OCR Interpretation


Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, December 02, 1944, Image 8

Image and text provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1944-12-02/ed-1/seq-8/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for A-8

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.

xml | txt