MacArthur scores idea of shortcuts to victory
Jap Army must be defeated, general says, adding that bombings are not enough
By Ralph Teatsorth, United Press staff writer
…
Green denies ‘draft’ will halt strikes
‘Unbalanced’ wartime economy assailed by AFL leader
…
Administration uses WLB in vote deal, MESA claims
Independent union charges CIO, AFL are assumed dominance in trade for support
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer
…
Press subsidy facts skipped by committee
Favorable report ignores figures on weeklies’ share of ads
By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent
…
In Washington –
House-Senate compromise near on food subsidy ban
Speedy approval of conferees agreement in both Houses expected; President’s veto is believed certain
…
Soldier vote foe confident
Washington (UP) –
Rep, John E. Rankin (D-MS) said today there is “no question” but that Senate and House conferees on the soldier vote, scheduled to meet for the first time tomorrow, will agree on a state ballot proposal for absentee voting by members of the Armed Forces.
Mr. Rankin said House members of the conference committee voted 3–2 yesterday in favor of the state ballot and that “we are going to stand pat on that.”
Rep. Karl M. LeCompte (R-IA), another member of the conference committee, said he did not believe “the House is in any humor to accept a conference report for anything but a state ballot.”
Will Rogers Jr. to forsake Congress for the Army
Culver City, California (UP) –
Congressman Will Rogers Jr. publicly announced he would not be a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in November.
Mr. Rogers made his statement at a meeting of Democratic Party leaders in his 16th Congressional district.
Political sources assumed the 32-year-old son of the late humorist would return to the Army, where he holds a commission as second lieutenant in the artillery. He entered the Army as a private in June 1942, and was elected the same year.
Draft laid-off men, Gen. Hershey urges
…
Daniels bared as hatchet man in REA dispute
Slattery tells of 3 tries to get him to quit; office searched
…
Briton guides U.S. nurses from enemy-held Albania
Pittsburgh hospital graduate in group rescued after plane becomes lost en route to Italy
By Henry T. Gorrell, United Press staff writer
…
Simms: Allies to face Polish regime made in Russia
Action would accentuate cleavage with U.S. and Britain
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
…
Pre-invasion battle fought as Allies scout Jap atoll
Pittsburgher leads Americans in foray against Green Islands fortnight before occupation
By Frank Tremaine, United Press staff writer
…
Ferguson: War movies
By Mrs. Walter Ferguson
A young air cadet from Newport, Arkansas, questions the wisdom of my criticism of grim war movies.
He says:
If you refer to the blood-and-thunder Hollywood melodramas, I agree. However, there have been excellent semi-official reels which depict battle scenes as they truly are.
If the soldier can look upon and participate in such chaos, why can’t the civilian stomach it? The people at home have failed their fighting men if they turn their faces from death and ignore their sacrifices. I say more power to official movies which bring home with force the fact that men are giving their lives for freedom.
His point is well taken, although he seems to have missed mine. What I object to about the official war picture is their presentation. They always come to us tied up with some Hollywood feature or short, which means that the audience gets a hodgepodge of the true and the false.
Duty doesn’t enter into the question. People don’t go to the movies from a sense of duty. They go to be entertained.
A poll taken recently among soldiers shows their preference for the lighter, gayer types.
There should be special programs of war pictures offered. Perhaps every adult should be required to see them, but the honest course is to separate the phony from the real. As it is, audiences are asked to skip quickly from a battle to a jitterbug contest or a Looney cartoon. It results in mental confusion. In the end, the war briefs seem as unreal as the movie plot.
Background of news –
‘Cut and dried’ convention
By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance
Washington –
An outright declaration by President Roosevelt of his fourth-term candidacy scarcely could have been more conclusive of his intention than the announcement that the Democratic National Convention will open July 19 – on a Wednesday, instead of the usual Monday.
Completion within the week of a convention begun on Wednesday is possible only if its action as respects both candidates and platform is cut and dried in advance. And underlying antagonism among Democrats is so marked that it is doubtful if they could agree within a month on anything excepting the inevitability of another ride on Mr. Roosevelt’s bandwagon.
The reason for the short convention decision goes back to the period, Monday to Friday inclusive, when the Roosevelt-Wallace third-term slate was in the making. Probably Mr. Roosevelt has never spent a more irksome five days than those.
The trouble then was that while President Roosevelt clearly had the votes, James A. Farley, bitterly opposed to the third term, was still chairman of the National Committee and he had entered into a contract with Chicago hotel men to string the convention out at least until after Thursday midnight.
‘Draft’ pretense maintained
The design of Mr. Roosevelt’s managers was to keep both him and his choice for Vice President under blankets until the last possible moment, in order to give the appearance of a spontaneous draft.
In consonance with this plan, it couldn’t be admitted that there were any authorized spokesmen for Mr. Roosevelt in town. Harry Hopkins and the then Senator James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, who actually functioned in that capacity, spent their first four days in Chicago dodging newspaper reporters.
Meanwhile, the anti-Roosevelt leaders were monopolizing the headlines. Mr. Farley was holding press conferences twice daily. His strategy was to admit that the President could have the nomination if he insisted, but to point out at the same time that there were a great many Democrats, including himself, who could not stand for this desertion of the two-term tradition.
Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana coincidentally pressed his fight for an anti-war plank, until the administration leaders shut him up by accepting his prescription that:
We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our Army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside the Americas, except in case of attack.
Bitter fight over Wallace
The one widely publicized variation from this anti-third-term clamor may have annoyed Mr. Roosevelt most of all. It came when a straw boss from Mayor Ed Kelly’s Chicago sewer department rigged up a microphone in the convention basement, from which he interrupted radio transmission of the formal proceedings with intermittent roars of “We want Roosevelt.”
The grand climax came when Mr. Roosevelt’s speech of acceptance, timed for the convention’s final hour, was held off until long past midnight by a bitter rebellion against the White House-chosen candidate for Vice President, Henry A. Wallace.
This year, as indicated by the short-convention announcement, no time is to be allowed for any such opposition foolishness.
President Roosevelt a year or more ago broached the idea of a short wartime campaign, brought about by postponement of presidential nominations until September or even early October. The federal ballot, proposed in the administration soldier-vote bills, fitted this idea in that it was completely devoid of names.
When the House defeated this plan and excluded voting except by names of the candidates, it became imperative that the Democratic presidential nomination be made known no later than the first day of August.