Post-war planners urge overhauling of U.S. tax system
Elimination of levy on corporation income and curb on excise charges suggested
By Beardsley Ruml, written for United Press
…
Stokes: Dewey on labor
By Thomas L. Stokes
With Dewey party, Seattle, Washington –
Governor Dewey made a bold bid in his Seattle speech for labor votes, a major factor in the election, on the theory that enough of labor, particularly of the conservative type undoubtedly enlarged by war prosperity, is ready to break away from the New Deal if approached with a sound progressive program.
That is what he offered. He talked in New Deal accents. Right-wingers could get no comfort from his speech, nor could extreme left-wingers.
He proposed to take nothing from labor that it now has in guarantees written in law by the New Deal. He promised better and more direct administration of these laws. He offered labor higher wages in an expanding economy, which has become his major theme.
Two aspects of New Deal labor administration and policy are vulnerable for indictment. The Republican presidential candidate seized them and made a bill of particulars to which realistic New Dealers themselves must subscribe privately.
One is the multiplicity of agencies through which labor cases have to go, often, as Governor Dewey so strikingly illustrated, creating confusion doubly confounded, and causing delay from which labor groups suffer.
Favoritism for CIO
The other is the obviously political complexion of some New Deal labor decisions, with favoritism for the CIO, illustrated by the CIO plump for President Roosevelt, taken so far in advance that that section of labor lost some of its political effectiveness.
This was shown by two defeats – the dumping of Vice President Wallace at Chicago, and the passage of a reconversion bill in Congress which it finds most unsatisfactory.
Very cleverly the Republican candidate exploited the controversy and delay in the steel case before the War Labor Board, centering about the attempt to break down the “Little Steel” formula.
“The strategy of delay,” he said, “sets the stage for a great gesture – a big favor to labor before Election Day,” but he added pointedly this is something to which “labor is justly entitled” without representing it as “a special gift from on high from the New Deal.”
When he went on record against the Smith-Connally Act, which labor so detests, he neglected to mention that President Roosevelt had vetoed it, only to have Congress pass it over his veto.
The difficulty that Governor Dewey faces in trying to win labor over to the Republican side was revealed in his speech. All he could find of labor reforms in the last 30 years which he could credit to Republicans was President Taft’s creation of a Cabinet post for labor and the Railway Mediation Act of 1926.
Filibuster recalled
And the latter was sponsored first by Alben Barkley, present Senate Democratic leader, then a House member. The Republican leadership of the House fought it.
The writer recalls sitting in the House Press Gallery through one night when a Republican filibuster, engineered by then Speaker Longworth, scuttled that measure for the time being.
Republican difficulties have been further emphasized on this transcontinental tour. To his labor conferences held at every stop, the Republican candidate has been able to attract only small-fry figures. Everywhere, too, his aides have received reports of effective registration by CIO’s PAC in the cities.
It was significant that Governor Dewey did not even mention the PAC. Lesser Republican lights will do that job.
The Republican Party was once the party of labor. The exodus to the Democratic Party began in 1916.
After that, the Democrats slowly improved their standing with labor and it was ready for its big parade to the Democrats when President Roosevelt capitalized the lack of attention to labor by Republicans during the ‘20s and created the New Deal party.
Governor Dewey thus has a handicap in party heritage. But he could not have gone much further in trying to overcome it.
What will Johnny be like when he comes home?
Wecter: ‘Love’ is returning soldier’s prime need
Understanding and encouragement needed to help him readjust his life
By Dixon Wecter
…
‘Seeing Paris burn really got me,’ says Ernie Pyle on return to U.S.
Perfect physically, ‘inside I feel awful’
…
Allen: Cousin unwanted at White House – if it’s Dewey
By Gracie Allen
Hollywood, California –
Well now I’ve heard everything: Some expert has figured out that President Roosevelt and Governor Dewey are related. No fooling.
He has traced their families back to common ancestors – Richard Lyman of Northampton, Massachusetts, and his wife, Hepzibah Ford Lyman, who came to this country in 1630. This makes Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Dewey seventh cousins once removed.
My goodness, Mr. Roosevelt doesn’t want Mr. Dewey to come and live in the White House as it is, without making him a relative to boot.
I can just imagine a scene that might take place at the White House.
The phone rings and Eleanor answers it. Then she says: “Oh, Franklin, it’s that Republican cousin of yours from New York. He wants to come and stay four years.” …you take it from there.
Well, anyway, for once it won’t be the wife’s relatives who cause all the trouble.
Radio station tells FDR ‘lay it on line’
Says ‘report’ was political talk
By Si Steinhauser
A few columns ago, we discussed the possibility of a single radio station refusing its time to presidential broadcasts. A local station manager said “it could be done but I doubt whether anyone would dare do it.” He had never heard of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, or Myles H. Johns, who owns Station WOSH there. Mr. Johns decided for his own ears that President Roosevelt’s “report to the nation,” from Bremerton, Washington, at the end of his Pacific tour was political. He sat down and wrote Governor Dewey that the station offers 37 minutes (the time FDR used) for free to answer Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Johns said his action was not political but in keeping with Federal Communications regulations providing that both sides of all controversial questions must be presented and that if a speaker for one side is given free time the other side must be offered equal time to reply.
That done, Station WOSH has served notice that until after Election Day it will carry no more of Mr. Roosevelt’s sustaining talks. In other words, if the President wants to be heard through WOSH his national committee must “pay through the nose.”
Speaking of presidential candidates, America’s Town Meeting of the Air has asked President Roosevelt, Governor Dewey and Socialist candidate Norman Thomas to honor its forum with their presence on Thursday, Oct. 26.
And it overlooked another candidate, Prohibition leader Claude A. Watson, who makes his acceptance speech over WJAS at 1:30 p.m. ET next Sunday. Mr. Watson is a Los Angeles attorney.
WCAE lists Governor Bricker at 9:30 tonight and KDKA lists Governor Dewey at 10:30.
Pays critics no mind –
Perkins: Accused as dictator, fiery John L. Lewis just ups and dictates
UMW Convention is run in usual one-man manner and hold is tightened
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer
…
U.S. State Department (September 19, 1944)
Note by the Secretaries of CCS
Washington, 19 September 1944
Top secret
CCS 678/1
Planning date for the end of the war against Japan
The President and Prime Minister approved the recommendation of the Combined Chiefs of Staff that the date for the end of the war against Japan, for planning production and for allocation of manpower, should be set at 18 months after the defeat of Germany; this date to be adjusted periodically to conform to the course of the war.
A. J. McFARLAND
A. T. CORNWALL-JONES
Combined Secretariat
The President to the Secretary of State
Hyde Park, September 19, 1944
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
I have had lengthy talks with the Prime Minister in regard to recognition of the Provisional Government in France. He and I are both very much opposed to it at this time. The Provisional Government has no direct authority from the people. It is best to let things go along as they are for the moment.
F D R
Draft of a statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill
This was not sent. It was one of many drafts. F D R
[Undated]
The Italian people, freed of their Fascist and Nazi overlordship, have in these last twelve months demonstrated their will to be free, to fight on the side of the democracies, and to take a place among the United Nations devoted to principles of peace and justice.
We believe we should give encouragement to those Italians who are standing for a political rebirth in Italy, and are completing the destruction of the evil Fascist system. We wish to afford the Italians a greater opportunity to aid in the defeat of our enemies.
Italy has made real progress these last twelve months. [and other essential supplies.] We believe the United States and Great Britain should give her [Italy] greater political recognition, and we propose to invite the Italian government to send its own direct representatives to Washington and London, and on our part we will give our representatives at Rome the status of ambassadors.
First and immediate considerations in Italy are the relief of hunger and sickness and fear. To this end we have instructed our representatives at the pending conference of UNRRA to declare for the sending of food and clothing and medical aids to Italy.
Along with this is the need for first steps to be taken [At the same time, first steps should be taken] toward the reconstruction of an Italian economy – an economy wrecked [laid low] under the years of the misrule of Mussolini, and ravished by the German policy of vengeful destruction.
These steps should be taken primarily as military aims to put the full resources of Italy and the Italian people into the struggle to defeat Germany and Japan. We should assist the Italians in the restoration of their power systems, their railways, motor transport, roads and other communications, and send our engineers, technicians and industrial experts into Italy to speed the work of rehabilitation.
The Italian prisoners of war should be given opportunity to volunteer their full efforts in the fight against the enemy, to carry the flag of Italy into battle against Germany and Japan.
We should all look toward that day [We all wish to speed the day] when the last vestiges of Fascism in Italy will have been wiped out, when the last German will have left Italian soil, and when there will be no need of any Allied troops to remain – the day when free elections can be held throughout Italy. [and when Italy can begin to take her own high place in the great family of democratic nations.]
Draft of a statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill
Hyde Park, September 19, 1944
The President and the Prime Minister held further discussions Monday and Tuesday at Hyde Park, on subjects dealing with post-war policies in Europe. The result of these discussions cannot be disclosed at this time for strategic military reasons, and pending their consideration by our other Allies.
The present problems in Italy also came under discussion, and on this subject the President and the Prime Minister issued the following statement:
The Italian people, freed of their Fascist and Nazi overlordship, have in these last twelve months demonstrated their will to be free, to fight on the side of the democracies, and to take a place among the United Nations devoted to principles of peace and justice.
We believe we should give encouragement to those Italians who are standing for a political rebirth in Italy, and are completing the destruction of the evil Fascist system. We wish to afford the Italians a greater opportunity to aid in the defeat of our common enemies.
The American and British people are of course horrified by the recent mob action in Rome [the lynching on September 18, 1944, of Dona to Carretta, former vice director of the Regina Coeli Prison], but feel that a greater responsibility placed on the Italian people and on their own government will most readily prevent a recurrence of such acts.
An increasing measure of control will be gradually handed over to the Italian Administration, subject of course to that Administration proving that it can maintain law and order and the regular administration of justice. To mark this change the Allied Control Commission will be renamed “The Allied Commission.”
The British High Commissioner in Italy will assume the additional title of Ambassador. The United States representative in Borne already holds that rank. The Italian Government will be invited to appoint direct representatives to Washington and London.
Our governments are also willing to consider a revision of the present long terms of the Italian armistice, to bring them more in line with the present realistic situation.
First and immediate considerations in Italy are the relief of hunger and sickness and fear. To this end we have instructed our representatives at the pending conference of UNRRA to declare for the sending of food and clothing, medical aids and other essential supplies to Italy.
At the same time, first steps should be taken toward the reconstruction of an Italian economy – an economy laid low under the years of the misrule of Mussolini, and ravished by the German policy of vengeful destruction.
These steps should be taken primarily as military aims to put the full resources of Italy and the Italian people into the struggle to defeat Germany and Japan. For military reasons we should assist the Italians in the restoration of such power systems, their railways, motor transport, roads and other communications as enter into the war situation, and for a short time send engineers, technicians and industrial experts into Italy to help them in their own rehabilitation.
The application to Italy of the Trading with the Enemy Acts should be modified so as to enable business contacts between Italy and the outside world to be resumed on the basis of exchange of goods.
We all wish to speed the day when the last vestiges of Fascism in Italy will have been wiped out, when the last German will have left Italian soil, and when there will be no need of any Allied troops to remain – the day when free elections can be held throughout Italy, and when Italy can earn her proper place in the great family of free nations.
Lot 60–D 224, Box 55: DO/PR/26
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State to the Secretary of State
Washington, September 19, 1944
Subject: PROGRESS REPORT ON DUMBARTON OAKS CONVERSATIONS – TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY
Meeting of the Joint Steering Committee
A meeting of the Joint Steering Committee was held today at Ambassador Gromyko’s request to reach agreement on a number of unsettled items.
a) Voting in the Council
With reference to the section on voting in the Council the Soviet group preferred a general statement rather than an enumeration of the questions requiring unanimous vote. The Soviet group also were agreeable to providing that a permanent member could abstain from voting, but be bound by the decision. The British said emphatically that the voting question was closed at this time and maintained that the matter of voting should be settled as a whole rather than in parts. I suggested the voting question might best be covered by a statement that the matter has been left open.
b) Regional arrangements
The Soviet group withdrew their reservation on regional arrangements, but requested that the clause excepting from the authority of the Security Council action in relation to enemy states be transferred to the chapter on transitional arrangements.
c) Respect for human rights
The British were reluctant to accept our proposal for a provision obligating states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Soviet group would accept this principle provided it were coupled with a provision that Fascist or fascist-type states could not be members of the organization.
d) Disarmament and regulation of armaments
The British agreed that the general Assembly might consider disarmament, but maintained their view that the military staff committee should not deal with disarmament.
The Soviet group withdrew objection to empowering the Security Council, assisted by the military staff committee, to formulate plans for regulating armaments.
e) Election of non-permanent Council members
The British agreed to eliminate the qualification that the contribution of members to peace and security be a consideration in filling nonpermanent seats.
f) Settlement of disputes
The Soviet group suggested that the obligation of parties to refer an unresolved dispute to the Security Council state that the Council should in each case decide whether the dispute is a threat to peace and whether the Council should deal with it.
g) Bases and transit facilities
The Soviet group agreed to drop the provision, originally proposed by them, that smaller states should provide transit facilities and sites for bases.
h) International air force corps
The American formula regarding national air force contingents was accepted and the British alternative was dropped.
i) Transitional arrangements
Agreement was reached that until the special agreement or agreements to provide armed forces come into force, the states parties to the Moscow Declaration should consult with one another and, as occasion arises, with other members of the Organization with a view to joint action to maintain peace and security.
500.CC/9–1944: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union to the Secretary of State
Moscow, September 19, 1944 — 1 p.m.
[Received September 19 — 9:25 a.m.]
3572
Before receiving this morning your personal message No. 2234, September 18, 10 a.m. [p.m.], I had drafted the first part of a message on this subject. I am now sending you this part of the message as background and will follow shortly with more specific answers to the questions which you have raised. Original message follows:
I submit the following for such value as it may have in your consideration of Marshal Stalin’s reply to the President’s message on the question of voting of the permanent members in the Council of the World Security Organization.
The British Ambassador has informed me of his discussion with Molotov on this subject, report of which I assume you have received. Molotov’s reaction followed precisely the same line as Stalin’s message to the President.
From the evidence we have, it would appear that the underlying reason for the position of the Soviets on voting is their unwillingness to allow the Council to deal with any dispute in which the Soviet Government is a party affecting their relations with at least their neighboring countries. Some of the evidence we have in mind is the following:
You will recall that at the Moscow Conference when the question of European problems was discussed Molotov stated that the Soviet Government was prepared to consult with the British and yourselves [ourselves?] on matters relating to all questions except those between the Soviet Government and its immediate western neighbors. On these matters the Soviet Government was prepared to keep us informed but would take no further commitments.
Light on the Soviet Government’s attitude toward small nations was reflected in an informal conversation Mr. Eden and I had at the British Embassy with Litvinov and Maiski in which Litvinov expounded the concept that it was unreasonable to consider that the interests of 30 million Poles should be given equal weight with those of 180 million Russians. Where the interests of the Russians conflicted with those of the Poles, the Poles would have to give way.
Recently Litvinov expounded the same philosophy to the Norwegian Ambassador when he said “The glory of the small nations is past.”
Throughout the year we have seen evidence of the Soviet Government’s intention to prescribe unilaterally the manner in which the Polish political problem should be settled.
Throughout the period of occupation of Iran, the Soviet Government has shown unwillingness to collaborate to any substantial degree with the British and ourselves and in fact has been unwilling to allow our observers to study conditions in northern Iran.
The Soviet Government’s agreement with the Italian Government for the exchange of representatives was reached without consultation.
As soon as the Soviets decided that Turkey’s entry into the war was no longer vital, they took the first pretext to break away unilaterally from their agreement at Moscow and Tehran to work with the British and ourselves for Turkey’s entry into the war.
The Soviet Government declared war on Bulgaria without consultation with the British and ourselves, giving us thirty minutes notice. It would appear probable that the reasons for failure to consult were political even if the move itself may have been based on military considerations as well.
Molotov’s attitude in the discussions preceding the Rumanian armistice has been cold to say the least toward real collaboration of British and American political representatives in Rumania. It is of course too early to judge the manner in which the Soviets will use their powers under the armistice.
We have seen an unbending and impatient attitude toward Chiang Kai Shek particularly regarding the difficulties in Sinkiang. Our air force as well as China are being penalized by an unwillingness to allow the use of the overland route through the Soviet Union in order to bring political pressure on the Generalissimo.
I do not attempt to appraise whether the Soviets are right or wrong in their objectives in any one of the above cases. I refer to them only as indicative of their attitude and consistent method of unilateral action in accomplishing their objectives. I believe we have thus sufficient evidence to foresee that if the world organization is established requiring agreement of all permanent members for the consideration of any dispute regardless of whether or not one of them is involved the Soviet Government will ruthlessly block consideration by the Council of any question in which it considers its interests affected and will insist that the matter be settled by the Soviet Union within the other country or countries involved particularly any disputes with their neighbors.
I am convinced that Stalin and his principal advisers place the highest importance on the association of the Soviet Union in a major way with the three great powers in world affairs but have expected that their political and military strength would enable them to dictate the conditions. There is no doubt the Russian people crave peace and have been led to believe that the intimate relationship developed during the war with the British and ourselves will continue after the war and will be a guarantee of a lasting peace. I do not believe Stalin can forego the material as well as the psychological value of this association without causing grave concern among the Russian people. On the other hand, it seems evident that there are powerful groups within his immediate circle who are unwilling to give up right of independent action where Russian’s interests are affected and to see Russia depend solely on an untried world organization with associates none of whom do they fully trust. As Stalin traditionally likes to have two strings to his bow, it has not appeared to him inconsistent to pursue these two methods at the same time to obtain security for the Soviet Union and to advance its national interests as he sees them.
HARRIMAN
Address by New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey
September 19, 1944, 10:30 p.m. EWT
Delivered in Portland, Oregon
It is with a warm and happy feeling that I come again to the great state of Oregon. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to thank you in person for the friendship your people have shown to me in the past and it is gratifying indeed to have been welcomed so cordially by your friendly and able Governor, Earl Snell.
Four years ago, when I spoke here in Portland, I pointed out the danger which I believe has now become apparent to all – the danger of one-man government in a free country.
At that time Mr. Roosevelt represented himself as indispensable to the peace of America. Now, four years later, he seeks a fourth term, for a total of 16 years as President, upon the claim that he is indispensable to the world. In the carefully supervised words of his own running mate, Mr. Truman, “The very future of the peace and prosperity of the world depends upon his reelection in November.”
Peace and prosperity are, of course, the objectives of both parties. My opponent claims to be indispensable to peace and prosperity. In other words, he claims that the United States and the world cannot get along without him. He has chosen this as the issue of the campaign. I accept the issue, and I challenge it.
Now let’s find out what are the essential elements of that peace and prosperity we all seek.
We know that victory in Europe is close at hand. Soon we shall be able to throw our full strength into the Pacific for the total, crushing defeat of the Japanese. If we in America are to do our share in helping to make secure the peace that will follow victory over both Germany and Japan, we must be a strong and united people.
The first requirements for peace and prosperity are unity in our government and strength and unity among our people. Is a fourth term indispensable to that?
The plain fact is that for 12 straight years, the New Deal has given this country a continuous demonstration of quarreling, dissension and disunity. It has set group against group, race against race, and class against class. Under this administration, business and labor have been set against each other and labor’s own house became divided.
We have listened without surcease to the shrill, abusive tirades of Mr. Ickes. We have heard Vice President Wallace recklessly denouncing unspecified Americans as Fascists. We have been treated daily to blow-by-blow accounts of innumerable feuds within the New Deal itself. You will recall the long quarrel between the Vice President and the Secretary of Commerce in which they publicly called each other “obstructionist” and “liar.”
Then, there was the long series of quarrels within the War Production Board – quarrels we now know to have been promoted by the New Dealers who have at length succeeded in taking it over. This running feud recently culminated in the resignation of several top officials of the WPB, while the head of the Board was shipped off to China by Mr. Roosevelt himself.
I do not believe in that quarreling, bickering kind of government – an administration which cannot unite its own house, even in war, can never unite the nation for the tremendous peace tasks ahead of us.
We must have the strength of unity within our government and among our people if we are to contribute to the building of a lasting peace. As a first step to that end, we must have a government in which the lines of responsibility are clearly laid down.
We must have the kind of an administration that inspires teamwork and devotion to the service of the country. I propose that we install that kind of administration next January 20.
The one dispensable thing to achieving this teamwork and devotion, this unity in government we have so long lacked, is a change from the indispensable man. With that new unity in our government, we will achieve the unity among our people so essential to the peace and prosperity of America and of the world.
Now there is a second thing that is essential to achieving our agreed objective of peace and prosperity. That essential thing is joint, harmonious action between the President and the Congress. Is a fourth term indispensable to that?
Every step we take in these critical years ahead must have the joint support of the Congress and the President. Can any such joint action and harmonious relationship be achieved under this administration?
It is a matter of common knowledge that the New Deal has continuously sought for 12 years to bring the Congress of the United States into popular disrepute. As a result, no bill which this administration can propose to Congress is today received with anything less than suspicion. The nation is now reaping the bitter fruit of executive arrogance toward the elected representatives of the people.
We need only recall the recent episode when Mr. Roosevelt vetoed the tax bill. On Washington’s Birthday, he sent to the Congress a veto message so savage and unjust that even the long-suffering and subservient Senator Barkley, Democratic majority leader, rebelled.
You remember the moving and impassioned speech that Senator Barkley made. You remember how, provoked beyond endurance, he rose in the Senate to denounce the words of the veto message of Mr. Roosevelt as “more clever than honest” and as “a calculated and deliberate assault on the legislative integrity of every member of Congress.”
You remember how the other Senators, regardless of party, rose as one man to cheer this declaration of independence by Senator Barkley. Ard the members of the House, regardless of party, crowded into the Senate chamber to shake Mr. Barkley’s hand.
But this dramatic episode was only an example of a long-continued trend. There exists today a hopeless division amounting to open warfare between the Congress and the President. We cannot enter this critical period ahead with a Chief Executive at war with Congress.
It is a part of the job of a President to work in harmony with Congress, just as it is part of the job of a governor to work in harmony with the Legislature.
I can speak with feeling on that point. I have worked closely with the Legislature of my own state. We have had many difficult problems to work out. But we have never found it impossible to reach agreement when we sat down together to discuss these problems. If we cannot agree at the first meeting, we meet again, and often sit together far into the night talking the whole thing over and eventually reaching a meeting of minds.
If we have learned any lesson from watching the rise of Fascism elsewhere in the world, surely, we should have learned the need for strengthening, not undermining representative government.
My opponent has demonstrated that he cannot work with the present Democratic Congress. How in the name of the future of our country can he be expected to get along with the Republican Congress which will certainly be elected this fall?
We need in this country an administration that wants to work with the elected representatives of the people and that knows how to do it. We can get such an administration only by getting a new Chief Executive.
There is a third thing that is essential to achieving our agreed objective of world peace and prosperity. This absolute essential is a strong and vigorous America with jobs for all. Is a fourth term indispensable to that? Once again let’s look at the record.
When this administration took office in 1933, the depression was already more than three years old. By 1934, that depression had lasted longer than any other in the previous 100 years of American history. Yet, there were then 12 million unemployed in the United States. By 1940, after the New Deal had been in office a full seven years, it had enjoyed unprecedented power, had spent $58 billion, and there were still 10 million unemployed. My opponent had succeeded only in the incredible accomplishment of making a depression last nearly 11 years, twice as long as any depression in the previous century. Under the New Deal, we had to have a war to get jobs.
What is the use of going back to the methods of the New Deal which failed so completely for seven years? We need a whole new approach to the relationship between the government of the United States and its people.
I will introduce this new approach on the radio from San Francisco on Thursday night of this week. I shall present the philosophy by which I believe we can achieve our two great goals for America, freedom and security for all.
Meanwhile, it is entirely clear that we need a new approach to the problem of the operation of our government. We need to revise and radially reduce the unnecessary burdens and handicaps placed by government upon the job-making machinery of our economic system, We need to revise our present tax policies which now deter every kind of business enterprise which makes jobs. We need a drastic change in government policies which ow incite labor disputes and place handicaps upon responsible labor leaders in their work. Some of these changes I outlined at Seattle last night.
We need, above all, a government which believes in the future of the American people.
These, then, are three elements essential to achieving our agreed objective of peace and prosperity in America in the world. If we are to have unity, we obviously need a new administration to bring it about. If we are to have harmony between the President and the Congress, we need a new Chief Executive to work with the Congress. If we are to have a strong and vigorous America with jobs for all, then we need a new administration to bring it about.
Let’s have no more of this pretense about indispensable men. There are no indispensable men. If our Republic after 150 years of self-government is dependent upon the endless continuance of one man in office, then the hopes which animated the men who fought for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have indeed cume to nothing.
The peace and prosperity of America and of the world can never depend on one man.
The American people know that peace will be the work of many, many people all over the world for many years. We must build a structure of peace which our people and all people will support, not merely this year, or the next four years, but for 25, 50, and many more years to come.
It is for these reasons that I have taken unprecedented steps to put the present conferences at Dumbarton Oaks on a nonpartisan basis. It is my hope – my earnest hope – that in this we have laid the sound groundwork for a future American foreign policy which will always be nonpartisan, regardless of the party in or out of power.
Now what will come after these conferences? Tentative agreements will be reached. Then each of the members of the conferences will go back to his own government for discussion of points of agreement and the solution of points of disagreement.
Then, we hope that the other nations of the world will be invited to conferences at the earliest possible moment. For there will be no peace unless it is a just peace in which the small and the weak participate as well as the great and the mighty.
The diplomats of these nations also will work long and hard. Then they, too, will report to their governments. Through that process will come the sound, common understanding on which we move toward a strong, a just and a lasting peace.
That is the way to build a lasting peace. In that method there is no indispensable man. The peace we seek must not hang by the slender thread of personal acquaintance of any two or three men. The pages of history are littered with treaties proclaiming permanent peace made privately by rulers of nations and quickly and publicly broken. This cause is too important to be trusted to discredited methods or to be dependent upon the lifespan and continued friendship of two or three individuals.
I want to see a people’s peace come at the end of this war. I want to see a peace which has been worked out in the full light of day before all the world. We all want to see a peace which has been labored over by the trained experts of all the nations who will be involved in it.
We want, most of all, a peace which all the freedom-loving peoples of the world have had a part in creating – a peace they have labored for, and believe in – a peace they will be willing to sacrifice and work for in all the years to come.
Völkischer Beobachter (September 20, 1944)
Deutscher Widerstand durchkreuzt Feindrechnung –
‚Mit unerhörter Tapferkeit‘
Anglo-amerikanische Militärkritiker über die deutschen Erfolgschancen
vb. Berlin, 19. September –
Wenn der General Eisenhower in den letzten Tagen die Front seiner Armeen auf der Karte betrachtete, so sah er zwei von seinen vier amerikanischen Armeen unmittelbar an und bereits über der Reichsgrenze. Weiter im Süden erblickte er noch immer die amerikanischen Divisionen vor den deutschen Sperrriegeln in Französisch-Lothringen, und ganz im Süden schob sich die vom Mittelmeer heranbefohlene Armee langsam an Belfort heran. Am weitesten zurück aber sah er die Engländer.
Die beiden Armeen des Feldmarschalls Montgomery hatten ziemlich schnell Belgien durcheilt, aber in der Gegend des Albertkanals waren sie hängen geblieben. Sie hatten sich redliche Mühe gegeben, die deutschen Linien zu durchbrechen und in die Niederlande einzudringen, sie hatten mehr als einen Gewaltstoß zu diesem Zweck unternommen, aber diese Versuche waren ihnen nicht gelungen. So war nördlich von Hasselt ein scharfer Knick in der Gesamtfront eingetreten. Während sie, von Belfort aus gerechnet, in leidlich gerader Linie von Süden nach Norden ging, sprang sie von da aus in scharfem Knick nach Westen ab. Das bedeutete also, daß der ganze linke Flügel des gegnerischen Westheeres, etwa ein Drittel der Gesamtstärke, weit zurückhing.
Es war deutlich, daß hierin ein Zustand lag, der, je länger er dauerte, um so unerwünschter für das gegnerische Oberkommando wurde. Das mußte umso mehr der Fall sein, als der Heeresgruppe Montgomery von dem General Eisenhower offenbar eine besondere Aufgabe bei dem Generalansturm auf Deutschland zugedacht war. Ohne Zweifel hatte sie, wie sie Belgien durcheilt hatte, auch die Niederlande durcheilen sollen, um hier an der deutschen Grenze den Stoß in die durch keinerlei Gebirge geschützte norddeutsche Tiefebene in Richtung auf das Ruhrgebiet zu tragen. Daß dieser Stoß ausblieb, während die Nordamerikaner an den Hängen der Eifel und der Ardennen in schwerem Kampf standen, mußte die Gesamtkonzeption Eisenhowers auf das empfindlichste stören. Ebenso mußte aber auch das britische Selbstgefühl diesen Zustand auf die Dauer als schwer erträglich empfinden. Es waren Nordamerikaner, die den Durchbruch bei Avranches vollbracht hatten, es waren Nordamerikaner, die als erste ins Reichsgebiet eingedrungen waren, es waren Nordamerikaner, die jetzt den größten Teil der Gesamtfront übernommen hatten – Mancher mochte sich im Stillen fragen, ob der britische Beitrag nicht etwas verdunkelt werde durch die Ereignisse, die sich an die Namen amerikanischer Generale knüpften. Montgomery war noch vor kurzem Oberkommandierender der Bodentruppen in Frankreich gewesen, jetzt war er auf eine von den drei Heeresgruppen beschränkt, in die Eisenhowers sechs Armeen aufgeteilt sind, und gerade seine Gruppe lag am weitesten zurück. Er hat in den letzten vierzehn Tagen Anstrengungen unternommen, diesen Zustand zu ändern, er hat immer wieder Polen, Kanadier, Engländer gegen die deutschen Linien gesandt, aber der Erfolg war ihm versagt geblieben.
Wir möchten nicht behaupten, daß die Erwägungen des britischen Selbstgefühls ausschlaggebend bei dem Entschluss gewesen seien, den bisherigen unbefriedigenden Zustand durch andere Maßnahmen als das frontale Anrennen zu verbessern. Doch mögen sie immerhin in den Kreisen der englischen Kommandostellen die Neigung bestärkt haben, den Entschluss zu gründlicher Wandlung zu fördern. Ausschlaggebend aber sind sicherlich bei Eisenhower rein militärische Beweggründe gewesen. Montgomery mußte mit seiner Front endlich geradeziehen, sie mußte ein Teil der Gesamtfront werden, die nun stracks von Süden nach Norden laufen sollte. Es durfte keinen so weit zurückhängenden Flügel mehr geben. Da dies durch alle Offensivstöße gegen die deutschen Linien auf der Erde nicht zu erreichen war, setzte Eisenhower am Sonntag endlich einen Teil der bisher noch in England stehenden gemeinsamen amerikanisch-britischen Luftlandearmee ein.
Wenn man die Orte, in deren Nähe feindliche Truppen aus der Luft gelandet sind, nämlich Arnheim, Nimwegen und Eindhoven, durch eine Linie miteinander verbindet, bekommt man ungefähr den Frontverlauf heraus, wie ihn sich der General Eisenhower als Ergebnis der Ereignisse vom Sonntag denkt. Diese Linie würde die bisher von den vier amerikanischen Armeen gehaltene Front ziemlich gerade nach Norden verlängern und der Reichsgrenze dicht parallel laufen. In dem Augenblick, in dem die Fallschirmjäger über den mittleren Provinzen der Niederlande niedergingen, hat dann auch die britische zweite Armee aus der Gegend nördlich von Hasselt zum Stoß nach Norden eingesetzt, um die Verbindung mit den Luftlandetruppen aufzunehmen. Sie hat am Montag Eindhoven erreicht, während die Luftlandetruppen dort noch nördlich der Stadt standen. Aber die Aktion in diese Gebiete beschränkte sich keineswegs auf Maßnahmen des Gegners allein. Deutsche Truppen haben sofort zu Gegenmaßnahmen angesetzt und es ist ihnen bereits gelungen, mehrere Verbände der Luftlandetruppen einzuschließen, bei anderen den besetzten Raum einzuengen.
Die Kämpfe in den Niederlanden gehen mit aller Wucht weiter. Währenddessen wird auch weiter im Süden, namentlich auf deutschem Boden, hart an der Reichsgrenze, mit äußerster Erbitterung gelochten. Was hier geschieht, ist eine bittere Enttäuschung für die Amerikaner. Sie sind mit hochgespannten Erwartungen in den Kampf um das deutsche Westverteidigungssystem gegangen. Ihre eigenen Befehlshaber haben durchblicken lassen, daß sie dieses System nicht sehr noch einschätzten. Nun liegen sie bereits im Vorfeld fest. (Es muß festgehalten werden, daß Aachen als eine vorgeschobene Stadt westlich von dem deutschen Hauptverteidigungssystem liegt.) Die Amerikaner können sich nicht nur nicht mehr vorwärtsbewegen, sondern sie haben sogar mehrere besetzte Hügelkuppen den Deutschen wieder überlassen müssen, und vorgeprellte Panzerspitzen sind abgeschnitten und vernichtet worden. Einige Tage lang haben zwar phantasievolle Berichterstatter von dem „Durchbruch“ gesprochen, aber die amtlichen Wehrmachtberichte aus dem Hauptquartier des Generals Eisenhower waren weise genug, das Wort nicht einmal zu erwähnen. Nicht anders ist es noch weiter im Süden in der Gegend von Metz und Nancy und westlich von Belfort, wo die beiden südlichen amerikanischen Armeen überhaupt noch sehr weit von den deutschen Westverteidigungslinien stehen. Selbst da, wo die Amerikaner noch voran konnten, bewegt sich der Geländegewinn in Größenordnungen von mehreren hundert Metern, nicht von Kilometern.
An der ganzen Front von Aachen bis Belfort sehen die amerikanischen Befehlshaber mit Besorgnis, daß der Feldzug manche Formen des Stellungskrieges anzunehmen beginnt. Man darf annehmen, daß auch diese unerwartete und peinliche Stagnation vor den amerikanischen Armeen den General Eisenhower bewogen hat, dem Westfeldzug durch die Luftlandungen im Norden einen neuen Auftrieb und eine neue Auflockerung zu geben.
Hinter den Kulissen einer ‚Freundschaft‘ –
Churchill kontra US-Imperialismus
Stockholm, 19. September –
Das Bemühen Churchills, England am pazifischen Krieg mehr zu beteiligen, wird in Washington mit geteilten Gefühlen aufgenommen, wie aus einer Meldung von Nya Dagligt Allehanda zu schließen ist. Danach hatte London Mühe, die USA zu überreden, daß England am Krieg gegen Japan beteiligt sein müsse, aber jetzt verlaute, daß Großbritanniens Rolle am Krieg im Fernen Osten bedeutend sein werde.
Afton Tidningen berichtet, die Briten hätten wenigstens für die Flotte einen größeren Anteil im Stillen Ozean gefordert. Das schwedische Blatt zitiert den US-Journalisten Ernst Lindley, der glaube, es sei besser, wenn die Japaner hauptsächlich von den USA vernichtet würden. Lindley weise darauf hin, daß auch Frankreich, im Hinblick auf Indochina, am Kriege gegen Japan teilnehmen wolle, ebenso Australien, Neuseeland, Kanada und nicht zuletzt die Holländer.
Dieses Kulissenspiel um das stärkere Verhältnis England und der USA ist ein Beispiel für die englisch-amerikanische Rivalität. Indem Churchill dem englischen Volk neue Blutopfer im Femen Osten zumutet, hofft er durch stärkere Beteiligung am Kampf gegen Japan die Verluste an britischen Stützpunkten und an britischem Prestige wettmachen zu können. Daran hat aber der US-Imperialismus kein Interesse. Den USA ist es nur darum zu tun, das Empire von den amerikanischen Interessensphären fernzuhalten. Es bedient sich daher im Kriege mit Japan Lieber der zentrifugalen Kräfte des Empire; Kanada, Neuseeland usw., um auf diese Weise die Position Englands weiter zu schwächen.
Führer HQ (September 20, 1944)
Kommuniqué des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht
In Mittelholland wurde der aus der Luft gelandete Feind im Raum Arnheim durch konzentrische Angriffe weiter eingeengt. Gut unterstützt durch eigene Jagdverbände fügten unsere Truppen dem Gegner schwere Verluste an Menschen und Material zu. Bisher wurden über 1700 Gefangene eingebracht. Aus dem Raum Eindhoven stieß der Feind mit Panzern nach Nordosten vor. Eigene Truppen traten auch hier zum Gegenangriff an.
Nordwestlich Aachen konnte der Gegner unter starkem Panzereinsatz seinen Einbruch erweitern. Südwestlich der Stadt wurden alle feindlichen Angriffe zum Teil unter hohen Verlusten für den Gegner abgewiesen. Der eigene Gegenangriff gewinnt langsam Boden.
Im Raum Nancy–Lunéville halten die schweren und unübersichtlichen Kämpfe an. Nancy ging verloren. In Lunéville wird erbittert gekämpft. An den übrigen Frontabschnitten nur örtliche Kampfhandlungen.
Die fortgesetzten Angriffe des Feindes auf die Festung Calais, St. Nazaire und Boulogne wurden abgewiesen. Nach der Beendigung des Kampfes im völlig zerstörten Stadt- und Hafenbereich der Festung Brest hielten gestern noch einzelne Kampfgruppen in erbittertem Kampf die letzten Stützpunkte auf der Halbinsel Le Crozon.
Das „V1“-Störfeuer auf London dauert an.
In Italien erreichten im Raum an der Adria die schweren Abwehrschlachten ihren Höhepunkt. Es gelang hier auch gestern den heldenhaft kämpfenden eigenen Truppen, zum Teil in neuen Stellungen, den feindlichen Durchbruch zu verhindern. Nördlich und nordöstlich Florenz wurden feindliche Angriffe abgewiesen, örtliche Einbrüche im Gegenstoß bereinigt.
In Südsiebenbürgen und im Szekler Zipfel scheiterten Angriffe der Bolschewisten. Ebenso wiesen unsere Truppen im Abschnitt Sanok–Krosno heftige Angriffe der Sowjets zurück, riegelten einzelne Einbrüche ab und vernichteten 27 Panzer.
Bei Warschau versuchte der Feind im Schutz künstlichen Nebels die Weichsel an mehreren Stellen zu überschreiten. Die Übersetzversuche wurden vereitelt, einzelne auf das Westufer vorgedrungene Kampfgruppen abgeschnitten. Auch nordöstlich der Stadt blieben wiederholte Angriffe der Bolschewisten in unserem Feuer liegen.
Angriffe südwestlich Mitau brachten nach Abwehr feindlicher Gegenangriffe Stellungsverbesserungen.
In Lettland und Estland wurden die von zahlreichen Panzern und Schlachtfliegern unterstützten Angriffe der Bolschewisten abgewiesen oder aufgefangen und zahlreiche Panzer vernichtet.
In dreitägigen Waldkämpfen zerschlugen unsere Grenadiere im Kandalakscha-Abschnitt in schwungvollen Gegenangriffen zwei feindliche Brückenköpfe.
In den gestrigen Mittagsstunden führten nordamerikanische Bomber Angriffe gegen mehrere Orte in Nord- und Nordwestdeutschland. Im Stadtgebiet von Koblenz entstanden Gebäudeschäden und Personenverluste.
In der vergangenen Nacht richteten sich feindliche Terrorangriffe gegen München-Gladbach und Budapest. Luftverteidigungskräfte schossen 37 feindliche Flugzeuge ab.
Im Kanal und im Indischen Ozean versenkten Unterseeboote vier Schiffe mit 26.000 BRT und zwei Fregatten. Drei weitere Schiffe wurden durch Torpedotreffer schwer beschädigt.
In den Ostkarpaten zeichneten sich das schwäbisch-bayerische 1. Bataillon des Gebirgsjägerregiments 13 unter Führung von Hauptmann Ploder und das schwäbisch-bayerische Feldersatzbataillon 94 unter Führung von Hauptmann Kresse durch hervorragende Tapferkeit aus.
In den schweren Abwehrkämpfen in Lettland haben sich die schwäbische 205. Infanteriedivision unter Führung von Generalleutnant von Mellenthin, die bayerisch-pfälzische 132. Infanteriedivision unter Führung von Generalleutnant Wagner, und die sächsische 24. Infanteriedivision unter Führung von Oberst Schultz durch Angriffsschwung und Standfestigkeit hervorragend bewährt.
Leutnant Sauer in einer Sturmgeschützbrigade schoss mit seinem Sturmgeschütz in zwei Tagen 14 Panzer ab.
Supreme HQ Allied Expeditionary Force (September 20, 1944)
Communiqué No. 165
The advance of the Allied forces in HOLLAND has continued rapidly. Ground troops made contact yesterday with more airborne formations. EINDHOVEN is in our hands and our armored units have advanced nearly 40 miles to the area of NIJMEGEN. Strong enemy counterattacks were beaten off near BEST and in our bridgehead north of GHEEL.
Fighters and fighter-bombers again supported and covered airborne operations and attacked road and rail transport over a wide area of HOLLAND. According to reports so far received, 26 enemy aircraft were shot down for the loss of nine of our fighters.
To the west, the enemy is still resisting stubbornly south of the SCHELDT, but our troops made progress in the area of the AXEL-HULST CANAL. On the coast we have captured the CITADEL and MONT LAMBERT in BOULOGNE.
In southern HOLLAND, our troops have liberated SITTARD and AMSTENRADE, northeast of MAASTRICHT, meeting moderate opposition.
East of AACHEN, fighting is in progress in the factory area of STOLBERG, and enemy pressure is being met near BÜSBACH. Operating in advance of our ground forces, medium and light bombers hit railway yards at ESCHWEILER, DÜREN and MERZENICH in the AACHEN–COLOGNE Line.
Mopping-up of enemy pillboxes and pockets of resistance continues east of ROETGEN and in the HÖFEN and ALZEN areas, south of MONSCHAU. Enemy counterattacks in this area were unsuccessful.
Heavy and determined resistance has been encountered east of the GERMAN-LUXEMBOURG border. East of BLEIALF, an enemy pocket was wiped out.
In the MOSELLE Valley, we have made gains south of METZ against stubborn resistance. Mopping-up is in progress six miles northeast of PONT-À-MOUSSON. Further south, our forces have liberated GERBÉVILLER, 14 miles northeast of CHARMES.
In BRITTANY, all organized resistance has ceased in BREST and RECOUVRANCE, and our troops have cleared the enemy from the CROZON Peninsula.