Introducing Skipper Homeier, ‘nice little nasty brat’
12-year-old youngster plays Nazi juvenile in new movie
…
Editorial: ‘I do not wish to appear…’
Two things stand out at the Democratic National Convention. It is dominated by the indispensable man who isn’t there. And he is operating as usual through party machines headed primarily by the notorious Mayor Kelly of Chicago, Boss Flynn of New York and Mayor Hague of Jersey City.
There is a great show of fighting over the Vice Presidency. But when the final gavel falls on the perspiring delegates who sit in the convention hall while the managers elsewhere rig the plays, it will be clear that Mr. Roosevelt got what he wanted. Not only the fourth term candidacy for himself, which he in effect has already accepted in advance, and the platform he has already outlined, but also the running mate.
We don’t know Mr. Roosevelt’s choice for second place. Even some who think they are close to him, including Henry Wallace, apparently cannot be sure – yet. That is not surprising. It happened in 1940. Remember? Several vice-presidential aspirants, who had talked with Mr. Roosevelt, had been told it was an open race and that any one of them was acceptable of not his favorite. But, when he finally showed his fist, Mr. Wallace was in it – along with an ultimatum to nominate Mr. Wallace or else. Kelly, Flynn, Hague and Company delivered.
We can’t guess the meaning of the President’s letter to the convention chairman regarding Mr. Wallace, because it is deliberate double-talk. Its purpose may be to damn Mr. Wallace with faint praise, as his friends fear and his opponents hope, and to clear the way for the real FDR selection. Or it may be canny encouragement for several other aspirants to kill each other off, so that Mr. Wallace can be named in the end without the appearance of White House dictation.
On one point, however, the President’s letter is clear. He has grown sensitive about his party dictatorship and is terribly anxious to remove the “appearances” of it before they become a worse campaign liability. To quote: “At the same time, I do not wish to appear in any way as dictating to the convention.”
Well, that is Mr. Roosevelt’s only important wish in connection with the convention which cannot come true. Because it is not within the power of the convention – not even of Kelly, Flynn, Hague and Company – to give him that on top of everything else. The “appearances” in the end will be unable to cover up the fact that the absent indispensable man made all the final decisions. With all of his skill as a political manipulator in absentia, not even Mr. Roosevelt can control a national convention and keep that a secret.
Editorial: Montgomery’s offensive
Allied forces in Normandy have scored successes on both ends of the line in the fiercest fighting since D-Day. In the west, the Americans have taken Saint-Lô, and in the east, the British have broken through the Caen line.
Whether the victory around Caen is assuming the “gigantic proportion” claimed by initial dispatches probably cannot be determined for several days. The British were in Caen on June 9 only to be pushed back, and several offensives there in recent weeks have been abortive. It is not enough to break through, the gap must be widened and exploited and the new positions rendered safe from counterattack. That cannot be done in the first day of the battle.
The chief factor during the coming week, as during the first day, probably will be the weather. The breakthrough followed an 8,000-ton air bombardment. If Gen. Montgomery can continue to use his great air superiority, which bad weather denied him so often during the past six weeks, obviously the chance of pushing along the Paris road will be much better.
If the enemy’s communications for an estimated 250,000 troops can be cut, as hoped, then he can no longer keep us bottled up in the Normandy tip with his tactical forces alone. He will be forced into a general retreat, or to commit his strategic reserves which have hitherto been held against a possible Allied landing elsewhere. In either event, Gen. Eisenhower would have ended the dangerous temporary stalemate that has consumed more than a month of the precious summer season.
An enemy retreat would allow Gen. Montgomery’s larger armored forces to spill over into open country beyond Caen, and to do the job they have been prevented from doing in their tight pocket. That should soon thereafter draw in more of the Nazi strategic reserves, which seems to be Gen. Eisenhower’s purpose.
But all that depends, of course, on keeping the Montgomery offensive rolling.
Ferguson: Basic right
By Mrs. Walter Ferguson
CIO leaders overlooked a bet with formulating their recent Bill of Rights. They left out the right of every woman to a good husband. Their list includes:
- The right of every person to a job.
- The right of every farm to a decent living.
- The right to earn enough to provide food, clothing and recreation.
- The right of every businessman to protection against unfair competition and monopolies.
- The right to medical care and good health.
- The right to protection against economic fears of old age, sickness and unemployment.
One is surprised to find the feminine voter forgotten. Plans to provide her with a form of security which transcends all others were evidently an oversight.
For women there is no such thing as a husbandless utopia. May we remind the gentlemen who are politically active this year that a fear is now growing in feminine minds that their world, beautifully planned though it may be will lack this essential ingredient. The women just won’t be satisfied with jobs, or even a release from old-age fears. They’ll go on wanting what they wanted long before the CIO decided to give everybody everything – the married woman’s status in a monogamous society.
This campaign year calls for something extra in the way of political promises, so why not add another to the CIO’s list – the right of every woman to a husband.
Welles wants three-way split of Germany
Would give East Prussia to Poland
By R. H. Shackford, United Press staff writer
…
Public, private debt rises to $338 billion
War accounts for all of increase
…
Money conference enters last lap
…
CIO political group hit by AFL spokesman
Support by committee called kiss of death
Washington (UP) –
Philip Pearl, publicity director and official spokesman of the American Federation of Labor, charged today that the CIO Political Action Committee was resorting to “typical communist technique” and predicted that most candidates would find its support “the kiss of death.”
As far as President Roosevelt is concerned, Mr. Pearl declared, his election to a fourth term would be in spite if, rather than because of, CIO backing.
‘A tricky outfit’
Mr. Pearl said in his column in the AFL’s Weekly News Service that the CIO committee had shown itself to be a “rather tricky outfit” when it set up its new national citizens political action committee “to front for it.” By thus going underground, he said, the committee followed typical communist tactics.
He said:
The reason given is that unions, under the Connally-Smith Act, are forbidden to make political contributions and that therefore a new committee was necessary to raise campaign funds by voluntary contributions.
But a more practical reason is apparent. That one is to take the CIO name out of the organization’s title. The communist stooges behind the PAC are canny enough to realize that the initials CIO are
Backs Gallup poll
Mr. Pearl said that while he often disagreed with findings of the Gallup poll, he agreed with its recent report asserting that many people would be “inclined to vote against, instead of for, candidates who bear the CIO label.”
He declared:
If President Roosevelt is elected, the CIO will loudly claim all the credit. But if the President is elected to a fourth term, it will be in spite of rather than because of the CIO’s help.
As for candidates for lesser office, they are likely to find that the benison of the CIO in 1944, as in former years, will turn out to be the kiss of death.
Roving Reporter
By Ernie Pyle
In Normandy, France – (by wireless)
Everything seems odd in Normandy.
The hedgerows are thick and ancient. The stone walls are sometimes so mounded over with earth that you don’t know there’s a wall beneath. The trees in the apple orchards are mellow with moss so thick that it seems like a coat of green velvet.
The towns and cities are just as old and worn-looking. I have yet to see a building in Normandy that appeared to have been built within the last three generations.
The tone is not one of decadence, but just of great and contented age. Even Cherbourg was a surprise. All of its buildings were old and worn.
It was a contrast to other war cities we have passed through – Algiers and Palermo and even Naples – where much building and remodeling have been done in this country, and the new homes are shiny and modernistic, and the street fronts look almost American.
A street scene in Cherbourg looks so much like the Hollywood sets of old European cities that you get your perspective reversed and feel that Cherbourg has just been copied from a movie set.
It’s the same way with the Norman architecture. The houses aren’t so smooth and regular and nice as California homes of Norman design. When you look at them you feel, before catching yourself, that they have copied our California Norman homes and not done too good a job.
Everything is of stone. Even the barns and cowsheds are stone – and in exactly the same design and usually the same size as the houses. They are grouped closely together around a square, so that a farmer’s home makes a compact little settlement of buildings that resembles a country estate at a distance.
Have more butter than they can use
Normandy is dairy country. Right now, the people have more butter on their hands than they know what to do with. It is a stupid soldier indeed who can’t get himself all the butter he wants. But even though it is a glut on the market, the French still ask 60 cents a pound for it.
When the Germans were here, they bought all the Norman butter, and at fancy prices too. German soldiers would ship it home to their families.
And although their new order is strict and full of promises of an ordered world, the Germans themselves created and fostered the Paris black market, according to the local people. Much of the butter bought in Normandy by German officers went to Paris for resale at unheard-of prices.
To be honest about it, we can’t sense that Normandy suffered too much under the German occupation. That is no doubt less because of German beneficence than because of the nature of the country. For in any throttled country thew farm people always come out best.
Normandy is rich agriculturally. The people can sustain themselves. It is in the cities that occupation hurts worst. I suspect that when we get to Paris, we will hear an entirely different story from the people.
Good-looking children the rule
Normandy is certainly a land of children. It seems to me there are more children here even than in Italy. And I’ll have to break down and admit one thing – they are the most beautiful children I have ever seen.
It is an exception when you see a child who isn’t exceptionally good-looking. Apparently, they grow out of this, however, for on the whole the Norman adults look like people anywhere – both good and bad.
One thing about the Normans is in contrast with the temperament we have known so long in the Mediterranean. The people here are hard workers. Some of the American camps and city offices hire teenage French boys for kitchen and office work, and I’ve noticed that they go at their work eagerly and like the wind.
The story of the French underground, when the day comes for it to be written, will be one of the most fascinating things in all history.
On the Cherbourg Peninsula the underground was made up of cells, five people to a cell. Those five people knew each other, but none of them knew any other members of the underground anywhere.
It was fun to see the Frenchmen on the day the underground began coming out into the open. They identified themselves by special armbands that they had kept in hiding. One underground man would look at a neighbor wearing an armband and exclaim in amazement: “What! You too?”
In one village, we asked some people who were not in the movement if they had ever known who the underground members in their town were. They said they could pretty well guess, just from the character of the people, but never actually knew for sure.
Pegler: Democratic Convention
By Westbrook Pegler
Chicago, Illinois –
With the presidential nomination disposed of long before the fall of the gavel by Mr. Roosevelt’s grinning acceptance of a fourth nomination, the incongruous and uneasy Democrats at their convention present a new spectacle in the politics of the United States, a strange congress of distrust, resentment, fear and a cynicism such as not even the most sordid Old-Guard Republican ever had the effrontery to express.
Here is idealism of the most pretentious and milky sort, the pious nobility of purpose of the New Deal, fermented and soured into a mesh of underworld politics and European continental trickery, all in the course of 12 years since the faithful went forth from the same hall in 1932, bawling “Happy Days Are Here Again.”
Many old faces are missing now, a few to appear in the following of Tom Dewey, disillusioned, repentant and humbly eager to atone. Many enthusiasts of the early New Deal have gone to their graves. And Jim Farley, standing ears above the crowd and wearing the same smile as of old, but a smile done with the muscles now and not by the impulse of a confident heart, has become a beloved but pathetic has-been, trampled, scuffed and confused, while Sidney Hillman, leader of the CIO-Communist coalition, holds press conferences at a hotel of his own selection, the Sherman House, at the other side of the Loop.
To a degree, it may be said for Jim that he is standing by his principles for he never would court or have any political traffic with Hillman’s aggregation of naturalized but unassimilated Europeans in New York when they called themselves the American Labor Party. Never yet has he compromised his total American devotion by appearing, under any pretext of emergency or wartime unity, on any platform where he could be photographed under the hammer and sickle of the Communist conspiracy.
Yet, although, as an American, he obviously believes the election of President Roosevelt to a fourth term would be a national misfortune, still his deep, personal devotion to the rules of the game will deter him from opposing the ticket.
No longer ambitious for Presidency
Jim is no longer ambitious for the Presidency. He may hope to become Governor of New York two years from now, but even that is a remote and highly speculative possibility and would be a dull climax to the career of a man who, four years ago, had an honest, if naïve, hope of going to the White House.
But boy and man, Jim has been a Democrat, and that perverse loyalty, that spirit of politics as a game, is stronger in Jim and, also, in many others here this week, than the inner whisperings of patriotic judgment.
Many men and women in this convention long ago lost their belief in the President as an idealist, even lost faith in him as a party man as he steadily took over and became, himself, the party, but, in resignation, go along anyway this once more because they don’t know what else to do.
Some feel an obligation to their little followings back home. Some are too proud to make public demonstration of their private fears for the country after four years more of the same. Some are so degraded they would risk it all for the little pay and power the politics gives them.
There are men and women here who hatefully resent Hillman and his small but tireless and clever group of scheming Europeans and fully understand the superior importance of a few hundred thousand New York votes, cast under the influence of European fears and hatreds, as compared with several times the same number of votes cast in their own home states.
Hillman most prominent lay-Democrat
They know the power of such people to pull the switches and throw American cities and factories into darkness and terror for they have seen it demonstrated. They know that, at Hillman’s plea, Charles Poletti, as temporary governor of New York, secretly released from prison a European communist firebug who held office in Hillman’s union and that, nevertheless, if not for this very reason, Poletti was made a full Army colonel and the American Military Governor of Rome.
It was not so much that Hillman and his group demanded Wallace. The humiliation, the startling, disturbing change lay in the fact that they could make any demands on the convention.
Whether or not, Hillman has his way, he becomes, nevertheless, the most prominent lay-Democrat in the party, although not necessarily the most powerful. For Kelly of Chicago and Hague of New Jersey are still in silent, secret action and these tough old brawlers this time are under no cloud of outward disavowal.
Perkins: Democrats fully aware of importance of CIO
Hillman-Murray influence is indicated in deference shown them by party leaders
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer
Chicago, Illinois –
As the Democratic Convention opens here today a definite contrast is presented in the political positions of the principal leaders of American organized labor.
Philip Murray and Sidney Hillman. of the CIO, are deeply involved in the affairs of the Democratic Party; staking their present prestige on winning a renomination for Vice President Wallace; and risking the future of their organization on success of the Roosevelt ticket in November.
William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, pursues the traditional policy of that organization in not becoming an appendage of any political party, and of working both sides of the street in efforts to get favorable commitments from both the Democratic and Republican platforms.
Lewis backing GOP
John L. Lewis, of the United Mine Workers, got some burnt fingers through involvement as head of the CIO with the Democratic Party in 1936 (on a scale not so great as that on which Messrs. Murray ad Hillman are now involved), is backing the Republican ticket, and hoping he will be more successful than in 1940 in swinging miner votes against President Roosevelt.
The Murray-Hillman importance in Democratic affairs is indicated by the deference being shown them by other party leaders in selection of the running mate for Mr. Roosevelt; by a press conference they held which drew one of the largest crowds of reporters during this convention period; by applause in the Resolutions Committee for Mr. Murray when he finished a spirited presentation of the CIO ideas of what should be in the Democratic platform.
Votes in strategic states
Just how many delegates the CIO has in the convention is uncertain, but the number is believed to be less than a hundred among the total of 1,176. That proportion, however, is not the important point. The Democratic leaders are depending on the CIO to produce enough votes in strategic states to produce a victory over the Dewey-Bricker ticket. If it works out that way, the Democratic Party will become more than an alliance of professional politicians with labor leaders. If it doesn’t, the strategy of the politicians and the labor leaders will be due for a revamping before another presidential campaign rolls around.
Allen: Roosevelt-Willkie ticket would save lots of metal
They could go out to Wisconsin and dig up all those buttons Wendell buried there
By Gracie Allen
Chicago, Illinois –
Every reporter dreams of having a scoop. Well, today it’s just possible that I may have a scoop. Here ‘tis: Guess who might be proposed as President Roosevelt’s running mate at this Democratic Convention. Wendell Willkie! Yes, sir, I heard that straight from a delegate who says he is going to do the proposing. George says the man pulled my leg when he told me that. Well, I was too excited to notice, and besides, if this turns out to be a scoop, let him get fresh.
Wouldn’t that be sensational? Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Willkie running together? It would certainly save a tremendous lot of metal, they could go to Wisconsin and dig up all those Willkie buttons that are buried there.
No more mussed hair
One thing – if Mr. Willkie should leave the Republican Party to run with Mr. Roosevelt, he wouldn’t have to worry about his hair being mussed up anymore. What the Republicans would have to say to him would undoubtedly curl it.
As I told you yesterday, stripteases have been banned in Chicago during the Democratic Convention. Today there’s a report that there will be no beer or hard liquor sold at the Stadium where the convention is to be held. The Republicans had all the stripteases and liquor they wanted. What puzzles me is that Chicago is Democratic, yet it seemed more hospitable to the Republicans than to its own party.
I asked one Chicago Democrat about that and here’s what he said:
Well, Gracie, we figure this way – let the Republicans have a good time at their convention. It’s the only fun they’ll have for four years.
On second honeymoon
The Democratic Convention officially opens today and that means I’ll be putting in my full time as a reporter. Up to now George and I have been enjoying a sort of second honeymoon. And it’s really better than our first. On our first honeymoon, we stopped at a cheap hotel and because George wanted to save money, I used to spend hours cooking our meals over a sputtery little alcohol stove.
Now we are stopping at the Ambassador East, where that famous restaurant, the Pump Room, is located. We have a lovely suite on the top floor and I don’t have to spend all that time cooking. The alcohol stove burns much better up there.
So now our second honeymoon is ended because I have to go out and get to work. Funny thing – that’s what ended our first honeymoon.
That’s all for now – more political news tomorrow.
Poll: Rank and file of Democrats want Wallace
Barkley runs poor second in survey
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion
…
Keynote Address by Oklahoma Governor Robert S. Kerr
July 19, 1944, 9:00 p.m. CWT
In this solemn hour, as representatives of the common people of every state and territory in this nation, we meet again to reaffirm our faith in democratic principles and to give an accounting of our stewardship. But in this greatest crisis in history, America and the world have a right to ask more of us. They are entitled to know where we stand and what our aims and purposes as a great political party are. We are here to answer.
Our aim is complete and speedy victory.
Our goal is a just and abiding peace.
Our promise to a world at peace is responsibility and cooperation.
Our pledge to America at peace is a government responsive to the needs and hopes of every citizen, even the humblest, a government which will not shirk or fail, but will fulfill with gratitude and fidelity our sacred obligation to our returning service men and women.
The keynote of this convention and of America’s heart and mind is not being sounded here tonight. It is being thundered by our fighting men around the world; by those at home who provide the food for them and us, by the workers who provide the munitions of war, by the rank and file of our citizens who, through taxes and bond purchases, provide the money required to pay our part of the daily cost of this global war.
This keynote is being sounded loud and clear by the roaring, swirling thousands of our fighter planes, our slashing bombers and our mighty Superfortresses of the air. It comes from the deadly throats of the many guns of the battle units of our powerful fleets – all seven of them! It comes from the blazing firepower set and kept in motion by our men who fight on the ground, the infantry – yes, and the invincible Marines.
May God bless them and keep them – all of them, our fighting men and women, and give them the sustaining strength to match their glorious spirit. It is they who since Pearl Harbor have been and now are sounding the keynote of America’s unyielding purpose, of democracy’s aims and hopes.
Let us be in tune with the spirit of that keynote.
Hitler, in his blind ignorance and fury, called us a “decadent soft democracy.” Our fighting men have given him his answer – the greatest all-American team of all times – the team of all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, has given him his answer! The farmers, the workers, the rank and file of our citizens, the Armed Forces of our nation, democratic, but not decadent, are marching, tramping and climbing with our Commander-in-Chief to victory!
There is no easy way to win this war either at home or abroad. As our fighting men battle and slash their way closer and closer to Berlin and Tokyo, they will meet harder and sterner tasks. The same is true where we fight.
Our sacrifices will be harder and sterner. We know that in the long shadows we yet must travel there will be in the words of the mighty Churchill: “blood, toil, tears and sweat.” That is our portion – that we can and will endure – but wouldn’t it really be terrible if, in addition to all of these, we should be compelled to suffer the affliction and disaster of another Hoover administration?
In this hall last month, the Republicans nominated as their candidate for President the man selected for them four years ago by Herbert Hoover. As America looked on, she saw the mantle of Herbert Hoover not falling upon but being placed upon the shoulders of his cherished disciple, Thomas E. Dewey. What she did not see, but what will become more and more apparent, is that the mantle has become the shroud.
When that same convention snubbed and sidetracked Wendell Willkie, the last vestige of liberal leadership in the Republican Party was buried under an avalanche of reactionary sentiment from which it cannot soon emerge.
Talleyrand said: “The Bourbons were incapable either of learning anything or of forgetting anything.” To give these modern Bourbons, these Republican leaders, control of the nation for the next four years would bring about a certain return of 1932. It would be to invite disaster without even the chance of coming in on a wing and a prayer.
The Old Guard is again in the saddle in the GOP, hoping to run rampant over liberalism in America in November as they did over their own ranks here three short weeks ago.
In their blindness the Republicans have charted a course America will not follow.
In their hatred they have matched a fight they cannot win. The forces of democracy will accept their challenge and defeat them either on the issue of what they did not do and cannot do, or on the issue of what we have done and will do.
I have never in my lifetime seen men who had greater desire or a more consuming ambition, with less justification or worthiness for either, than the Republican leaders this year.
Do you remember the twelve long years from 1920 through 1932 when America “hardened” under Harding, “cooled” under Coolidge and “hungered” under Hoover?
The Republican Party had no program to prevent economic disaster then. It had no program in the dangerous years preceding Pearl Harbor to prevent war or to meet it if it came. Most of the Republican members of the national Congress fought every constructive move designed to prepare our country in case of war.
They fought and voted against the Naval Expansion Bill in 1938.
In March 1939, they voted against a bill to increase our air force to a total of 6,000 planes.
In June 1939, in the House they voted 144–8 to reduce the appropriation for the Army Air Corps.
In September 1939, after war started in Europe, they voted six-to-one against the repeal of the arms embargo.
In September 1940, after France had fallen and the blitzkrieg against England had begun, the Republicans in the House voted 112–52 against the Selective Service Act.
In February 1941, the Republicans in the House voted 135–24 against Lend-Lease.
In August 1941, four months before Pearl Harbor, the Republicans in the House voted 133–21 to disband that part of the Armed Forces built from Selective Service personnel.
They fought every person who came forward with courage to declare the danger that threatened the world and us, and every person who sought to prepare this nation to meet the conflict that loomed across the world’s horizon.
The Republican Party has no program today, except to oppose. Let us limit them to that role.
They have played partisan politics with one of the most deadly dangers confronting our nation – the danger of inflation! They have offered no program to prevent it. Yet with reckless abandon they sought to destroy the one adopted.
Our Republican opponents are not even united among themselves. Millions of them favored Willkie and deeply resent his being driven from the party.
Confidentially, my fellow Democrats, real battles are being fought among the tall timbers of the Republican Party. I have never seen a group more keenly suspicious of each other, nor have I ever seen suspicions better founded.
Most Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree that our President has done a great job as a war leader. Our opponents attack him and seek to defeat him on domestic issues.
I take it that none here is too young to remember the tragic years of 1929 through 1932. The awful depression and Republican unemployment of those four years, brought on by the unsound policies of Coolidge’s administration and intensified by Hoover’s inadequacy and insufficiencies, created more suffering in this nation, destroyed more wealth, caused more poverty and left our nation in the most weakened and hopeless condition ever known.
What American is not grateful for the gains our people have made since those dark days? A prosperous nation now demonstrates its mighty power as its factories, mills and farms, year after year, set new records of production. They are the wonders of the world. I share your pride in the unparalleled peacetime advances won under the matchless leadership of our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt!
If you truly favor private enterprise and equal opportunity to all, can you support the Republican Party, under which these suffered most and came the nearest to destruction?
Do you remember when the President of the National Chamber of Commerce publicly urged that the President revive and restore the crushed and broken structure of private enterprise?
Do you remember when the captains of industry throughout the land, struggling to free themselves from the quicksand in which they were sinking, pled for the national government to save them? How often must they be saved from the flames of depression and bankruptcy brought on by the short-sighted policy of the Republican Party, when in power before they will seek to avoid the cause of their trouble with as much vigor as they strive to be relieved of its consequences?
How many whirlwinds must they reap before they learn the folly of sowing the wind? If we truly favor private enterprise, how can we fail to support the democratic President, under whom the greatest advance in material prosperity by the largest percentage of our people in all of the nation’s history has been achieved?
A few weeks ago, I read a news story as follows:
The 13,275 insured commercial banks reported net profits after taxes of $638 million for 1943, the largest total since the inauguration of deposit insurance.
Yet, I know a few bankers so concerned because their tax bill in 1943 was $51 million greater than in 1942 they ignore the fact that after all taxes for 1943 were paid their net profit for that year was $197 million greater than in the year before.
I even know some whose prosperity is exceeded by their pessimism. Their howls are louder in the midst of the most prosperous times they have ever known than their groans were in the bottom of Hoover’s black depression. And this when so many are suffering and sacrificing so heroically and without complaint!
If Americans truly favor prosperity for our farmers, can they support the Republican Party under which the farmers suffered the most, or oppose the present Democratic administration, under which they have prospered the best?
If Americans truly favor labor, can they support the Republican Party, under which labor fared the worst, or oppose the present administration, under which it has enjoyed the greatest progress?
If you truly favor old-age assistance to give our honored aged citizens freedom from want and starvation, can you support the Republican Party, under which this security was never known, or can you oppose the present administration which originated it in spite of the Republicans’ bitter opposition?
If America truly favors a social security program giving American workers security from starvation when conditions beyond their control temporarily prevent their employment, can we restore the party to power that fought the legislation providing it? Or can we afford to remove the party from power that erected this great milestone of progress?
If we in America truly favor a sound banking system providing profit to its owners and safety to its depositors, could we restore the party to power under which in twelve years more banks failed than in all the rest of our nation’s history, with the greatest loss to depositors ever known, or could we remove from power the Democratic administration under which the depositors have suffered the smallest losses and the stockholders received the fairest percentage of profit ever had during any similar period?
If we favor economic conditions permitting small business to prosper, could we vote to restore the Republican Party to power, under which in 1932 alone 32,000 small businesses failed, or could we vote to remove from power the Democratic administration under which small business has enjoyed its most profitable years?
If we in America truly favor the opportunity for the average family to own its home, can we vote to restore to power the party under which more homes and farms were lost and more mortgages foreclosed than during any other similar period, or could we vote to remove the Democratic Party from power when more millions of American homes, both on the farms and in our cities and towns were saved than during any other time?
If we in America truly favor conservation of our greatest natural resource, the soil, the reclamation of badly eroded or abandoned lands, the provision for irrigation of millions of acres, can we vote to remove from power the administration under which the most progress ever made has been brought about, or could we vote to return to power the Republican administration under which these matters were either forgotten or ignored?
If we favor winning an abiding peace after our magnificent fighting men and women have defeated our enemies – if we do not want to compel each succeeding generation of America’s sons to leave their homes and firesides and families to go yonder where the ravages of war maim and disable and kill, can we vote to restore to power the political party whose leadership after World War I willfully and wickedly sabotaged every effective vehicle for keeping the peace?
Shall we restore to power the party whose national leadership, under the domination of isolationists, scrapped and sank more of our fleet than was destroyed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor? Or can we fail to support the Democratic administration under which America has become the greatest naval power on earth?
If we in America truly love these sons and daughters of ours who today fight for us and who tomorrow will achieve the victory for which they fight today, and if it is our resolve that they shall have the opportunity for profitable peacetime employment when they return from the wars to take their place as the most respected and best loved among us, can we hope to return to power the political party whose national leaders were so indifferent to the welfare of the veterans of World War I? You saw those veterans compelled to sell apples and pencils on the streets of our cities because no jobs were available anywhere in the land.
You saw them go to Washington to petition their government, for which they had fought at Château-Thierry, at Belleau Wood, in the Meuse-Argonne and on a dozen other battlefields.
You saw that same Republican administration turn a deaf ear to their petition and order its military forces to drive those veterans from the streets of the capital of the nation they and their battle-killed comrades had saved. You saw the military armament, machine guns, rifles and tanks of the government for which they had offered their lives turned on them by the unwilling hands of their own comrades because of the stupid and brutal orders of Republican President; you saw some of them killed, you saw their pitiful personal belongings, evidences of their poverty, taken from them and burned.
If you oppose this kind of bitter ingratitude, and I know you do, can you oppose the Democratic administration which has already recommended and helped to bring about legislation providing lasting and constructive benefits to the returning servicemen and women of this war? Can you fail to support this Democratic administration that has declared so unequivocally its purpose of providing the opportunity for profitable peacetime employment to our returning servicemen and women?
The American fighting man aims to win this war and then come home to Mom and Dad and to Mary and the kids, and he wants a job, the opportunity for honorable and profitable employment. Where is the American who would deny him this blessed privilege? Where is the American who would give him less? The Republican administration gave him much less after the other war, at the very time Andrew Mellon, without even an act of Congress, was returning billions of dollars from the federal treasury to great corporations already war wealthy.
The Republicans made some vague promises to our fighting men here in this hall last month about what they will do for them after the war. That’s pretty good from a bunch that wouldn’t even give them the opportunity to vote during the war. I’ve seen the Constitution used for a lot of fine purposes, but that is the first time I ever saw it misused as a cudgel to drive millions of fighting Americans away from their own ballot boxes.
Many Republican leaders, sounding the real keynote and purpose of the Republican Party in this fateful year say: “There has not been a single constructive accomplishment brought about by the Roosevelt administration.” Reactionary Republicans have resisted every progressive measure of this administration and bitterly oppose them now. They remind me of the cantankerous old grumbler who on his 92nd birthday was asked: “Uncle, you have lived to the ripe old age of 92; you must have seen a lot of changes in your time, haven’t you?” Replied the uncle: “Yes, and I’m agin’ every one of them.”
I read a graphic, if not elegant, poem the other day describing the Republican opposition. It read as follows:
‘Twelve Long Years’
The Republicans for twelve long years
Have shed their coats and skins and tears
To tell their comrades how they feel
Regarding Roosevelt’s New Deal.For twelve long years they’ve pled for votes,
But never mention nine-cent oats.
They say “this New Deal stuff is rotten,”
But never speak or four-cent cotton.For twelve long years they’ve wept aloud,
And cussed this money-spending crowd.
They say “Of liberty we are shorn,”
But not a breath of twelve-cent corn.For twelve long years they’ve been at sea,
And now they come to you and me
And offer us as bait for votes
More three-cent steers and nine-cent oats.For twelve long years they fume and fret,
Hammer and slander the “New Deal set.”
They say to all: “What a cheat!”
But forget to talk of two-bit wheat!They offer, as in days of old
A crown of thorns, a cross of gold,
More gilded promises – can you beat ‘em?
Well, one sure thing, you can’t eat ‘em!My friends, the Democratic Party has proved its worthiness of the people’s continued confidence.
Time and again we have seen the results of the President’s leadership. Time and again our opponents have sought to fill the minds of the people with doubt and confusion, and time and again successes have dispelled the doubts, confounded the confusers, and confused the doubters.
The people have not been – they will not be – misled! They are doing a magnificent job. Men and women, boys and girls of all political parties, of every race and color and religious faith are proving themselves to be America’s greatest generation.
Our enemies, dazed and bewildered, cannot understand the striking power, producing and building power of our military and civilian soldiers.
Between the fall of France and July 1, 1944, American industry and labor produced more than 210,000 military airplanes and are now producing 100,000 per year. They have produced during that period more than five million tons of naval vessels, one-half of which are combat ships; this represents an armada of more than 40,000 ships of all kinds including 35,000 landing craft.
They have produced 77,000 tanks and 1,600,000 trucks, 35 million tons of merchant shipping, equal to almost one-half of all the merchant ships in the world when war was declared in 1939. This vast fleet of merchant ships, manned by our heroic merchant marine, has transported endless cargoes of men, weapons, food and freight to our battle lines on every front.
Our heroic and patriotic farmers have made greater production records each year in spite of increasing shortages of manpower and farm machinery and regardless of periodic gloomy prophecies of national starvation by many, including Herbert Hoover.
All of these and thousands of other things have been accomplished by America’s civilian armies, with American women doing their proud part and more. They march side by side with the men in the Armed Forces. Their strong and faithful hands never stop working, in the homes, on the farms, in the factories and at every job that will speed the day of victory. They long for, work for, and pray for peace. The kind of peace worked for, fought for and died for by the immortal Woodrow Wilson! The kind of peace worked for and fought for now by President Roosevelt.
America and her Allies are winning this war because they have planned their work and are now working their plan. They can and must win an abiding peace; international peace, as we of this generation have had to learn twice, is of vital concern to every American. It cannot be achieved by burying our heads in the sand and leaving white tail feathers waving in the breeze.
Through tragic experience we have learned that it is just as necessary to prepare for peace while waging war as it is to prepare against war while enjoying peace. We must realize that the unsolved problems of peace are the causes of war.
Some of the greatest victories won in this war have been in the field of diplomacy. No military victory can mean more to America and her Allies than the diplomatic advances made in the Atlantic Charter and in the conferences held at Casablanca, Moscow, Tehran and Cairo. These and many other such advances have been wisely conceived by our President, so ably aided by that grand American statesman, the greatest Secretary of State in a hundred years, Cordell Hull.
The President during the next four years must represent our country in many more such conferences. I ask all Americans everywhere: Who can best represent our nation in the future councils of war with our Allies and in the conferences around the peace table? I know America will not regard this question rightly, nor decide it wrongly. Shall it be Thomas E. Dewey or Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Who will represent England at the peace table? An untried man, or her greatest and wisest, Winston Churchill?
Who will represent China? Some man without experience, or Chiang Kai-shek?
Who will represent Russia? One who for the first time will participate in such a meeting and who, no matter how honorable he might be or how able he might sometime become, would thus be greatly handicapped, or will she be represented by her most experienced and strongest, Josef Stalin?
Each of our allies will be represented by the one who has demonstrated the greatest ability for the task.
Who will represent the United States of America? An untried leader who has not even told his own people what his views are? Or the man who has from the start declared his position in clear and certain words, and who has the respect and esteem of all the United Nations as no other living American?
Will it be Dewey – or Roosevelt?
Just suppose for a moment, but no longer, that it were Dewey. What would Churchill and Stalin and the Generalissimo and the other Allied leaders think and do when they learned that he looked on them as just a group of “tired old men?”
When England faced her darkest hour, with her military forces unorganized and poorly armed, in whose leadership did she place her trust? Her least tried or most proven? Can England, can we, can the civilized world ever discharge the debt of gratitude due Winston Churchill?
When he was just about as old as Mr. Dewey is now, he permitted an impetus urge to lead him into the tragedy of Gallipoli. But how differently he acted at 65. After Dunkirk, he stood before the House of Commons. Listen, are these the words of a “tired old man”?
We shall not flag nor fail. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, landing grounds, in the fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender!
Look at Stalingrad! Whose figure looms amid the defenders? Whose spirit sustains them in the most heroic and awful hour in Russia’s history? Who stopped and defeated and now drives Hitler’s once mighty armies, once dreaded air force, back and back and back? Mr. Dewey would have discarded him nearly three years ago, when he was 62, as a “tired old man.” But Russia is smarter than that. She marches irresistibly today under the leadership of her much revered, world respected, 65-year-old Joseph Stalin.
Let us examine the record!
Shall we discard as a “tired old man,” the 59-year-old Adm. Nimitz?
Shall we discard as a “tired old man,” the lion of the Pacific, 62-year-old Adm. Halsey?
Shall we stop his onward sweep to redeem the Philippine Islands and discard as a “tired old man,” 64-year-old Gen. Douglas MacArthur?
Should we discard as a “tired old man” the chief of all our naval forces, 66-year-old Adm. King? Shall we discard as a “tired old man,” the greatest military leader of our nation, 64-year-old Gen. George C. Marshall?
No, Mr. Dewey, we know we are winning this war with these “tired old men,” including the 62-year-old Roosevelt as their Commander-in-Chief. What diplomatic or military experience have you had that justifies you or us in believing that you can handle the most difficult and important responsibilities and duties ever placed upon the shoulders of any American?
When the life and liberty of every American hang in the balance; when the safety and welfare of unborn generations in this fair land are at stake, what assurance do you have for yourself and for your own loved ones or can you give our 130,000,000 Americans that you and we may know that you can do this tremendous job?
Suppose we broke up this team that every American knows is a winning one, which you have openly approved and in an effort to gain votes promised to keep, that is, all but the Commander-in-Chief, which position you seem to regard as a minor detail.
And suppose we named you Commander-in-Chief. What assurance could our fighting men, their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters have that we could thereby win the war one day sooner, or as soon, and with as few casualties, as we can under our present leadership? What experience have you had or what deeds have you performed to indicate that you could do as well, to say nothing of doing better?
Imagine, if you can, what we would have suffered and where we would be if Dewey had succeeded in his efforts to defeat Lend-Lease when it was proposed by President Roosevelt, who was neither too old to originate that great program nor too tired to put it in operation.
Roosevelt was not too old to see the terrible danger to America from Germany and Japan, nor too tired to move with speed and courage to get munitions of war to the democracies who were fighting them and thus keeping them away from our shores.
Lend-Lease, in spite of Dewey’s opposition, in spite of opposition from the vast majority of Republican leaders in Congress, went into effect nine months before Pearl Harbor. Now, three years and four months later, all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, can thank God for it and for Roosevelt who did so much to accomplish it.
In his efforts now to appear something other than the isolationist that he is, Thomas E. Dewey has gathered a few posies from the declared foreign policy of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Hull, until he has most of the form of a Willkie bouquet without any of the substance.
The forces of isolationism crucified the great-hearted Woodrow Wilson. The same forces now strive with equal fury and frenzy to inflict the same fate on Roosevelt. But where they succeeded then, they will fail now.
The people, patriotic Democrats and Republicans alike, will not again be misled and betrayed by the same false doctrine and propaganda, no matter how disguised or camouflaged it may be.
In 1920, Mr. Harding and the Republican Party promised to lead America back to normalcy.
Mr. Hoover reiterated that thought from this platform last month when he said, "And may I say this to the youth, you can lead our nation back to unity of purpose again.
Our answer to that is: “This nation is not going back again.”
When this war is won a grateful nation will not go back on the farmers of America who have produced so heroically and so abundantly in our great war effort, nor will nation go back to a Republican administration that did back on American farmers.
When this war is won a grateful nation will not go back on labor, the workers who have produced the munitions and equipment of war so patriotically in this great struggle, nor will this nation go back to a Republican administration that did go back on the workers of America.
When this war is won a grateful nation will not go back on the home owners, businessmen and the great masses of our citizens who have served so faithfully in this war effort, nor will this nation go back to a Republican administration that did go back on these, our citizens.
When this war is won a grateful nation will not forget nor go back on its returning service men and women, nor will this nation go back to a Republican administration that did go back on the returning service men of World War I.
Our President has already made comprehensive plans for America to go forward now and in the post-war period. He has submitted them to the Congress. Part of them are now law. Others soon will be. It is his proposal and our program that wartime America can and will become a prosperous peacetime America with opportunity for profitable employment for all.
I say to you, to the Democrats of America, to our fighting forces around the globe and to all men and women of this nation who have dreamed of a better world and who are willing to work and sacrifice to realize that dream, victory is within our grasp. We have stormed the beaches of poverty and discouragement and fear and seen the hearts of the people filled with new life, lifted with new hope and buoyant with superb confidence. We have overrun the ramparts of special privilege and reaction and planted the banner of democratic liberalism high on the hill of human progress.
Let our opponents, who have grown fat in a prosperity they could not build for themselves, do their worst. We will not now retreat! We will not falter in mid-passage! We will win!
Völkischer Beobachter (July 20, 1944)
Im Feuer der Normandieschlacht –
Der deutsche Grenadier hält stand
Lissabon, 19. Juli –
Der dem alliierten Hauptquartier zugeteilte Kriegskorrespondent Morelly kabelt der New York Times seine Eindrücke von der Schlacht um Saint-Lô. Die Terrainschwierigkeiten seien fast unüberwindlich und erlaubten den deutschen Truppen eine vorzügliche Tarnung. Die deutschen Truppen verteidigten verbissen ihre gut angelegten Stellungen, die von der nordamerikanischen Artillerie vergeblich beschossen würden.
Das Vorgehen der nordamerikanischen Truppen werde durch heftiges, anhaltendes Artilleriefeuer der Deutschen außerordentlich erschwert. Das Vorfeld von Saint-Lô sei mit verbrannten Fahrzeugen und gefallenen Soldaten übersät.
Die deutschen Gegenangriffe würden mit großer Überlegenheit geführt, so daß im Kampf um die Stadt von alliierter Seite noch viele Blutopfer gebracht werden müßten.
Unter der Überschrift „Amerikaner mußten den Preis zahlen“ berichtet der östlich von Saint-Lô stehende Daily-Express-Kriegskorrespondent Paul Holt. Warum, so fragt er, seien diese Kämpfe so schwer und langwierig? Es sei ein „Dschungelkrieg im Garten Eden.“ Hier koste es die Amerikaner einen Tag und mehr heftigster Kämpfe, um nur einen Obstgarten zu besetzen. Der Grund liege darin, daß die Deutschen nicht nur mit großer Geschicklichkeit, sondern auch mit hervorragendem Mut kämpften. Sie hätten überall die Höhen besetzt und hielten mit ihren Geschützen die Amerikaner nieder. In den Obstgärten und den die Landstraßen säumenden Knicks säßen deutsche Fallschirmjäger in schwer einzunehmenden „Fuchslöchern.“ Nur mit wahrem Todesmut könne man an sie heran. Tanks spielten überhaupt keine Rolle. Holt berichtet abschließend, er habe mit einem amerikanischen General gesprochen, der seine Feststellungen in dem Satz zusammenfasste: „Wir haben tatsächlich den von den Deutschen geforderten Preis bisher immer bezahlen müssen.“
Feind bewundert HJ-Freiwillige
Von unserer Stockholmer Schriftleitung
ka. Stockholm, 19. Juli –
Der Kriegskorrespondent der Zeitung Star kommt nicht darum herum, den Freiwilligen der Hitler-Jugend, die an der normannischen Front kämpfen, ein hohes Lob zu zollen. Diese Jungen, so heißt es in seinem Bericht, den die schwedische Zeitung Dagens Nyheter wiedergibt, seien keineswegs zu verachtende Gegner. Sie seien in dem Glauben an Hitler und sein Regiment erzogen und bereit, dafür zu sterben, wenn es notwendig sei. Sie würden lieber mit dem Gewehr oder mit dem Maschinengewehr in den Händen sterben, als sich von den Engländern gefangen nehmen lassen.
Der englische Kriegskorrespondent unterlässt freilich nicht den Versuch, die heroische Haltung der jungen deutschen Soldaten herabzusetzen, indem er sie dadurch zu erklären sucht, daß man ihnen von Kindheit an beigebracht habe, die Engländer quälten und erschossen ihre Gefangenen. Man möchte also gerne wenigstens dem englischen Volk gegenüber an die Stelle der äußersten Hingabe und Kampfbereitschaft den Mut der Verzweiflung gesetzt sehen. Dem widersprechen jedoch die immer neuen Feststellungen über die Kampfkraft dieser jungen Freiwilligen. Sie seien alle Fanatiker, erklärte ein kanadischer Unteroffizier, sie schlügen sich mit fanatischer Verachtung ihres Lebens und wenn sie in Gefangenschaft gerieten, seien sie trotzig oder todunglücklich über ihr Missgeschick.
Die Genfer Zeitung La Suisse würdigt die Leistungen der deutschen Kriegsberichter. Ihre Arbeit falle besonders durch ihren „wuchtigen Realismus“ auf. Die deutschen Kriegsberichter brauchten vom Kriege kein „frischfröhliches Bild“ zu geben und auch nicht die Gegner zu verachten. Sich an die deutschen Soldaten selbst wendend, scheuten sie sich nicht, die Wahrheit zu sagen, was auch den unbestreitbaren Erfolg ihrer Berichte in der neutralen Presse erkläre. Die PK-Männer würden überall an den Brennpunkten der Kämpfe eingesetzt und mehrere in der ganzen Welt bekannte Journalisten des Reiches seien, die Waffe in der Hand, gefallen.
Invasion verschlechtert britische Versorgungslage
Genf, 19. Juli –
Neutrale Korrespondenten berichten, daß die Invasion die Versorgungslage der englischen Zivilbevölkerung auf die Dauer stark beeinflussen und ernste Rückwirkungen in Großbritannien haben müsse. Weitere Konsumeinschränkungen und eine Verschärfung der englischen Rationierung würden zwangsläufig folgen. Auch die für die Produktion notwendige Wareneinfuhr werde durch den Ausfall der riesigen Tonnagemengen, die für die Invasionsfront benötigt würden, bedeutend zurückgehen. Desgleichen habe das Transportwesen erheblich gesteigerten Ansprüchen zu genügen. Die britische Kohlenproduktion, die um 4 bis 5 Millionen Tonnen gesteigert werden müsse, wenn die Bedürfnisse der Wehrmacht, der Rüstungsindustrie und des notwendigsten zivilen Bedarfs einigermaßen gedeckt werden sollen, sei aber nach wie vor rückläufig. Infolgedessen sei mit neuen, sehr einschneidenden Rationierungsmaßnahmen bei der Versorgung der Zivilbevölkerung zu rechnen.
Gauleiter Grohe Reichskommissar in Belgien und Nordfrankreich
General Grase Wehrmachtbefehlshaber in Belgien und Nordfrankreich
Berlin, 19. Juli –
Durch Erlass des Führers vom 13. Juli 1944 ist die bisherige Militärverwaltung in Belgien und Nordfrankreich durch eine Zivilverwaltung ersetzt worden, an deren Spitze der Reichskommissar für die besetzten Gebiete von Belgien und Nordfrankreich steht. Zum Reichskommissar für die besetzten Gebiete von Belgien und Nordfrankreich hat der Führer den Gauleiter Grohe ernannt.
Für den zu Nordfrankreich gehörigen Teil des Gebietes wird ein besonderer, dem Reichskommissar für die besetzten Gebiete von Belgien und Nordfrankreich unmittelbar unterstehender Zivilkommissar bestellt werden.
Mit dieser Neuregelung ist die Dienststelle des Militärbefehlshabers in Belgien und Nordfrankreich in Fortfall gekommen. Dem Militärbefehlshaber oblag außer der Verwaltung des ihm unterstehenden Gebietes auch die Ausübung der militärischen Hoheitsrechte in ihm. Die Ausübung dieser Rechte wird künftig durch den Wehrmachtbefehlshaber in Belgien und Nordfrankreich erfolgen. Zum Wehrmachtbefehlshaber in Belgien und Nordfrankreich hat der Führer den General der Infanterie Grase ernannt.
Am 18. Juli hat der bisherige Militärbefehlshaber in Belgien und Nordfrankreich, Generaloberst von Falkenhausen, in Brüssel die Geschäfte des zivilen Bereichs dem neuen Reichskommissar, Gauleiter Grohe, und die Geschäfte des militärischen Bereichs dem General der Infanterie Grase übergeben.