America at war! (1941–) – Part 3

868.01/427

The President’s special assistant to the Secretary of State

Washington, December 20, 1943
Secret

Dear Cordell: Here is a memo which Eden handed me in confidence in Cairo, which apparently was prepared for Eden by some of his associates prior to his talk with the King of Greece.

Mr. Eden told me that he followed this line of argument with the King and I gather he made it pretty strong.

Cordially yours,
HARRY L. HOPKINS

[Attachment]

The British Embassy accredited to the Greek Government-in-Exile in Egypt to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

Cairo, November 25, 1943

Main talking points with the King of the Hellenes

  1. Refer again to your previous conversation when you told the King that the strategical situation had changed and that it was most [un]likely that any but quite inconsiderable British forces would be sent to Greece when the Germans evacuate.

  2. Point out that at the time when we thought a considerable British army would go to Greece to drive the Germans out, we strongly supported your desire to enter Greece with the British and Greek forces. Under the changed conditions such British forces as might go to Greece would be mainly concerned in ensuring law and order and in assisting in the distribution of relief supplies.

  3. It would be essential for the Greek Government to function at the earliest possible date in close association with the British and in an atmosphere as far removed as possible from political controversy. This Government would have to be mainly composed of leading personalities who have lived in Greece during the period of the occupation.

  4. During the whole period of the German occupation acute controversy has continued and grown increasingly strong on the subject of the King’s return before the will of the people has been expressed. The immediate return of the King in the teeth of this opposition would inevitably raise this controversy to fever point, and it would be impossible for the King himself to remain outside political dissension. He would find himself confronted with a situation even more acute than that which led to the Metaxas Dictatorship, and would therefore start under every disadvantage, which would make it impossible for him to return in the role which he and we desire for him – that of a constitutional monarch.

  5. The immediate confusion that will result from the difficult social and economic conditions caused by the occupation will make it essential for the Government [to] be in the hands of a leading personality, who has made his mark through his bold resistance to the Germans within the country. He will have to form an emergency Committee prepared to act firmly and to put down disorder. The first administration to be formed will be of a temporary character to tide over the period until normal conditions can be established and elections held. It would be an undesirable situation for the King, when he first returned to Greece, to be associated directly with an administration bound to become unpopular and unable to accord all those freedoms associated with a constitutional monarchy.

  6. In these circumstances, the King should consider the choice of the most suitable personality to head a Regency Committee in Athens the moment the Germans evacuate. Archbishop Damaskinos is prepared to undertake this responsibility, but must know in advance that he can announce to the Greek people, as soon as the Germans quit Athens, that he has the legal authority of the King for so doing.

  7. There is therefore every advantage for the King, in his own interests as well as those of his country, to make it clear now to his people that he does not intend to return to Greece until such conditions have been established as will allow him to function as a constitutional monarch. He has no desire to return to Greece unless he can so function, but he also has no desire to return unless he is convinced by a clear expression of the people’s will that the system of constitutional monarchy is desired by them.

  8. An immediate declaration to this effect would rally moderate opinion against any attempt made by a small section, who seek to impose their will by force as soon as the Germans leave Athens. This section have made capital out of the failure of the King so far to make such a declaration.

  9. There is reason to believe that if Zervas knew that such a declaration would be made by the King, he would immediately ask that his irregular forces should be incorporated in the Greek regular Army. If this were immediately granted by the King it would act as a magnet to draw large numbers of the officers and men in the ELAS forces to break away from purely sectional political control and make a similar request for incorporation on the same terms as those accorded to Zervas. This would bring the Greek Government in Cairo into close association with the resistance movements inside Greece, and would thereby enormously enhance the authority and prestige of the King and his Government, which would then be reformed to include personalities from Greece and would consequently provide a Government of which Archbishop Damaskinos could avail himself when he set up his Regency Committee in Athens.

British Embassy to Greece, Cairo
25 November, 1943

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union to the President

Moscow, 20 December 1943
Secret

Personal and secret for the President from Harriman.

At the Tehran Conference you and the Prime Minister agreed that the Italian ships requested by the Soviets should be delivered on one February. Request that I be informed of the action taken to carry out this commitment as I shall undoubtedly be queried by Molotov at a meeting with him scheduled for Friday or Saturday to discuss unfinished business of Tehran.

The Pittsburgh Press (December 20, 1943)

U.S. FLIERS BLAST GERMANY FROM 2 SIDES
Reich raided from south and England

Mediterranean planes hit Augsburg; 8th Air Force Northwest Germany
By Walter Cronkite, United Press staff writer

In Pacific –
Yanks widen 2 beachheads

Nazi airstrip 4 miles east of Arawe on New Britain
By Brydon C. Taves, United Press staff writer

U.S. 5th Army drives 2 miles

Takes San Pietro, advances toward Rome plain
By C. R. Cunningham, United Press staff writer

U.S. seizure of rail lines threatened

Unions, too, told to face penalties implied in disputes act
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Sub sinks U.S. ship in Gulf of Mexico

Effective Jan. 1 –
Cuts extended in use of all printing paper

New reduction expected to save 1,250,000 tons of paper a year


Printers told by WLB to end their walkout

Washington union spurns 72¢ raise and demand $1

Roosevelt suffers series of defeats

Administration leadership on domestic issues substantially repudiated; GOP confident of winning House control
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer


Stokes: Rankin’s own job involved in soldier ballot proposal

By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Free labor unions in Italy aid Allies

Men overseas to get turkey for Christmas

Services are planned from Pacific to Iceland, Alaska to Italy


Second front moves hinted

Gen. Eisenhower in Britain, Vichy reports
By J. Edward Beattie, United Press staff writer

Michele Morgan popular lady!

Film folks say she brings ‘em luck


Wholesale dose of ‘horrors’ for patrons of the Fulton

Two movies crammed with hair-raising deeds of fiends, ghouls

Simms: Revolt feared behind Allied lines in Italy

Democrats freed by army are reported tense by committee
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard staff writer

U.S. bombers hit Marshalls

6 Zeros destroyed, 3 damaged at Mile Atoll

U.S. takes over electric plant in Baltimore

Army comes in when WLB refuses to grant sanitary demands

Editorial: Only facts can lick rumors

Edson: Truman probe look into Army truck purchases

By Peter Edson

Ferguson: Working wives

By Mrs. Walter Ferguson

Background of news –
Split up Germany after the war?

By Bertram Benedict, editorial research reports

Some students of post-war problems are wondering if the Moscow Declaration in favor of an independent Austria after the war ought to be carried a step further, so that several other independent states would be cut off from the German Reich – not only to prevent Germany from beginning another war, but also to satisfy a demand in some sections of Germany for independence from Prussian domination.

The pre-Hitler German Reich dated only from 1871, and the large states within it had a much longer record of separate existence. They formed a single nation because of the economic advantages.

Between Napoleon and the Franco-German War of 1870-71, several large German federations were formed. If something like these were to be created now, care would have to be taken that the economic basis for separation was as firm as the political basis. After World War I, considerable sentiment arose in Austria for union with Germany simply because the new Austria was an unbalanced economic unit, aptly described as a head (Vienna) without a body.

When Napoleon burst upon the European scene, Germany, like Italy, was a mere geographical expression. Its map was a nightmare. What was called Germany lay within the Holy Roman Empire which was not properly an empire, no longer had any connection with Rome, and certainly wasn’t holy. The French dictator abolished it in 1806 and formed the Confederation of the Rhine, of which he was “protector.” Soon all the German states joined the Confederation except Prussia, Austria, Brunswick and Hesse.

After the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the Congress of Vienna organized the German states into a confederation of 38 states, all sovereign, with a complicated constitution. Austria presided over and dominated the German Confederation, and Prussia determined to replace Austria as the dominant force.

Between 1828 and 1842, Prussia consummated a customs union (Zollverein) in all the important German states except Austria. During the revolutionary movements of 1848 and 1849, the Confederation was suspended, and an attempt was made at Frankfurt to form a new all-German political union. This movement collapsed in the face of Austrian opposition, and in 1851 the Confederation resumed.

Prussia was still successful in keeping Austria out of the customs union, although most of the South German states, largely Catholic, sided with Austria in resistance to Prussian influence.

In 1864, Prussia and Austria combined in war against Denmark, to redeem the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Danish rule. The Confederation supported the war. Two years later, Prussia provoked war with Austria, ostensibly because of a dispute over the two redeemed duchies. Most of the German states, including Bavaria, Hanover, and Saxony, sided with Austria; Prussia declared the Confederation at an end. Austria was defeated in seven weeks. Prussia thereupon formed a confederation, under Prussian hegemony, of the North German states.

The South German states were to form their own confederation. However, Prussia concluded military alliances with them against France, and also brought them into a customs union with the North German Confederation. The southern states joined the North German Confederation in 1870 in war against France, and in 1871, William I was proclaimed German Emperor at Versailles. The new Reich consisted of 25 states, reduced by 1933 to 17.

Congressmen flunk disputed history quiz

Washington (UP) –
Need help with your history?

Well, don’t write your Congressman. Not unless he happens to be Rep. Alvin E. O’Konski (R-WI) – and don’t lean too hard on him for information on what happened in 1781 or 1887.

These conclusions were reached from a historical date questionnaire submitted to 15 Congressmen by the United Press. It set forth 33 dates selected by the Committee on American History in schools of the American Historical Association as those high school students should memorize.

On an average, the Congressmen muffed 12 of 33. Mr. O’Konski missed only two, although he did not agree entirely with the committee as to what made certain years memorable. The committee listed “1876 – Centennial Exposition,” Mr. O’Konski remembered it as the year Wild Bill Hickok was shot.

A team of five Republicans that ganged up on one questionnaire tied Mr. O’Konski’s individual performance, and missed only 1817 (U.S. treaty with Canada) and 1844 (first successful telegraph).

To this questionnaire, a 34th date was added in the handwriting of Rep. Clare Boothe Luce (R-CT) – “1944 – Republican President elected.” Not being clairvoyant, the tabulators counted this neither right nor wrong.

Rep. O’Konski missed 1887 (Interstate Commerce Commission) and 1781 (surrender of Cornwallis). For the latter, he listed “Garfield shot,” an event that occurred in 1881 – so it appeared that Mr. O’Konski was thrown off by that ‘81.

Generally speaking, it was close between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats didn’t approach the O’Konski mark, but their average was a little better than their GOP colleagues.

Members were frequently not in accord with the committee as to the most important event of certain years. One common point of difference was 1920. According to the committee, students should remember it for the adoption of the 19th Amendment. Most of the 15 listed “birth of the League of Nations.” One Democrat, perhaps sadly, listed it as the “beginning of the Republican era.”

Several preferred the “first transatlantic crossing by American steamboat” for 1819 over the committee’s choice – “acquisition of Florida.”

The year 1793 proved troublesome to many. One listed correctly – “first balloon ascension in America.” The committee listed “invention of the cotton gin.”

At the insistence of several Congressmen, the questionnaire was submitted to a newspaperman chosen at random in the House Press Gallery. He missed 12, including 1793, which he erroneously recalled as the year of the Whiskey Rebellion.

That happened in 1794, but the committee doesn’t list it.

1 Like