Newspaper Page Text
Art—Books §% frnmtaj P!af Theaters—Radio—Music Junior Star TWELVE PAGES. WASHINGTON, D. G, DECEMBER 10, 1944. School Counselors Divide Over Best Method to Guide Importance of Providing Helpful Advice by Experts to School Children Beset With Problems, How ever, Gaining Recognition Generally By Clarke Slade, Well-Known Washington Educator. In nearly all cities these days the public schools have teachers designated as "counselors” in their Junior and senior high schools, the aim being to help students solve educational, voca tional and personal problems. Their training ranges from none to many sum mers spent in study. Washington schools have a start in this direction with one counselor assigned to each junior and senior high school. Cities are divided about the best means of counseling large numbers of students. Some employ only one coun selor per high school, believing that, essentially, guidance is and always has been a component of effective teaching, requiring no magic, mystical skill; the counselor’s job is to prepare and channel information for homeroom or classroom teachers to use. Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Minneapolis, to cite three large cities, do it this way. Certain others believe counseling is a field for experts only, with the inference usually that the only experts are teachers who have taken courses in guidance and counsel ing in graduate schools of education; these cities engage counselors in greater numbers. Providence and Pasadena are consid ered by public school people to have out standing counseling. Providence has one counselor to each 250 students and an assistant superintendent of schools in charge of the whole program. Balti more places one or two counselors in the smallest junior high schools and six in the largest. As specialists they work with, but independently of, the teaching staff. Too Few Counselors. Both ways of guidance are likely to put most of the emphasis on educational and vocational choices. Both make use of the newer types of tests. Both are limited to grades 7 to 12. Both fail to allow much time for work with individ uals. Washington is somewhere in be tween the two methods: The counselors channel materials to classroom teachers only informally and there aren’t enough counselors per high school to carry on all the work themselves. There are two approaches to coun seling: The “authoritative, directive” approach and a “permissive, nondirec tive” one. The first implies the coun selor’s ability and authority to interpret problems and supply the right answer. This makes students dependent, say child psychiatrists. The second implies the counselor’s skill in setting up a dis cussion so that it becomes a mirror in which a student sees his own problem in a detached way; then he can supply his own answer, from his own insight, and he can act with a minimum of outside help. This, say child psychia trists, makes students independent. De spite schools’ protestations to the con trary, most of them follow the “au thoritative.” Two years ago Philadelphia’s school board, with a refreshing disregard of other cities’ counseling and guidance programs, engaged a professional social worker to reorganize counseling and at tendance policies and head a division of pupil personnel. Here was a man who knew children, too, but from outside the classroom instead of inside. Still re taining the usual guidance in high schools, he set up a permissive, non directive counseling in elementary schools, where many people dealing with children think emphasis should be. Given Thorough Training. It is this deviation which makes Phila delphia’s counseling of possible signifi cance. Prom its teachers were selected 80-odd known to be interested in chil dren as persons instead of as academic sponges, and they were assigned to schools as rapidly as principals would accept them. Their preparation was marked for Its thoroughness, simplicity and common sense. They were trained in seminars and round-table discus sions: the best child psychiatrists in the country talked to them; leaders in training social workers lectured; they read, they discussed, they sought advice from older, more experienced teachers who knew a distraught child from a bad one. And all the time they talked with children and parents, reporting their mistakes and successes to the head of the division and his equally capable assistant, also a social worker. In short, the counseling teachers, as they were called, were trained exactly as a master craftsman trains an alert, promising apprentice: By handling actual cases under close supervision instead of rely ing completely on book-theory, but not expected or allowed to attempt the impossible. They knew that, funda mentally, no matter how inept they might be at first, a sympathetic heart, a ready ear and a mum tongue would remedy more children’s difficulties than a basketful of shiny new degrees. After an initial resentment the teachers and principals accepted their help because it paid off in school effi ciency. The counseling teachers worked with the mean bully, the shy and with drawn child, the boy every one picks on, the bright, restless child, the one who vomits at the sight of a reading book, the sissy, and the show-off; they helped each child individually “to set up his problem as it feels to him, personally, and to work on it in his own w$y; to bring him something new, such as in formation he does not have, and help him consider how he may be able to use it; and to recognize and accept ele ments in the situation which will not yield to his pressure and to which he will need to adjust insofar as he is aole.” Opposed in Elementary Schools. Washington schools do not want counselors in the elementary grades. Last year Congress authorized the Board of Education “to pay the salaries of such teachers, not to exceed one in each junior high school and one in each elementary school * * * to supervisory duties in connection with pupil gui dance.” The Association of Elementary School Principals passed a resolution against its extension on the grounds that, in elementary schools, the class room teacher and the principal should be responsible for it. Instead, they recommended that the size of classes be kept small enough to make effective guidance possible; that clerks be pro vided to free teachers and principals for work for which they are trained, which, in the association’s opinion, includes guidance; and that until these two things are accomplished no additional personnel be employed in the elementary schools and, when it is considered, the principals be allowed to aid in drawing up qualifications. There is plenty of honest difference of opinion about the Philadelphia pro gram but it is of Interest to other cities because it is a forthright, capable at tempt to combine the findings of edu cation, psychiatry, and social work into a way of handling children that brings in what others besides teachers know. And this, of course, makes the average schoolmarm hopping mad. She doesn’t like to admit that any one else knows anything about children. There are wide implications in the Philadelphia plan. It might even make schooling an effective experience. Wanted: A Voice House Treaty Fight Long a Problem By Howard Flieger Who should write the peace terms lor the people of the United States? A scholarly but nonetheless intense argument has been going on over that question ever since the first Senate snubbed George Washington. At least he considers himself snubbed. Now with peace approaching, it is back again. Since the creation of the United States all treaties have been subject to ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. That means a minority of the Senate can control our relations with other nations. Now—as often before—the House of Representatives wants a voice in the wording of the coming peace terms. Agitation has developed in Congress for an amendment to the Constitution which will make future treaties subject to ratification by a majority vote of both branches of Congress. And now—as before—backers of the change admit in private conversation that they don’t have much of a chance. They are jousting against a stone wall of Senate determination to keep its controlling hand on treaty ratifications. Changed in First Term. Historically the two-thirds rule was written into the Constitution because the Constitutional Convention felt that treaties should be concluded after a close consultation between the President and the Senate. Too, they felt that the Senate—with two votes for each State— could better express the will of the smaller States. The Constitution, consequently, says treaties shall be ratified with “the advice and consent” of the Senate. But George Washington himself did much to erase the “advice.” The Senate kept him cooling his heels outside the Senate door for two days once he wanted to consult with it on an Indian treaty. He left and never again, after that experience, did he ask the Senate's treaty advice. Since then most of the work on treaties has been done by the executive branch of the Government—the Presi dent. They have been ratified or re jected more on the basis qf “consent” than "advice,” even though the present administration has kept the Senate Foreign Relations Committee well abreast of its own peace plans. So the modern debate on treaty ratification turns on a new point. The question now is whether a two thirds vote of the Senate or a majority vote of the whole Congress is more expressive of the public attitude toward treaty terms. Affected by Whims. Advocates of the two-thirds rule feel that treaty ratification by a simple majority of Congress would make our international dealings too dependent on the whims of party politics and other more emotional elements. They envision a situation where an administration without party control of both branches of Congress could find itself hamstrung on almost any proposal. Edwin Borchard, an authority on international law and a member of the Yale law faculty, said this in a radio debate on the subject: “Political reasons in opposing a treaty in the form submitted, which are present sometimes, are not necessarily reprehensible. Motives are usually mixed. An executive is not necessarily wise, and it is not possible to prove that the senatorial check has not, on the whole, operated to the country’s advantage. “There has been no provable abuse of its legal authority. There is no reason to suppose that the issue will not be come even more political if the two houses do not happen to belong to the same party.” War Power Compared. Arguing for the change—to give the House a voice in treaty ratification— Representative Kefauver, Democratic, of Tennessee said recently: “The members of the .House of Repre sentatives, being closer to the people, should have a voice in seeing that we do not repeat the tragic blunder of the last war (when Senate minority de feated United States participation in the League of Nations). “If we can trust the majority (of Con gress) to declare war, can we not with equal faith and the wisdom and judg ment of the majority, trust it to ratify a peace treaty?” he asked. War-Born Industries a Problem Nations Which Have Developed Own Plants Toy With Tariff Idea By Sigrfd Ar«e Iceland built herself a biscuit factory during this war. It’s a good example in miniature of the tug of war the United Nations will get into when they try to reduce the tariff walls that almost dried up world trade before the war. Iceland used to buy her biscuits from England. The war came and England couldn’t spare them, so the bakery was built in Reykjavik. When the war ends, what if England —in the hope of getting back this small segment of her trade—can sell biscuits cheaper in Iceland than the Reykjavik baker? “I’m quite sure we’d protect the home industry with a tariff that would make the English biscuit at least as expen sive as the homemade one,” Haraldur Arnason, director of Iceland’s Cham ber of Commerce, said on a recent visit here. “The factory means a shift in our buying,” he pointed out. “We won’t buy biscuits from England. We’ll probably buy flour from Canada. The same thing will happen for certain types of cloth ing, such as shirts, which we used to buy in England, but now make our selves. Now we’ll buy yard goods in stead, either in England or the United States.” Trend World-Wide. All over the world, in countries that had comparatively little manufacturing in 1939, there are similar new indus tries which may get the protection of new tariffs. There will be a strong pull to protect them at the same time that United Nations leaders are tugging in the other direction: trying to cut down tariff walls. India has the same story as Iceland, on the grand scale. She now has the biggest steel mill in the British Empire. One of her financiers, who was here in July, said, “We want to make our own machine tools, alloys, locomotives, freight cars—all of which we used to buy in England, Germany, and some in the United States. The war has given us new chemical and fertilizer indus tries and expanded our cement and textile industries. If foreign products can be sold cheaper in our markets, we’ll naturally protect the home indus tries with tariffs—new tariffs.” In Australia there’s, a lusty new steel industry, with thousands of people who have learned factory techniques turning out munitions. Australia’s delegations to this year’s United Nations confer ences believe in as free world trade as possible—but, they admit, they’ff re luctantly protect their home industries, if they have to, with new tariffs. Others Make Their Own. Around the world there’s the same story: Peru is making her first auto tires, entirely from Peruvian materials; tire factories have sprung up in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Argentine, Brazil; Wins in Senate Former Cowboy Gains Seat on Third Try By Edward A. Olsen. BOISE, Idaho.—Glen H. Taylor, for whom the third time was really the charm, will enter Congress as Idaho’s new Senator in January after toppling j some of the Gem State’s most potent office seekers in six years of trying. The former cowboy singer and war worker, until a few years ago an un known on the Idaho political scene, worked and fought for election because, he says, “I thought I could do a better job than some of the fellows sent back there.” Three times he won the Democratic nomination, but twice he was defeated— he said it was because the party failed to support wholeheartedly what it con sidered an upstart candidate. This time, however, party workers, figuring Taylor was here to stay (he vowed dur ing his third campaign that he'd run again if defeated), threw their cam paign in with his, resulting in a vic torious sweep, not only for Taylor but for the entire Democratic slate, with exception of one cbngressional seat. Taylor’s opposition was C. A. Bot tolfsen, two-term Republican Governor of the State and a veteran of 12 years in the Legislature. Political dopesters had said Bottolfsen was a “cinch” to win. Taylor won the nomination in the primary last June from Senator D. Worth Clark, scion of Idaho’s top-rank political family. He had downed Charles C. Gossett, Democratic Governor-elect, in a previous primary race for the nom ination. A soft-spoken son of a country minis ter, Taylor has been on both sides of the labor fence—as an employer when he had some 30 persons working for him in road and radio shows; as an employe when he was a sheet metal mechanic in a San Francisco war plant prior to re turning to the State for his 1944 cam paign. The Senator-elect is a voracious read er of social and economic affairs and has been one of the State's most out spoken supporters of President Roose velt. He is 40 years old, has a pretty wife, Dora, his right-hand man” during campaigns, and two young sons. During earlier campaigns he wore a 10-gallon hat*, strummed a guitar and sang cowboy ballads ^through a loud speaker on his truck, which also carried his horse. Although this time he discarded the colorful hat and lariat for a black fedora and curved pipe, the new Senator doesn't belittle his career as a radio singer and theatrical road show man ager. Rather, he claims to be the first cowboy singer to enter politics. During his campaigns, in addition to urging an international organization with sufficient force to maintain peace, which he says he believes is the primary problem before Congress now, he has advocated protection of small business men and additional co-operatives and assailed big cartels and international banking and finance. HENRY F. GRADY, Heads U. S. Delegation. Spain is making a new locomotive which, experts think, may be the most power ful turned out in Europe; Costa Rica has her first flour mill and she wants more textile machines so she can manu facture more of her own clothes; Brazil has a large, new steel mill, and Colom bia is planning one for Bogota. Right next door, in Canada, there have been tremendous war strides in manufac turing. Experts admit, off the record, that if all these new industries are protected by new tariffs the world may have a higher tariff wall than ever before just when there’s general sentiment to scale them down to give people the jobs turn ing out goods that would be sold back and forth more freely the more the tariffs are scaled down. One of the tariff experts here in Washington, who is doing research for this Government in preparation for the United Nations trade conference tenta tively set for some time this summer, says there is a simple formula for tariff reductions. “It would be an agreement by the United Nations, all of them, to cut their tariffs a flat per cent—6ay 1 per cent— in a certain year, and then keep cutting them down in succeeding years by an agreed percentage.’’ The gradual cutback is necessary to prevent a sudden flop of industries that have enjoyed tariff protection from foreign goods. Suppose our sugar tariff were wiped out all at once, experts point out. It would mean disaster for the North Dakota sugar beet farmers who couldn’t meet the price of cheaper foreign sugar. But the slow reduction of the sugar tariff, say over 20 years, would give them the chance either to meet the new price or shift to raising some other product. At the recent Rye, N. Y.. conference of businessmen from 52 nations the War Review Penetration of Germany Gains Importance By Howard P. Bailey Penetration of the German Saar Val ley and internal trouble in Greece and Italy high lighted the news of the week, while here at home indication of the cost of the fighting was seen in the an nouncement that youths under 19 are now being sent abroad as replacements for constantly mounting casualties. An urgent demand for greater pro duction of ammunition and other ma teriel was revealed when Lt. Gen. Soffi ervelle declared that shells were being fired at the enemy at a faster pace than they are being produced. The following brief summary covers the high lights of the war: WESTERN FRONT. Lt. Gen. Patton’s 3d Army, defying the guns of the Siegfried Line, smashed across the Saar River at several points to gain a quickly expanded foothold in the industrially important Saar Valley. Saarbrucken appeared about to fall. The Yanks hold at least 22 miles of the river bank. The 9th Army, pushing toward Cologne and Dusseldorf, made slight ad vances, while the Nazis hastily sought to construct defenses at the Erft River, 8 miles from Cologne. The French 1st and Patch’s 7th Armies drew to within 20 miles of each other in the upper Rhine region. ITALIAN FRONT. Allied forces have established a bridgehead across the Lamone River on eastern end of the line. The 5th Army made little change in position. The in ternal situation in Italy brought about a difference of opinion between Wash ington and London, Washington favor ing hands off the political problems and Britain claiming right for Allies to guide establishment of new governments. BALKAN FRONT. British troops, backing Greek govern ment, clashed with Greek leftist forces and a number of casualties occurred on both sides with situation tense. Russian troops, opening a three-way drive for Budapest, hope to capture the Hun garian capital shortly. Advance forces reach point about 70 miles from Aus trian border. PACIFIC FRONT. B-29 Super Fortresses bomb Tokyo several times and Chinese-based B-29s raid Manchurian industries. Japanese forces on Leyte, reduced to 25,000, now making desperate stand and fighting fiercely. Tokyo claims to have made new landings on New Britain. The sit uation in China is growing increasingly serious, with the Japs advancing to with in 35 miles of Kweichow Province, within which Allies are seeking to Un* the Burma and Ledo roads. Allied planes and submarines sink a score or more ad ditional Jap ships, including several light warships. American delegation took the lead in counseling tariff reductions. Henry F. Grady, chief of the United States delegation—the San Francisco shipping man who spent some years at the State Department as chief of the reciprocal trade agreements program said in an interview, “I’m urging United Nations agreements to tariff reductions as soon as possible. Fears “Old Army Game.” “Right now prices are high and goods short all over the world. The factories than might be affected by tariff cuts will be less disturbed while prices are high than later when and if prices fall. “What’s more, thousands of factories all over the world will shortly be re converting to peacetime production. They have a choice when they’re chang ing over. Those that see stiff compe tition ahead for the product they made back in 1939 could turn to some other line while they’re reconverting.” But, off the record, all the experts, both Government and private business men, admit it’s going to be tough to get the tariffs down. As one well-known American manu facturer said, although he wouldn’t be quoted, “It will be the old army game. Everybody is in favor of tariff reductions —on the other fellow’s product, not on his own.” Friend of GI Veterans’ Bureau Aide Plans to Be Liberal By Frank /. Weller It’s lucky lor GI Joe that Omar W. Clark walked down that street in Cin cinnati 25 years ago. Mr. Clark is assistant veterans’ admin istrator in charge of pensions, compen sation and claims adjudication. That includes employment aid. Job rehabili tation and vocational education under the GI Bill of Rights. “Joe” is lucky because Mr. Clark has determined on extra liberal handling of claims made by the boys and girls fight ing this war—even if the Veterans’ Ad ministration sometimes has to assume burden of proof. He says: “Because the veteran has given time out of his life to the service of his country he shall be given every legiti mate help in making up what was lost. The man who comes back from war will have earned every opportunity we can provide for recapturing the things he sacrificed in defense of his country.” Friends don’t recall and Mr. Clark doesn’t tell what street it was back in 1919. He saw there a hopeless huddle of disabled men shunted out of a meager veterans’ vocational training center for lack of office help. None in those shabby uniforms knew that the tall sparse-worded stranger who asked them their troubles had been a major—maybe their own—at Verdun and on approaches to the Argonne. Volunteers to Help He went in and volunteered to help with the paper work. The ball started rolling and the boss said: “This guy’s good. Who is he? Will he take a job here?” Over at the Fifth-Third National Bank they waited for Mr. Clark to come back to his old job. He'd used up the three days “vacation” he’d requested before reporting for duty. He looked around him and said: “Here goes my hope of a big bank ing career. I’ll stick with these boys.” When Washington heard who he was President Harding named him voca tional training officer for Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. President Coolidge brought him here in 1923 to organize the Veterans, Adjusted Compensation Division and in 1930 President Hoover assigned him the task President Roose velt has kept him doing. You look at him, hear him talk, and think: "Hmmm * * * banker. A string-saver and paper sack putter-away.” But Omar is not just about to fore close the mortgage. He is a big-hearted country boy from Midland City, Ohio. At least, he’d go fishing first. He caught 24 Carolina red drum once. They totaled a ton! That’s what the man said. He is 57, but VA girls say that’s young, not old. His hair lies like a white plume. He stands 6 feet 2, and 190 pounds straight up and down. He’s a great one to interview • * * if you want to print a piece on a pinhead, or will settle for a stingy “yes” or “no.” It took better than an hour to find out he used to play basket ball center for the University of Cincinnati. Perpetual Motion Inventor. He still says he really thought he could invent perpetual motion in those days. He almost had it in France. A non com told him if he’d walk “that away 5 miles” he’d come to an old sawmill rigged up for shower baths. He got all lathered up before discovering the water tank tied to a rafter was dry. He walked back 5 miles caked with soap, only to find he’d left his side arms behind. He made the trip all over again. '> Mr. Clark was a ringleader in the March, 1919, Paris meeting that pro duced the American Legion. He helped organize the Disabled American vet erans. Mr. Clark says he hopes people will settle down to grim realization that we are going to have the greatest number of disabled men in our military history and quit staring and asking, “Oh you poor boy, how did it happen?" He says all they ask is to be taken back into civilian life of the community as a member, not an oddity. He pleads for a minimum of “maudlin sympathy” and thinks it about time V> start calling the “GI bill of rights” by its proper name —“Servicemen’s Readjustment Act.” "The veteran,” he adds, "will resent us eternally calling, him ‘Joe’ as much as we of the last war resented the name •Buddy.’” Political Questions Arising To Plague Peace Planners Allies Have Eyes on Future European Advantages While U. S. Fights Only to Defeat Nazis and Support Ideals By Constantine Brown There is a civil war in Greece—a con flict between the Royal government sup ported by the British troops of libera tion and the Communist guerrillas, sup ported by their ideals possibly and by some material help from Russia There is a witchhunt against the col laborationists in Yugoslavia. In that country the word collaborationist is not applied to those who have helped the Germans, but those who supported the nationalist anti-German movement di rected by Gen. Draja Mihailovich. Col laborationists are all those who refuse to recognize the Moscow-sponsored Marshal Tito. There is a latent and little reported civil war in Prance and Belgium. The Polish underground in Western Poland is getting ready to fight for the inde pendence and sovereignty of their coun try if the Allies maintain their policy of placing them under the rule of the Soviet-created Lublin government. The effective military occupation of Romania and Bulgaria has not brought forth any major disturbance. In the new concentration camps all over the territory of these countries there are more individuals “unfriendly” to the governments chosen by the Soviet milftary command than there are Nazi sympathizers. The heavy curtain of censorship prevents news regarding the thousands who are being executed as “collaborationists” from reaching the outside world. United States Newsmen Barred. The Russian-appointed governments have adopted a policy of declaring all those who are not supporting them as enemies of the country and “collabora tionists” who are either hanged, shot or placed behind barbed wire. In <$rder to do this and avoid criticism, American newspapermen have been barred from Bulgaria and Romania. Moreover, within 48 hours after the Russian armies entered Sofiia, a number of American officials who had been rushed to the Bulgarian capital as soon as the government sent a mission to Cairo to offer its surrender were loaded in trucks and dumped across the border in Turkey. Little was known about this act of our Russian ally. But the Turk ish press had complete accounts of the “incident” with pictures of the Amer icans who had been unceremoniously expelled from Bulgaria. The present military operations in Central, Southeastern, Eastern and Northern Europe have a political char acter. Only on the Western Front are the American armies, supported by Brit ish and French, fighting a purely mili tary war with no other objective in mind but the defeat of Germany. As things stand in Europe today it is obvious, however, that our greatest mili tary weapon should be our peace aims. The troubles we are witnessing in all the liberated countries have all a political origin. They can be straightened out only by a strong appeal to the liberated peoples that their past sufferings have not been in vain and that all their aims and hopes will be answered equitably by the most powerful nation of all the Al lies, the United States. Ne Concrete Plan. No concrete peace plan has been for mulated by the major Allies since the drafting and the signing of the Atlantic Charter. It thus appears that in the absence of any other constructive plan for the political rehabilitation of the world—without which economic and so cial rehabilitation cannot be thought of —this document should be pushed in the foreground once again. Although the Atlantic Charter was the creation of the United States and Great Britain and was not intended for the Asiatic continent, it was the Chinese delegate at the Dumbarton Oaks Con ference, Ambassador Wellington Keo, who suggested repeatedly that the Char ter should either form the preamble or be incorporated in the document dealing with the future peace organization of the world. ine AmDassadors request fell on deaf ears. The Charter has not been officially repudiated by its parents, but it has become very bad taste to mention it at any serious conversation concerning the reorganization of the postwar world. Whether because of orders “from above” or because of the realization that the document is no longer to the liking of the major Allied governments, the over seas propaganda services of the OWI are refraining from mentioning it in their broadcasts to foreign nations. Yet it appears to most unbiased ob servers that even today, unless the war aims of the United States have greatly shifted in the last three years, the At lantic Charter continues to be the only basis on which some semblance of order can be obtained in Europe after the fighting overseas. Allies Far Apart. There is only a nominal cohesion and co-operation among the Allied govern ments. In fact, they are far apart. In Southeastern and Northern Europe the victorious Russian armies not only have brought with them the new Communistic ideals but also have successfully estab lished the new Communist capitalism which ultimately will make Russia the foremost nation in Europe. After the collapse of Finnish resist ance the U. S. S. R. liquidated the foreign holdings in the Petsamo nickel mines. The International Nickel Co., in which British interests had a very large stake, was nationalized and the foreign stockholders were paid $20,000,000 for holdings of far greater value. When the foreign office was approached and urged to take the matter up with the Kremlin the British holders were told to accept the Russian offer lest they get nothing by opposing the U. S. S. R. Soon after the Russians liberated Ro mania, the American and British re fineries were dismantled and taken to oil fields at Grozny. Answering in quiries as to the reasons for the action, the Russian high command replied that It “needed them.” American, British and other foreign companies which have | invested large amounts of money In the development of the Romanian oil fields are convinced that soon they will receive an offer from the Russian-sponsored Ro manian government for a cash payment for their interests. They will have to accept it, regardless of how small it will be, because oil fields without refineries are of little value. Closed Books to Allies. Politically, the Balkans, like the rest of the Russian-liberated countries, are a closed book to the Allies, although nominally the armistices signed by the former satellites of the Reich was made in behalf of the Big Three. Little re liable information is being published in American newspapers from those areas. Whatever information is available comes from sources which cannot be authori tatively mentioned because of the fear that they might become “dry.” Between January and September of this year, Marshal Tito was officially be lieved to be the protege of the British. Yet when the Russians entered Ro mania and Bulgaria and began their various operations in the Balkans, Tito got away surreptitiously from his British protectors, * joined the Russian head quarters at Bucharest and officially an nounced that he "permitted” the Rus sian troops to enter Yugoslav territory. He refused similar permission to th« British. Tito recently went even farther than that. About two weeks ago, when the British decided to land a small marine expeditionary force at Boka Kotorska on the Adriatic, the detachment was met by a larger Tito force which disarmed the British and sent them back to Italy. Tito was polite enough not to send the men to a prisoner’s camp, where he is keeping captured Germans. A like in cident occurred last week at the Yugo slav port of Dubrovnik, where the Brit ish were given permission to land, but were prevented by force from advancing into the interior. Many of the countries which are now being “liberated-’ have joined the Allies through their respective governments on their own volition, because they wanted to maintain their freedom and sov ereignty. United States Represented Ideal. This was solemnly promised them in the Atlantic Charter which we drafted and signed three months before we our selves entered the war. And while there is not a single European nation which trusts the other they all had a blind and implicit faith in the word of the Government of the United States. Our entrance into the war was greeted with unparallelled enthusiasm by all the freedom-loving nations of Europe—par ticularly the smaller ones. Tljis en thusiasm was not due only to the poten tial military power of this country. We got into the war fully unprepared after a major defeat at Pearl Harbor, and : later the setback in the Philippines. Our greatest baggage on the interna tional stage was our honesty of purpose and our determination to see that justice would be imparted to the strong and weak alike. We were cheered as Allies not only because our action made the defeat of the Axis a certainty, but also because it was believed in every capital in the world that we would refuse to be made the tool of power politics. We presented an ideal combination for the weak—an honesty of purpose combined with no desire for territorial conquest and enough strength to make our word listened to and respected by everybody in the world. The European nations realized much more than the people at home what a powerful weapon our production and lease-lend was and how by using in telligently that most powerful “argu ment” we could restore strife-ridden Europe to some sort of peace. Politically -Minded. The European countries are all polit ically minded. They all consider war as an instrument to achieve certain definite political objectives. Russia, for instance, has overlooked Teheran pledges to strike at the Germans with all her might at the same time the Allied armies in the west were slicing deeply into the Ger man Wehrmacht. Instead, Russia de cided to consolidate per political objec tives in the East, the Balkans, Finland and the Baltic states, leaving the west ern Allies alone to fight a desperate and costly battle against the main German forces. Great Britain herself has recently withdrawn divisions from the Italian campaign—which itself was rammed down tile throat of the American strat egists who did not believe it was worth the cost in men and material—in ord- ' er to send a force into Greece and thus attempt to secure her political objectives in the Eastern Mediteranean. Even the British-American campaign in North Africa in 1942 had a long-range political rather than military purpose. The same motives prompted Prime Min ister Churchill to insist on major oper ations in Italy, although it had been made clear to him that we would en counter there a bottleneck after the start of major operations on the west ern front. Our major Allies, it' is obvious to all except those who want to blind them selves, have definite political reasons in this war. Hence, their desire and pres sure to organize the peace of the world by zones of influence. The United States, having no such objectives in mind as far as Europe is concerned, alone has made the fighting itself—that is to say, the military defeat of Ger many—its sole war objective. The major objective, the establishment of a durable peace in Europe based on justice and high principles, has been lost in the shuffles which have come about since the Moscow and Teheran parleys. The latent conflict of interests be tween the USSR and Great Britain in ' Iran, Greece and Italy apparently has been so unexpected by the policy framers of this country that they have given up if not officially, at least in fact* the charter which guaranteed full sov ereignty to all the agressed nations.