism—proposals to in crease congressional pay have in the past. However, Congress is the only agency that can increase its own pay. * * ^ * It has done the job of seeing that pay increases for millions of Federal em ployes should be granted to meet the wartime stress. It has enacted laws which have made it possible for many more millions of workers in private em ploy to receive additional pay. For itself it has so far done nothing. In 1925 the salary of a member of Congress was boosted from $7,500 to $10,000. The still earlier salary of Representatives and Senators was $5,000. back in the days when a dollar w’ent several times as far as it does today. The change to $7,500 was made in 1907. If the congressional pay is raised—or an attempt is made to raise it—un doubtedly cries will go up that the mem bers are engaged in a "salary grab.” The charge might be abandoned if Congress should make some statement that the basic pay would go back to $10,000 if conditions ever become more normal— with taxes lower and costs of living, too. A pay increase for Government workers, amounting to 20 per cent on their first $2,900. or any part of it if their salaries were less than that figure, was put into effect because of war con ditions. It was done by jumping the work week from 39 hours to 48, and paying overtime. Not only do members of the House face greatly increased costs and taxes, but they also must run for office every two years — and campaigning costs money. Representative Lea. Democrat, of California has thought up a way of ameliorating this situation. He has introduced a proposed constitutional amendment making the House term four years, writh one-half of the House mem bership to be elected every two years. This is patterned, in a measure, after the constitutional provision which gives a Senator a six-year term, but calls for the election of one-third of the Senate membership every two years. * * * * Service in Congress has become a full time job. There are no long adjourn ments or recesses any more. Members have no time to make money, as they did in the past through law practice or business operation, when their presence was not required in Washington. The campaigning for re-election, ranging from 3 to 10 months, also eats up time which members might otherwise use profitably. This biennial political campaigning detracts from a member’s usefulness as a public servant, too. Time and experience are necessary in Con gress to give the Nation effective service. On the average about 70 per cent of the members of the House serve only five and one-half years—which means a big turnover. Mr. Lea argues that a longer term for members of the House will contribute to stability of government. At the same time, such a plan will retain the in fluence of the voters, expressed every two years at the polls, when one-half of the House membership will be elect ed and one-third of the Senate. Teamwork in Battle By Maj. George Fielding Eliot The modern battle team for land war fare consists of four main members— infantry, artillery, armored troops and planes. Only when all work together in close co-ordination can maximum results be expected. The basic member of the team is the infantry. Without good infantry, nothing can be accomplished In defense, second-rate infantry can hold a well prepared position, but it can do no more than die where it is put; it cannot with draw under fire, because it tends to lose its cohesion -when it comes into the open field. The men do not know how to take advantage of cover, they do not know how to make the best use of their various weapons in the mutual support of small groups (squads and platoons), which is the basis of infantry tactics. Nor can second-rate infantry be used for the counterattack, which is the heart and soul of elastic defense. In attack, it is upon the success of the infantry that all else depends; only good infantry, well trained, well equipped and well led, is able to overcome the tremen dous opposition which the power of mod em defense opposes to the attacker. * * * * But the best infantry cannot advance against the power of the modern de fense unless.it has some sort of fire sup port which is capable of knocking out the enemy's strong points, which can reach from afar to smash enemy auto matic weapons behind cover, and which can break up the obstacles with which the enemy seeks to obstruct the move ment of the attacking infantry and hold it under prepared defensive fires. This is the task of the artillery and of the supporting air force. The artillery can do this job well when it can be registered on its targets by observers who can see the fall of the shots and adjust the fire by immediate correction. Sometimes these observers must be In the air to do this; sometimes they can be on the ground. Under proper conditions of observation, and within its limitations of range, artillery can bring a heavier volume of sustained fire to bear on a given objective than the air force. The great advantage of air power in close support of ground troops is that the pilots can see what the enemy is doing, and thus make timely and in telligent use of their weapons; planes often can be attacking an enemy installation or an enemy unit in motion long before artillery fire could possibly be registered on the target. Moreover, air power has a much longer range than artillery. But the best artillery is not of much use if infantry cannot win ground, or in defense hold back the enemy from overrunning the battery positions. Nor can air power win or hold ground by itself, nor even protect its own bases, as we have discovered to our cost in China. And infantry cannot move rapidly once it leaves its trucks and goes into action on its feet; it cannot always cross fire swept zones, or dash forward to take advantage of an opportunity, or after a break-through conduct the pursuit by which the fruits of victory are garnered. These are tasks which must be per formed by armored troops, the cavalry of modern war. combining fire power and mobility to the highest degree, capa ble of exploiting the accomplishments of the infantry or giving it quick sup port in emergency, but, like it, requiring the aid of air power and guns to realize the fullest measure of accomplishment. And more often than not armored troops must work closely with the in fantry, so that the latter may detect and deal with enemy antitank weapons. * * * * It is in development of this four-way teamwork that the American Army in Europe has excelled. We have come a long wav from Kasserine Pass or even the beaches and hedgerows of Nor mandy, and we possess distinct advan tages over the enemy in the numbers and quality of our men and weapons. Our chief trouble is bad weather, which sometimes deprives us of one member of our team, the close-support airplane, and which cuts down the effectiveness of our armored troops and even of our infantry. Other disadvan tages are our distance from our bases, which puts a heavy burden on thg supply services; shortages of critical items in home production, notably at the moment in ammunition, and the considerable number of new troops which are going into action and which must learn their jobs in the hard school of experience. We have a good, smooth-working, well-organized battle team, complete in all its parts, capable of maximum effort because it is capable of the closest sort of co-ordinated effort. Behind our team we have adequate reserves of manpower to keep the team* at full strength, and adequate material resources to keep it supplied with weapons and munitions. Bad weather may delay us. Shortages due to human failures in foresight or performance may cause us difficulty.* There may, probably will, be setbacks and disappointments. But we cannot now lose this war, and the Germans cannot win it. They can stave off victory, they can make it cost us a little more by determined resistance, but they cannot do more. For them there is no future but the future of defeat. (Copyright, 1044.) Writer Urges Truth' On Military Training Sees Postwar Potential Need of Army of Millions By David Lawrence Now that the political campaign is over, some of the delicate subjects which were discreetly kept from public dis cussion are being brought forward. One of them is the plan for universal military training. The American people are being urged by church groups to defer action on this question until after the war, but the War and Navy Depart ments are urging immediate legislation because they do not want the military and naval organizations set up during the war to disintegrate in the transition period. The fact is that the American people might just as well get acquainted with the truth about their future military requirements. For a long time to come, it now develops, the United States will have to maintain a potential army of many millions of men. Reliance on the new League of Na tions or the use of moral force is ap parently to be secondary. Military men, of course, never have had much faith in international organizations, anyway. And they argue that until security is a reality, the United States must have in the meantime a large military force to maintain its influence in world affairs. Colleges Worried. There have been some interesting dis cussions this week here between college presidents and military authorities, and the whole story was disclosed. The col leges, to be sure, are very much worried about the plan for universal military service, not because they oppose the idea itself, but because many of them would like to avoid the interruption be tween the high school and college period and let military training be taken after graduation from college. There is, moreover, a traditional preju dice in America against compulsory military service. The War Department, however, is insisting that this is not a plan for military service, but a plan for military training. Congress, it is pointed out, would have to authorize the use of the trained men in any military service. It goes without saying, however, that in case of emergency of any kind, the trained citizenry would be available for service militarily because Congress would be compelled to act at once, so j it amounts to the same thing. The plan for universal military train ing will get much further with public opinion if the present administration ; exhibits candor and frankness in ex plaining the need for the plan to the j American people. For one thing, it may be necessary to call into military service the same men who are fighting the present war unless a considerable reser voir of younger men is brought into uni form immediately after the armistice ] to act as reserves. Actually the present law stipulates that men in the Army and Navy are subject to call after the present war for , a period of years. Large Standing Army. All in all. it evidently is the plan of the administratiton to maintain a large standing army after the war. composed perhaps of 500,000 regulars and approxi mately 1,000,000 trained youth, who could be called into service when Con gress so desired. On top of this would be at least 2.000,000 to 3,000,000 men who are now in the armed forces and who would be subject to call. Since the United States Intends to have a potential army of several million men, it seems probable that Russia will do likewise and very likely that Prance will create a huge force as well. Britain is expected to concentrate on air forces and navy rather than on a standing army. The prospect seems to be that the United States will furnish the bulk of the manpower for any future war. There seems to be no getting around the fact that the United States intends to make commitments to police Europe and that, in order to give the President a large enough force to put instantly in action without waiting for a debate in Con gress, it will be essential that many millions of men either be kept under arms or in reserve so that they can be immediately called to the colors. The military mind conceives all this as a preventive of war and argues for it on that basis. Irrespective of the merits of that age-old argument as to whether standing armies prevent wars : or provoke them by means of rivalry in armament, the fact is that the United States has been called into a European conflict twice in 25 years, and if the American people can be convinced that by a system of military training of 18 year-old boys, a third world war will be prevented, they are likely to recommend to their Congressmen that they pass such a statute. The whole question will be decided not on a basis of whether standing armies prevent or provoke wars, but on whether the security of the United States actu ally requires such a step. (Reproduction Rights Reserved.) Duty and Duty From the London Daily Express. However grimly the last battles In Europe or the Far East rage, is is the duty of statesmen who expect to be victorious to look ahead and plan post war frontiers and settlements. It is the duty of Parliament to think and talk of the future even when the missies of the enemy are still falling on South ern England. But it should be the pur pose and resolve of the nation to re member that every one of its schemes and plans for the future depends first on defeat of the enemies. There must be no mistake or last-minute miscalcu lation there. Threadbare Badge He thinks of Mother as all wisdom's fount; If owls are wise, his mother is still wiser According to his questions as they mount In talk with which no child is ever miser. Throughout the short-lived reign, with tongue in cheek l wear my robe of sage and do my best, Asking, even as he, for answers, meek Beyond his knowing ... to meet the test. Let the deflated future threaten me When he has entered wider learning’s door; Within his outgrown room I’ll always see A lad who asks queer questions never more. . . . Remembering each precious syllable In days when Mather was his Oracle. IDA ELAINE JAMES.