Editorial: Nazi satellites must run risk involved in breaking away
…
Heffernan: On Americans without a candidate
Sometimes I wonder if this presidential campaign, like that of 1940, will find Americans of my turn of mind without a candidate for the Chief Magistracy.
There have come to my desk letters from supporters of Mr. Roosevelt who say that they are against a fourth term but that the Republican Party offers no acceptable candidate against the present incumbent. There have come letters from readers who say that, although they are not satisfied with Governor Dewey, whose mobility of sentiments is already a target for New Deal attack, they would vote for a piebald puppy rather than for Roosevelt again.
Then there are others who, like myself, base their political action on these points:
-
Desire for a return of constitutional government.
-
A two-term limitation on the presidential tenure.
-
This polity pronounced by Washington and a guiding influence of our foreign policy up to President Wilson’s time: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
The quotation is from Washington’s Farewell Address.
People of my mind realize that we are in this war, that our bravest and best blood is being shed on a hundred fields, and that extrication when the cannon cease their thunders will not be a matter of easy and immediate process. We shall have to aid the other powers involved to enforce peace where force is necessary and to persuade it where persuasion is possible.
But that still can be attained, we think, without the permanent alliances which Washington considered ruinous to our government, and which if we make them, will create a constant drain on our manhood and wealth and a continuous irritation of our domestic politics and a continuous depreciation of the value of our way of life.
Our opposition to President Roosevelt is the result of the lack of correspondence of performance with profession. The campaign speeches of the last presidential campaign seem like words floating in air against the American boys on foreign fields today. And even before the war the domestic policy of the administration has been a strange commentary on this from his 1935 Message to Congress:
Continuous dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive of the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.
We are now confronted with the strong probability that Mr. Dewey will be the Republican candidate. His 1940 addresses, which were strongly non-intervention, are at odds with his present-day declarations on national policy. But if he be the candidate, we shall find ourselves forced either to vote for him or for the continuance in office of the New Deal and the consequent obsequies of the Constitution of the United States.
Would the american’s report on the INA battalions fighting the allies? Or did they have no mention of it because of british pressure (I doubt there were in any position to do so).
1 Like
They did, but only when fully confirmed and if it passed the censors.
1 Like
Also, welcome back, Ritvik. It’s been too long!
Address by Adm. Ernest J. King, USN
May 21, 1944
Delivered at the Massing of the Colors, Washington Cathedral, Washington, DC
We have gathered here at a most appropriate moment in history to honor the dead, to pay our respects to the flag, and to seek Divine guidance for the days of decision that still lie ahead. This beautiful amphitheater is a fitting place for us to pause for a few moments in order to take stock of our past blessings and to muster strength for the tests and trials of the coming months.
You will recall that in the years before the war, some actors had claimed that our greatness as a nation was behind us; that the days of “iron men” were gone. Our enemies had said, again and again, that we were “decadent” and “soft.” The war we are now fighting has brought to this generation a challenge to prove itself worthy of the past, and determined to build the greatness of our future. It was in this spirit that our forces fought back from the verge of disaster in the early days of the war, and have fought on to take the offensive on every front throughout the world. It has disproved our enemies, vindicated our heritage, and insured our future. Patriotic demonstrations, such as this, serve the valued purpose of heartening our fighting forces abroad by fortifying us at home in our determination that we shall not let them down.
The massing of the colors here today is indeed a stirring spectacle. Many of the more than 100 civic, fraternal, and military organizations participating in this ceremony have their roots in other great moments in American history. Some of these organizations were born in the Revolutionary days; others trace their lineage to the War of 1812, the War Between the States, the Indian Wars, and the War with Spain. The last World War produced still others. Similar organizations will spring from this war. These organizations are all dedicated to the perpetuation of our great American traditions.
This war has taught us the high value of tradition. Tradition is the summation of the virtues and the successes of our ancestors. We revere our traditions, to be sure, but that is not enough. Before we can rightfully claim them as our own, intangible as they may be, we must prove ourselves worthy of them. We should regard them as inspirations to go and do likewise. Today the American people are making traditions of their own during another crisis of history. As we create traditions for ourselves and our children, we prove ourselves the more worthy to inherit the traditions of our fathers.
Fortress Europe will soon be assaulted in what promises to be the most formidable military undertaking in history. In the Pacific, other great operations are pending, for despite recent advances, we are still far from the citadel of Japan which must be breached before the war is won.
We of the armed services have pondered these great problems; we have calculated the risks; we know the obstacles. But we also know our own strength. We now have the men, the ships, the planes, the weapons, the plans and the teamwork. I can assure you that when the zero hour arrives – we shall not fail.
In the recesses of this National Cathedral lies the body of Adm. Dewey. The coolness and confidence he displayed before the Battle of Manila Bay are summed up in his now-famous remark: “You may fire when ready, Gridley.” Today we find ourselves in an analogous situation. We too are ready to “fire.” We too are cool; we too are confident. Our only misgiving is that some of us at home may minimize the size of the tasks ahead. There is a tendency abroad in the land to believe that the end of the war is close at hand, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. I must remind you that there is little justification for such wishful thinking. If we become overconfident now, we do an injustice to those who are about to go into battle, for it is they who will suffer if we fail.
In two and a half years of war, over 46,000 Americans have already given their lives. Every branch of the service has contributed to the roll of honored dead – the Army, 27,000; the Navy, 19,000, of which 4,000 were Marines.
These men have died in the service of their country, and in the words of the Presidential Scroll Accolade sent to the next of kin, “stand in the unbroken line of patriots who have dared to die that freedom might live, and grow, and increase its blessings.” Freedom shall live, and through it, these heroes will live. In honoring these men, it is appropriate that we name the late and great Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox. No man has done more for the cause which brings us here today. No man will be longer revered and remembered by the Navy. Before hostilities cease, the names of many thousands more will be added to the roll of honored dead. I could wish that it were otherwise, but the price of victory and of freedom is high.
Nor must we forget those who have been wounded – many will never completely recover; nor the missing – many will never return. They also have won the nation’s gratitude.
Furthermore, we must realize that casualties alone do not reflect the total suffering of the war. The grief of those near and dear cannot be measured in numbers. No words of consolation can wholly dispel the emptiness that engulfs them. Mothers, fathers, wives and children have known suffering, worry, separation and death. They also have played the role of patriots. Their forbearance and resignation are worthy of all esteem. They can take comfort from the words of Isaiah: “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.”
We cannot wage war without loss of life. But we can see to it that our fathers and sons, our husbands and brothers, do not die in vain. To this end we should plan and strive to keep our country strong and ready, in a world so ordered that the strength of all nations shall be on the side of peace. Let us spare our children’s children the death and suffering and hardships that we are experiencing.
Let us remember that precept of Washington, who in his first annual address to the Congress, said: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
Address by Col. Herman W. Steinkraus
May 21, 1944
Delivered at Harding High School, Bridgeport, Connecticut
It is an inspiring occasion for us here in Bridgeport today. On this national “I Am An American” Day, 996 members of our community become American citizens. All over this land today similar groups are meeting to honor their citizenship in this greatest country on earth. I believe we can be particularly proud in Bridgeport, because it was here, five years ago, when representatives of our 32 different nationalities got together and started the movement that makes those four words among the proudest words in the English language – “I Am An American.”
It is a significant day. From now on, from this very hour on, you own a share of democracy. It is one of the most valuable things you will ever possess, yet it doesn’t cost you a penny, only your own free will, and your true faith in our country.
Because it is free, it is none the less valuable. In ancient times citizenship had to be bought. It cost dearly to be made a Roman citizen, or to be made a citizen of Athens, that famed seat of learning and culture. It cost real money, often the labor and savings of a lifetime. But citizenship in our great country is given to all, rich and poor alike, one share for each.
Your share is just like mine, no more, no less. When we go to the polls together to cast our vote, your voice is just as important as mine, or of your neighbor next door, or that of anybody else. It carries as much weight as that of a senator, or of a judge, or of the President himself. How foolish we would be if we did not value this priceless gift!
In a practical sense, why is a share in democracy so valuable? Because of the simple truth that there is no place in the world today where the individual has so much liberty. It is a place where the poorest boy and girl can get a free education to whatever height they are capable of going, right through college, if desired; where circumstances of birth have no bearing upon how high the individual may climb. In our country the thing that determines success is not “What were you born with?” or “What did you inherit?” but “What are you? What are your abilities and ambitions?”
Here is the only great nation of the world where every boy, no matter how poor, can someday hope to become mayor, or governor, or even President of the United States. You all know of many cases where sons of poor, foreign-born parents have become distinguished doctors, lawyers, add heads of great business organizations. Some of them are in this audience today.
And how proud we are when we learn about such success stories. There is no jealousy felt – only a sense of pride. We are glad such things can happen here.
As we each own a share of democracy in our country, we own a share of the responsibilities as well. The trouble is, when we sit down and think about our country, most of us picture a vast expanse of land, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, vague and far-off. But is that our country, really? No. It isn’t some place far removed from us. It is here. Our country is our farms and factories, cities and towns, places like Bridgeport, Shelton, Trumbull, Long Hill, Milford, Stratford. That is our country.
It is you, your next-door neighbor, the boy who sells you your morning paper, the conductor on the bus, the grocer on the corner. As these people are, so is America. The way they think and act makes the kind of country we shall have. It is as simple as that. Multiply this by thousands of communities, and then you have America.
So, our responsibilities to our country are not vague and distant and far-off, but are simple, definite things, right before us. You all know the greatest responsibility of all, something which is also our greatest privilege, and that is, the right to vote. I think that this privilege is frequently not recognized. May I illustrate what I mean by a rather familiar illustration?
Probably each one of you belongs to some sort of club or organization. You attend meetings at which you discuss what you want to do in your club, and once a year or so you elect your officers to carry out a program. You may vote on a great variety of matters. After you have declared what you want to do, then you see to it that the officers carry out those policies.
In the same way, as a part owner of the democracy of our country, you also help elect officials and choose a program. However, it cannot be done at one large meeting, or at one place, so there are voting spots designated where you go to cast your ballot. But the principle is the same; first you choose from the candidates for office those you want to see elected, to serve you; second, you vote on policies, or programs.
Most of these are very definite things, such as, “Will you vote yes or no on the bond issue?” – “Will you build the new school or not?” – “Do you want this particular civic improvement or not?” Also, and this is very important, there can be no changes in the Constitution of our land without the approval of the majority of all the voters. Of course, voting on questions of such gravity come up rarely. By far the great majority of all the voting you will be called upon to do will be selecting officials for public offices, local, state, and national.
I am mentioning all this because I wish to emphasize how simple, but how very important it is that you exercise your right to vote. Unfortunately, there are millions of citizens who are thoughtless and do not take the time to inform themselves about these important matters, and therefore do not vote. The great danger in this practice is that organized groups who use elaborate methods and sometimes large sums of money to bring out the vote in favor of their own selfish interests tend to defeat the real purposes of our democratic system.
But we know our democracy is growing in power and strength every year, and it will grow in greater power and strength when we all exercise the great privilege of voting intelligently and honestly. That will encourage the best citizens to run for office, and it is the most direct way to insure good government. How our country develops depends upon what we, as voters, put into it, and what we make of it.
If you think it is ideal already, you will be disappointed. If you think you can make what is right come quickly, you will be disappointed. Sometimes the man you know is the best may not win, issues you believe in may fail, but don’t let that discourage you. The democratic process is a slow one, and we must not expect perfection overnight.
It would be much quicker and easier to follow the edicts of a dictator, if quick results are all we are looking for; but that is also the quickest way to destroy the happiness of the individual citizen. Democracy is slow, but it lasts, and brings steady betterment of conditions for all.
The world for many centuries has tried plenty of other things, monarchy, despotism, and all kinds of dictatorships. A very interesting one was the trial of oligarchy, in Greece – the rule of the superior class, or as they were called, the “Eupatrids” – which means, the “well-born ones.” “What could be better,” said the people of Athens, “than that those among us who are wisest and best educated, those well-born ones, govern us?”
They tried this plan in Greece in the 7th century BC. It was an awful failure. Why? Because this superior class became so drunk with their own power and importance that they soon forgot the common people who put them into power, and became, themselves, the worst kind of oppressors.
We read in history of more failures – kings, czars, emperors. Then in Rome they tried still another idea. This was something new. “Is not this the best,” they said, “the rule of a benevolent despot? Let him be Emperor, who is the wisest and most able man. Let him govern us.” Fortunately, they had just such a man in Rome, and he was near to the throne.
I refer to Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of the Great Roman Empire in the second century; he who was called just and wise, and good, and true. Those are fine qualities for a leader to have. But they weren’t enough. We know now that no leader is greater than the men he must work with, and the organization he must build to carry out his ideas. Marcus Aurelius was able, wise and just, but his organization was corrupt.
Now we almost forget that he was an Emperor at all. He left no influence whatsoever on the social or economic progress of the world. When we think of him today, we think of him not as an Emperor, but as a writer, who took the pains out of his busy days to leave us a small volume which we treasure, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. The Roman Empire soon crumbled, like the rest. We in America in the last 300 years have demonstrated that the only thing that holds up and doesn’t fail is democracy, the rule of the common people. Here we act in the belief that God created men with equal rights, and that the function of government is to be the servant of the people, not the master. We express our approval, or we express our disapproval, when we go to the polls and vote.
Of course, there are many ways in which a democratic form of government may function, and over this period of 300 years we have worked out something of our own, which seems to be doing pretty well. Let us view this operation still more closely.
The actual operation and, in large measure, the progress of our democratic system rests on what we call the party system. That may be a little confusing, and I should think it would be, especially so to new voters. Let us consider for a few moments just what that means.
Starting with the simplest fact, there are two sides at least to every question. Sometimes there are more, and it is not always easy to know which one is best. So, there are two or more candidates as a rule for every office. One usually stands for one set of ideas, and the other for a different platform. When put to a vote, the majority vote carries. However, in the case of political voting, the minority is also very important. They do not remain idle, they too have a place to fill, and work to do.
If the minority is strong and well-organized, it offers the necessary safeguard to see that the majority does not abuse the rights it has gained, or the office it holds. If the majority in power does abuse those privileges, then the minority points out those facts, and at the next election they gain enough strength to take away power from the other party, and assume the reins of government themselves.
Thus, this check system of two or more parties, called “the party system,” is a great safeguard to our liberties.
At present we have the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and others. More may develop. However, too many parties are a bad thing. May I point out that France, before its collapse, was operating on the party system too, but there were so many parries – over thirty, in fact – and they were so divided that not one of them was strong enough to form a stable government, and so France became an easy prey to destructive forces.
When Andre Maurois spoke in this country during the past winter, he told about writing a little booklet on courtesy as a guide to the American soldiers in dealing with the French people. One of the points he put in was, “Don’t talk to a Frenchman about his politics,” and added, “They have so many parties, they don’t understand them, themselves.”
Let us have few parries, but keep them strong. Personally, I believe it is a good thing for a citizen to become a member of one of the major parties, and work to keep the party of his choice active and vigorous. If he joins a party, he can go to the party meeting, or caucus, and help select the very best possible candidates for office. I think this is extremely important.
The so-called independent voter does not have this influence. As he belongs to no party, he can go to no party meetings, and so has no say at all in selecting the candidates who are to run for office. He must be content with the men other people select. It seems to me he loses more than he gains.
When it comes to voting on men who are up for office, we are in a better position to make wise choices than ever before, for today we enjoy more means to know the facts, through the radio, our newspapers, and the free speech of the platform. We have every means to know the truth about men, and what they stand for.
In this respect we are particularly fortunate in Bridgeport, for here we have a very open-minded and progressive press, forward-looking in their attitude, and always careful to give the public the full facts on political issues.
I cannot refrain from adding that in many other respects we have reason to be proud of this city of Bridgeport. It is a city that looks ahead. It has a mayor we all love. It is thoroughly loyal. No city in this nation is making a finer record in this war than our own city of Bridgeport, and that is because of the kind of people who live and work here. Our citizens are splendid Americans and patriotic people who can well set an example to some other sections of our country.
I think this is partly due to the fact that Bridgeport is so rich in the many nationalities that make up its citizenship. These many sources contribute so much to the cultural life of our city, and have a profound influence toward a spirit of tolerance and freedom from prejudice which has been so helpful in our many industrial plants here. It is one of our most valuable assets.
One of the great sources of strength of our country is the fact that its people come from all lands of the world, determined to get away from old-world oppression and anxious to help build a better world here.
All of these things are advantages which should help each one of you become a most excellent voter. There is really nothing difficult about it. You do not need background, position, education. Really, just two things are necessary: first, honesty, and second, good judgment. And those are things within the reach of every person in this room.
When you come to vote on candidates for office, the only thing you need to ask yourself is, “Is this man the best one to serve my town and country?” or “Is that one the better?” If it is an issue you are voting on, ask yourself honestly, “Is this measure good for my town, my state, or my country?” If so, vote for it. If not, vote against it.
You do not have to vote for anyone or anything because a friend asked you to, because someone puts pressure on you to vote a certain way, or because your family may think you ought to vote thus, although I must confess that sometimes the unthinking voter does do exactly those things.
Your ballot is secret. It is your own, and nobody else’s, and let nothing keep you from casting your ballot to express your own honest and true conviction. If everyone will do that, we will eventually have the most wonderful laws and administration of laws that any country has ever seen.
I have the greatest confidence in the judgment of the average citizen who honestly votes as he thinks right.
There was a time when I questioned whether the average public could be trusted to make the right decision, but the older I get the more convinced I am that the opinion of honest voters can be fully relied upon, provided they are given the facts.
I have heard some men say, and intelligent men, too, “The majority is wrong. They are never right. The public doesn’t keep their heads. Look at the riots and the violence you read about!” I answer, “That is not the public speaking its opinion; that is the public speaking in terms of emotion. Riots come from uncontrolled emotion, not sound judgment.” In fact, wherever there is violence, you always find absence of reason, and honest thinking.
Some of you may think that the judgment of the highly educated would be the best to follow, but let me urge you to learn to think for yourselves. The most inept remark I have heard recently on political matters came from a badly informed, bigoted woman who is highly educated as far as college degrees go. If I repeated some of the things she said, it would make you laugh.
Good judgment seems to come out of daily living, somehow, and it isn’t something you can take out of a book. I am glad I feel like trusting the judgment of the average worker, because the average worker knows life, and that is the great teacher.
I would like to mention a man I am thinking of now, one of my neighbors. He is an Italian. I shall have to tell you first that I have a small vegetable garden where we raise enough to carry us through the winter. I really don’t get a chance to work on it much, but my wife was brought up on a farm, and seems to know a lot about such things. She says if you have learned to grow things in New Hampshire you can grow them anywhere.
At any rate she and my Italian friend make a pretty good team and turn out a pretty good garden at the end ofthe season. About once a month on a Saturday or Sunday I like to walk around and look things over with our friend. We may start out talking about vegetables, but before we are through we have discussed taxes, and the town hall, and pretty much covered what they are doing down in Washington.
My friend hasn’t had much schooling, except a few years he got in Italy, but I would trust his Judgment on about any public question that comes up. I am impressed with his simple common sense. One day he talked to me about Mussolini. “I went to school with him,” he said, “Just a big bully, that’s ail he was. First a bully as a boy, then a bully as a man.”
He loves our country, and would never miss a chance to go down town on election day to vote. I say America is safe in the hands of such honest citizens, even though they may not have had the best of opportunities.
There is just one other thought I would like to pass on to you. I firmly believe that every man and woman, no matter what their station in life, owes it to his community to give a fair share of his time to public affairs. Read and listen to public issues so that you may talk to your friends about them, and vote on them wisely.
I know this takes time, and we ate all so busy, but it is part of the price we must pay if we wish to keep this country as we have received it from her great leaders. Freedom and liberty don’t just happen—they must be worked for, and fought for, if necessary, or they slip from us.
At this time especially, many crucial problems face our country. They need our most prayerful and earnest thinking. But it is a wonderful age in which we live. There is no time in world history which will prove to be more interesting than the years lying ahead, when victory is won and peace again returns.
And now, in closing, I would like to extend my congratulations to you who have just become citizens of our country. May you realize that this great gift of citizenship, though free, is a truly deep privilege. Men have fought and bled and died for it. And may you bring to your citizenship such honesty, good judgment, and faithfulness that you will pass it on, an even richer and greater gift, to your children and your children’s children.
Völkischer Beobachter (May 22, 1944)
Eine wohlverdiente Unterstützung –
Die Bolschewisten stimmen für Roosevelt
vb. Wien, 21. Mai –
Aus Washington meldet das Reuters-Büro, die Generalversammlung der nordamerikanischen kommunistischen Partei habe zum erstenmal in der Geschichte dieser Partei beschlossen, keinen eigenen Präsidentschaftskandidaten aufzustellen. Earl Browder, der Sekretär der Partei, erklärt in diesem Zusammenhang, daß die amerikanischen Kommunisten sich für die Wiederwahl Roosevelts einsetzen würden, denn ein Abgang Roosevelts würde ein Unglück für das Land sein.
Selten hat ein Präsidentschaftskandidat soviel dafür getan, sich die Unterstützung einer anderen Partei zu sichern, wie es bei Herrn Präsidenten Roosevelt und bei den amerikanischen Kommunisten der Fall ist. Außer dem britischen Premierminister hat Stalin niemandem so viel zu verdanken wie dem gegenwärtigen Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Dank der mächtigen Hilfe Nordamerikas herrscht der Bolschewismus heute bereits in Nordafrika, dringt er immer weiter in Süditalien vor, ist ihm gerade noch Nordnorwegen und Kiel angeboten worden, soll ihm für die Zeit nach dem Kriege Polen, das Baltikum, der Balkan, die Tschechei und schließlich ganz Mittel- und Westeuropa gehören. Es ist nur in Ordnung, wenn Stalin für so viel selbstlose Hilfe auch einmal einen Gegendienst leistet. Das Bündnis zwischen britisch-amerikanischem Kapitalismus und östlichem Bolschewismus findet durch die Empfehlung der kommunistischen Partei Nordamerikas an ihre Mitglieder und Wähler eine neue Steigerung.
Dieses Bündnis hat in der gleichen Sitzung der Partei noch eine höchst aufschlußreiche Deutung erfahren. Nach seiner Mitteilung über die Haltung der Partei in der Frage der Präsidentenwahl erklärt Browder weiter, auch die Kommunisten müßten die Einigkeit in den Vereinigten Staaten fördern. Man müsse die Politik von Moskau und Teheran beschützen. Deshalb dürften die Kommunisten nicht die Frage des Sozialismus in einer Form auswerten, die die nationale Einigkeit gefährden könnte. Er sagte: „Wenn irgendjemand das bestehende kapitalistische System in den Vereinigten Staaten als freies Unternehmertum zu bezeichnen wünscht, so haben wir nichts dagegen.“ Nach einigen wohlwollenden Bemerkungen für die breiteren Schichten der Bevölkerung fügt Browder hinzu: „Wir erklären in aller Offenheit, daß wir bereit sind, unsere Mitarbeit zu gewähren“ – und schließlich gab Browder noch den entscheidenden Satz:
Wir ziehen im Wahljahre 1944 keine politische Trennungslinie hinsichtlich irgendwelcher Form oder Fragen des freien Unternehmertums.
Man kann nicht deutlicher ausdrücken, wie sehr sich die Börsengrößen der Wall Street und die Machthaber des Kreml geeinigt haben, um in der ganzen Welt ihr Spiel mit verteilten Rollen zu spielen. Man kann aber auch nicht deutlicher den Völkern die Lehre erteilen, daß es nicht genügt, eine dieser beiden Mächte zu zerschlagen, sondern daß man sie beide treffen muß, wenn man die Welt wirklich befreien will.
Verbrecher von Botschafter Umanski ausgehalten –
Bolschewisten-‚Künstler‘ beglücken Amerika
Von unserem Lissaboner Berichterstatter
…
In Neapel 70.000 Menschen den Seuchen erlegen –
Gräßliche Zustände in Süditalien
Die Badoglio-Clique amüsiert sich
…
U.S. Navy Department (May 22, 1944)
CINCPAC Press Release No. 411
For Immediate Release
May 22, 1944
Ponape Island was attacked by 7th Army Air Force Mitchells at sight on May 19 and during daylight on May 20 (West Longitude Date). No opposition was encountered.
Enemy positions in the Marshalls were bombed and strafed by Coronado, Catalina, and Ventura search planes of Fleet Air Wing Two, Corsair fighters of the 4th Marine Aircraft Wing, and Navy Hellcat fighters during the night of May 19‑20 and on May 20. Runways, anti-aircraft batteries, and buildings were hit. Anti-aircraft fire was meager.