Ferguson: Military training for girls
By Mrs. Walter Ferguson
…
Simms: France to join U.S., Britain, Russia in Big Four
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
…
Background of news –
Campaign contrasts
By Charles Wyer
New York –
National political headquarters during presidential years naturally are pretty busy hives of industry, but no two are just alike and the character of each may be expected to change at various stages of the campaign. New York is the site of all three of the mater party headquarters and a visit to each produced three distinctly different impressions.
The largest of the three by a narrow margin is the Democratic headquarters at the Hotel Biltmore. Next is the Republican quarters at the Hotel Roosevelt, and the smallest is that of the CIO Political Action Committee on East 42nd Street. But the outward appearance of action is in reverse order.
The PAC opened national headquarters in a few rooms on the 15th floor of the East 42nd Street address last January, but gradually expanded until today it occupies more than half of that floor, as well as spare for the research department on the 18th floor and more space for the stencil and stenographic division, on the 14th.
None of the PAC rooms is very large, but there are many of them. Some are the private offices of Sidney Hillman, head of the organization, and of the other officers. Others are the quarters of special departments, such as speakers’ bureaus, radio writers, artists, mailers, etc., including, presumably, a cashier.
Bustle at PAC headquarters
The reception room and most of the others are heavily decorated with posters bearing President Roosevelt’s picture and urging the man on the street to contribute $1 toward his reelection. Tables are piled high with pamphlets and other campaign literature of many descriptions. Everything traditional in campaigns is on display except an American flag.
Young men, young women, old men and elderly women, pound typewriters, answer telephones and rush from one office to another. Men and women pour In and out of the offices from the street asking for instructions and, perhaps, making contributions. Yes, it is a busy place and doubtless will get busier as Election Day nears. A spokesman for the PAC said 75 paid employes are now on the staff.
Republican headquarters, too, is full of action. It occupies 77 rooms on the 10th floor of the Roosevelt and laps over into smaller space on the sixth and ninth floors. It is the 10th floor that the bulk of the public visits. Two pretty, young women sit at a desk opposite the elevators flanked by American flags, and pictures of Governor and Mrs. Dewey and of the Brickers.
People are popping off the elevators every moment or two and the receptionists have few idle moments. The 150-odd men and women on the staff work with marked zeal and considerable optimism, but perhaps more quietly than those at PAC headquarters, where the personnel, outwardly, indicates no particular interest, but gives more the appearance of “just doing a job.”
Calm and quiet prevail
In marked contrast is the atmosphere at the Biltmore. There the Democrats hold forth, for the most part on the fifth floor. All was quiet and it did not seem possible that this could be the headquarters of a man seeking reelection to the Presidency. Workers were little in evidence, posters were few. There was no hustle, only calm. Therefore, the visiting reporter was surprised to learn that here was the largest, most heavily manned quarters of all.
A spokesman said:
We have 60 rooms on this floor and 15 or 20 more divided between the first and second. We wish we could get more.
Also, the staff comprises at least 200 men and women, and none of them is concerned with one of the biggest jobs a political party has to meet – that of mailing out literature, posters and many other kinds of propaganda to the rest of the country. Lack of help forced the Democrats this year to farm out this job to a commercial organization.
Thus it appears that the Democrats are busy after all and not, as one wag suggested, letting the PAC do all the rough work.
Millett: Back to kitchen campaign is pretty sentiment
Most men have no idea what poor housewife has on her hands
By Ruth Millett
…
Nelson home, plans help for Chinese
WPB head to confer with Roosevelt soon
…
Labor attacks WLB, industry
Formula hearings to open tomorrow
…
Stokes: The old master
By Thomas L. Stokes
With Dewey party –
Everybody on this campaign train including the Republican candidate for President, is continually conscious of the Democratic candidate – “That Man in the White House,” as he has been called so bitterly now for some years.
So, it was only natural that there should be keen interest in this campaign cavalcade in what President Roosevelt would say in his first avowed political speech bidding for a fourth term, and how he would say it.
Well before the scheduled hour, the lounge car – with bar attached – was filled with newspaper correspondents. Several stood, a little knot about the radio. These included Henry Turnbull, radio director for the Republican National Committee. John Marshall, Governor Dewey’s private secretary, sat at one of the tables, notebook and pencil ready to take down the words of Mr. Roosevelt.
The gong sounded then there came a din of showing and tumult from the dining room in Washington. It went on and on, interminably. Those in the car, wise in the ways of pumped-up radio demonstrations, grinned knowingly at one another. They whispered that the Teamsters were trying to outdo that cascade of sound that had greeted Governor Dewey in Los Angeles’ Coliseum the night before. That had come, too, at the signal of a man at the microphone with his watch in hand. Henry Turnbull glanced at his watch, smiling.
‘A voice in the wilderness’
Dan Tobin’s voice did not come through so well, sounding like a foghorn in the midst of a storm-tossed sea. He finished. Then that other voice for which everyone had waited was there, strong, confident and masterful.
The line of the poet “A voice in the wilderness singing” came to mind, but Lord Byron was writing of love, and this was no love feast going on there over the radio. Not on your life. It was the familiar Roosevelt political voice, unheard for so long, now sweetly ironic, now brutally sardonic, now raw with sarcasm, now rising to an emotional climax.
We were in the middle of the wilderness, it was true. Away from the train, on each side, the desert swept off like a giant dirty plate littered with scraps of sage brush to the purplish rim of the mountains.
Ears were sharp for the voice from the radio. Inside was the sound of laughter as the voice spoke of the rope that one didn’t mention in the house of one who has been hanged. the story of Fala, the dog with the Scottish soul, the young man who could not remember the 1929 depression.
Hard-boiled newsmen appreciative
Correspondents with New Deal sympathies – and there are quite a few along – beamed as they chuckled and hooted. Hard-boiled men of the press, who look on all politics with a cold and calculating eve, laughed in appreciation of the Roosevelt technique. From the grins and comments, you learned, too, that some who write for newspapers in which there is never a kind word said for the New Deal have their secret affections outside of editorial policy.
As the President talked on, a very pained expression came over the face of Henry Turnbull. He was not having any fun.
There was a babble as the speech ended.
“The old Roosevelt” … “The greatest political speech he ever made” … “He canceled out this whole trip we’ve made” … “He took up every Dewey speech in this one” and so on.
Had the Republican candidate heard the speech?
It turned out that they were unable to get the radio to work back in the private car. It has been out of whack ever since the wreck.
Before the speech was ended, the train had come into Needles, California. There Governor Dewey made a speech from the back platform to a crowd in which there were some few Roosevelt hecklers, mostly kids.
As we left, somebody slapped red, white and blue stickers on the car windows, showing to the inside of the train the one word: “Roosevelt.”
Mrs. Browder revealed as spy on Americans at Moscow school
By Nelson Frank, Scripps-Howard staff writer
…
Gracie Allen Reporting
By Gracie Allen
Hollywood, California –
There’s been so much fighting in Hollywood lately that I understand the newspapers are thinking of withdrawing their ace war reporters from Europe and sending them here.
Governor Dewey, who was in town over the weekend, was invited to a Hollywood party, but declined. I guess he figured he could see the same thing at Madison Square Garden done by professionals.
Mr. Dewey was presented at the Los Angeles Coliseum Friday night in a colorful program under the direction of Cecil B. DeMille. I can admit now that I was a little worried until I saw Mr. Dewey walk out fully attired. Mr. DeMille had promised something spectacular – and you know him and his bathtubs.
Garrison: Films’ background music is a major studio task!
Hundreds of men work on scores – that you WON’T hear it – that something?
By Maxine Garrison
…
Trade journal says –
Nazi collapse to cause lull in steel buying
Demand seen hinging on speedy conversion
…
Wolfert: War-weary people break with Nazis
Half deny orders to resist Allies
By Ira Wolfert
…
Shapiro: Belgium, France require little help to recover
Farming in two countries already normal; industry awaits only government action
By L. S. B. Shapiro, North American Newspaper Alliance
…
Address by New York Governor Thomas Dewey
September 25, 1944, 10:00 p.m. EWT
Broadcast from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman and fellow Americans:
For two and a half weeks, I have been laying before our people the program I believe must be adopted if we are to win at home the things for which our American men are fighting abroad. In six major speeches, I have set forth a part of that program. There is much more to come.
In doing this, I have been deeply conscious that this campaign is being waged under the most difficult circumstances and at the most trying time in our history as a nation. Our national unity for the war and for the cause of lasting peace must be strengthened as a result of this campaign. I believe the conduct of the campaign on our side has greatly strengthened that unity.
I had assumed that every American joined me in hoping that would be the spirit of this campaign. Last July, Franklin Roosevelt, in accepting his party’s nomination for a fourth term, said: “I shall not campaign, in the usual sense… In these days of tragic sorrow, I do not consider it fitting…”
Last Saturday night, the men who wants to be President for 16 years made his first speech of this campaign. Gone was his high-sounding pledge. Forgotten were these days of tragic sorrow. It was a speech of mudslinging, ridicule and wisecracks. It plumbed the depths of demagogy by dragging into this campaign the names of Hitler and Goebbels: it descended to quoting from Mein Kampf and to reckless charges of “fraud” and “falsehood.”
Let me make one thing entirely clear. I shall not join my opponent in his descent to mudslinging. If he continues in his desire to do so, he will be all alone.
I shall not use the tactics of our enemies by quoting from Mein Kampf. I will never divide America. Those tactics I will also leave to my opponent.
I shall never make a speech to one group of American people inciting them to hatred and distrust of any other group. In other nations, the product of such discord has been Communism or Fascism. We must never reap that harvest in America.
The winning of this war and the achievement of a people’s peace are too sacred to be cast off with frivolous language.
I believe that Americans whose loved ones are dying on the battlefronts of the world – men and women who are praying daily for the return of their boys – want the issues which vitally affect our future discussed with the utmost earnestness. This I shall continue to do with full consciousness of the solemn obligation placed upon me by my nomination for President of the United States.
My opponent, however has chosen to wage his campaign on the record of the past and has indulged in charges od fraud and falsehood. I am compelled, therefore, to divert this evening, long enough to keep the record straight. He has made the charges. He has asked for it. Here it is.
My opponent describes as a “fantastic charge” the statement that his administration planes to keep men in the Army when the war is over because it fears there will be no jobs for them in civil life. Well, who first brought that up?
Here is the statement by a high official of the administration as reported in the publication of the United States Army, The Stars and Stripes. He said: “We can keep people in the Army about as cheaply as we could create an agency for them when they are out.”
Now who said that? It was the National Director of Selective Service appointed by Mr. Roosevelt and still in office.
But, says Mr. Roosevelt, the War Department thereafter issued a plan for “speedy discharges.” You can read that plan from now until doomsday and you cannot find one word about “speedy discharges.” It is, in fact, a statement of the priority in which men will be discharged after the war. It does not say whether they are to be retained in service a month or years after victory. That will be up to the next administration. The present administration, with its record of peacetime failure, is afraid to bring men home after victory. That’s why it’s time for a change.
Now why does my opponent first describe what is a matter of record as a “fantastic charge” and then try to laugh off the problem of jobs after the war? He jokes about depressions – about the seven straight years of unemployment of his administration. But he cannot laugh away the record.
In March 1940, Mr. Roosevelt had been in office seven years. Yet the depression was still with us. We still had 10 million Americans unemployed. These are not my figures – these are the figures of the American Federation of Labor.
Is that fraud or falsehood? If so, let Mr. Roosevelt tell it to the American Federation of Labor.
By waging relentless warfare against our job-making machinery, my opponent succeeded in keeping a depression going 11 years – twice as long as any depression in a century. And the somber, tragic thing is that today he still has no better or different program to offer. That is why the New Deal is afraid of peace and resorts to wisecracks and vilification – when our people want victory followed by lasting peace in the world – and jobs and opportunity at home. That’s why it’s time for a change.
Now I had not intended in this campaign to rake over my opponent’s sad record of failing to prepare the defenses of this country for war. It’s all in the past – a very tragic past. It has cost countless American lives; it has caused untold misery.
But Mr. Roosevelt has now brought the subject up. He seized violently upon the statement that we were not prepared for war when it came. He calls that a “falsification” which not “even Goebbels would” have attempted.
Now, were we prepared for war, or were we not? It is a simple question of fact.
In 1940, the year after the war began in Europe, the United States was in such a tragic condition that it could put into the field as a mobile force no more than 75,000 men. The Army was only “15 percent ready.” Now, Mr. Roosevelt, did those statements come from Goebbels? Was that fraud or falsification? Those are the words of Gen. George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.
I quote again: “December 7, 1941, I found the Army Air Forces equipped with plans but not with planes.” Did that come from Goebbels? That statement was made in an official report January 4 of this year by Gen. H. H. Arnold, commanding general of the Army Air Forces.
Does my opponent still desire to use the words “falsification” and “Goebbels?” Does he still claim we were prepared? If so, let’s go further.
Four months before Pearl Harbor, there was a debate in the U.S. Senate. The chairman of a Senate committee described on the floor of the Senate the shocking state of our defense program. Senator Vandenberg asked the chairman where the blame should be laid, and the chairman replied, “There is only one place where the responsibility can be put.” Then Senator Vandenberg said, “Where is that – the White House?” And the chairman of the committee replied, “Yes, sir.” Who was the chairman of that committee? It was Harry S. Truman, the New Deal candidate for Vice President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt handpicked running mate.
Again, in a magazine article in November 1942, this statement appeared: “The reasons for the waste and confusion, the committee found were everywhere the same: The lack of courageous, unified leadership and centralized direction at the top.” Again, on the floor of the Senate in May 1943, these words were uttered: “After Pearl Harbor, we found ourselves woefully unprepared for war.” Was that Dr. Goebbels on the floor of the Senate? Both those statements were made by Harry S. Truman.
Listen to these words: “When the treachery of Pearl Harbor came, we were not ready.” Mr. Roosevelt, were those words from Dr. Goebbels? The man who said that was Alben Barkley, your Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. And where do you suppose he said it? Right in his speech nominating you for a fourth term.
Now why is it we were not ready when we were attacked? Let’s look at Mr. Roosevelt’s own words. In a message to Congress in 1935, he said: “There is no ground for apprehension that our relations with any nation will be otherwise than peaceful.”
In 1937, he said:
How happy we are that the circumstances of the moment permit us to put our money into bridges and boulevards… rather than into huge standing armies and vast implements of war.
But war came just two years later. It was in January of 1940 that I publicly called for a two-ocean navy for the defense of America. It was that statement of mine which Mr. Roosevelt called, and I quote his words, “Just plain dumb.” Then, as now, we got ridicule instead of action.
The war rose in fury. When Hitler’s armies were at the gate of Paris, Mr. Roosevelt again soothed the American people with the jolly comment: “There is no need for the country to be ‘discomboomerated.’”
The simple truth is, of course, that Mr. Roosevelt’s record is desperately bad. It is not one on which any man should seek the confidence of the American people. That’s why it’s time for a change.
My opponent now announces his desire to be President for 16 years. Yet in his speech of Saturday night, he called it a “malicious falsehood” that he had even represented himself to be “indispensable.”
Let us look at the closely-supervised words of the handpicked candidate for Vice President. He said of my opponent: “The very future of the peace and prosperity of the world depends upon his reelection in November.” I have not heard Mr. Truman repudiated by Mr. Roosevelt as yet. He waits to shed his Vice Presidents until they have served at least one term.
Here are the words of Boss Kelly of the Chicago machine, the manager of that fake third-term draft of 1940: “The salvation of this nation rests in one man.” Was that statement ever repudiated by Mr. Roosevelt? No, it was rewarded by increased White House favors. So, it was repeated again by the same man at the same time in the same place and for the same purpose this year: “The salvation of this nation rests in one man.”
And was it a falsehood that one of the first acts of Mr. Roosevelt’s newly-selected national chairman was to announce last May that he was for a fourth term and – that he was looking forward to a fifth term?
Let’s get this straight. The man who wants to be President for 16 years is indeed indispensable. He is indispensable for Harry Hopkins, to Madam Perkins, to Harold Ickes, to a host of other political jobholders. He is indispensable to America’s leading enemy of civil liberties – the Mayor of Jersey City. He is indispensable to those infamous machines in Chicago – in the Bronx – and all the others. He is indispensable to Sidney Hillman and the Political Action Committee, to Earl Browder, the ex-convict and pardoned Communist leader.
Shall we, the American people, perpetuate one man in office for 16 years in order to accommodate this motley crew? Shall we expose our country to a return of the seven years of New Deal depression because my opponent is indispensable to the ill-assorted, power-hungry conglomeration of city bosses, Communists and career bureaucrats which today compose the New Deal? Shall we submit to the counsel of despair that in all the great expanse of our nation there is only one man capable of occupying the White House?
The American people will answer that question in November. They will see that we restore integrity to the White House so that its spoken word can be trusted once again.
On battlefronts and at home, Americans have won the admiration of the world. Under the stress of war, we have thrown off the stupor of despair that seemed in the decade of the 1930s to have settled permanently upon the land.
Today, we know our strength and we know our ability. Shall we return to the philosophy that Mr. Roosevelt proclaimed when he said our industrial plant is built? Shall we go back to his seven straight years of unemployment? Shall we go back to the corroding misery of leaf-raking and the doles? Shall we continue an administration which invokes the language of our enemies and recklessly hurls charges of falsehood concerning things it knows to be the truth?
I say the time has come to put a stop to everything that is summed up in that phrase, “the indispensable man.”
If any man is indispensable, then none of us is free. But America has not lost its passionate belief in freedom. America has not lost its passionate belief in opportunity. It need never lose those beliefs. For here in this country of ours there is plenty of room for freedom and opportunity and we need not sacrifice security to have both freedom and opportunity.
To achieve these objectives, we must have integrity in our government. We need a new high standard of honesty in the government of the United States. We need a singleness of purpose, a devotion to the people of this country and to the gigantic problems we face at home after this war. We need a whole-souled devotion to the building of a people’s peace that will last beyond the lives and friendship of any individuals. We need humility and courage. With the help of Almighty God, we shall achieve the spiritual and physical strength to preserve our freedom in the pursuit of happiness for all.
1 Like
Völkischer Beobachter (September 26, 1944)
Die große Fehlrechnung unserer Feinde –
Morgenthau übertrifft Clemenceau: ‚Vierzig Millionen Deutsche Zuviel‘
Roosevelt und Churchill machten sich in Québec Judas Mordplan zu eigen
vb. Wien, 25. September –
Nach den übereinstimmenden Meldungen vieler amerikanischer Blätter hat sich Roosevelt vor der Konferenz in Québec einen verschärften Vernichtungsplan gegen Deutschland ausarbeiten lassen, bei dessen Herstellung der jüdische Finanzminister Morgenthau federführend war.
Dieser Plan habe in Québec auch die Zustimmung Churchills und Edens gefunden. Er sehe die Zerstörung der gesamten deutschen Industrie vor.
Roosevelt, so meldet der Washingtoner Korrespondent der New York Times, habe seinen Kabinettsmitgliedern erklärt, man müsse dem ganzen deutschen Volk die schwerste Heimsuchung zuteilwerden lassen und Deutschland für lange Zeit im Zustand des Krieges erhalten. Es sei sehr aufschlussreich gewesen, daß nicht der Außenminister Hüll Roosevelt nach Québec begleitet habe, sondern Morgenthau.
Im Grunde genommen handelt es sich bei dem Vernichtungsprogramm des Juden Morgenthau um das gleiche Projekt, das jetzt bereits Italien gegenüber durchgeführt wird, denn auch dort wird schon der Abbau der gesamten italienischen Schwerindustrie betrieben und die Rückbildung eines dichtbevölkerten europäischen Landes zu einem verarmten Agrarstaat in die Wege geleitet mit der Absicht, die gegenwärtige Not des italienischen Volkes zu verewigen, es physisch zu zerrütten, ihm politisch das Rückgrat zu brechen und es somit zu einer Kolonie der Anglo-Amerikaner zu machen.
Genau das gleiche möchte nun Morgenthau mit Deutschland tun, wenn sich die Alliierten in der Lage sähen, den deutschen Widerstand niederzukämpfen. Nicht umsonst wurden in England und Amerika die Pläne der Bolschewisten, 10 Millionen Deutsche als Arbeitssklaven nach der Sowjetunion zu verschleppen, äußerst lebhaft begrüßt, nicht umsonst weiden sich Tag für Tag englische und amerikanische Blätter an der sadistischen Vorstellung, wie man nach einer Besetzung Deutschlands dort mit Massenmorden, Verschleppungen und mit der Hungerpeitsche arbeiten würde, um die deutsche Volkskraft zu zerbrechen.
„In Deutschland muß die Uhr um fünfzig Jahre zurückgestellt werden. Deutschland muß planmäßig aller Maschinen bis herunter zu den Stahlträgern seiner Fabrikhallen beraubt werden. Alle brauchbaren Maschinen müssen an die Nachbarländer Deutschlands abgeliefert werden,“ so schrieb im Oktober 1943 die vielgelesene amerikanische Zeitschrift „Populär Science" und zur gleichen Zeit erklärte W. B. Howell im Londoner Spectator:
Ich halte es für richtig, Deutschland, sobald wir es besiegt haben, für alle Zeit zu verkrüppeln. Ich würde die deutsche Bevölkerung um ein Drittel oder vielleicht auf die Hälfte reduzieren. Die Waffe, die ich dabei in Anwendung bringen würde, ist die Aushungerung. Wenn mich ein gutmütiger Engländer fragt: „Würden Sie dabei nicht auch die deutschen Frauen und Kinder aushungern?“, so antworte ich ihm: „Jawohl, ich würde es tun!“
Und völlig im Geist Morgenthaus schrieb William Brackley am 16. Mai 1944 im Londoner Daily Express:
Wenn eine stark reduzierte deutsche Bevölkerung sich ihre Nahrung aus dem Boden kratzen wird, und zwar ohne jede technische Hilfe, ohne Maschinen, ohne eine Lokomotive, dann könnte sie vielleicht in idyllischer Weise glücklich sein.
Wie man diese „Reduzierungen“ erreichen möchte, das hat der ehemalige Handelsattaché an der amerikanischen Botschaft in Berlin, Douglas Miller, schon 1941 festgelegt, also schon ein Vierteljahr vor dem Eintritt seines Landes in den Krieg. Wir führen dessen Äußerungen wörtlich an, weil sie am besten veranschaulichen, was hinter den Racheplänen der Roosevelt, Morgenthau und Genossen steckt. Miller sagte damals in seiner Erklärung vor der Presse:
Deutschland muß von einer produktiven Mitarbeit in der Nachkriegswelt ausgeschlossen werden. Alle Transportmittel sind fortzuschaffen, Metall und Maschinenlager mit Beschlag zu belegen, strategisch wichtige Eisenbahnlinien sind in der Hand der Siegermächte zu halten. Die künftigen Grenzlinien sind so zu ziehen, daß die Kohlen- und Erzgebiete im Osten und Westen außerhalb der Reichsgrenze liegen. Die Häfen und die Grenzen sind so zu bewachen, daß Maschinen und Metalle nicht in das Reich hereinkommen. Deutschland muß gezwungen werden, sich lediglich auf Landbestellung und eigene Ernährung zu beschränken. Die deutschen Städte müssen entvölkert werden. Die Bevölkerungszahl muß gewaltsam niedergedrückt werden. Die deutsche Jugend muß zur Auswanderung in fremde Länder gezwungen werden.
Das deutsche Volk kennt die niederträchtige Gesinnung, die ihm von seinen Feinden entgegengebracht wird. Wir haben immer wieder betont, daß es sich bei diesen Äußerungen eines fanatischen Vernichtungswillens nicht etwa um Privatmeinungen von Außenseitern handelt, und die Tatsache, daß diese Pläne jetzt zum allseitigen anerkannten Kampfprogramm der amerikanischen und der englischen Regierung gemacht worden sind, beweisen die Richtigkeit dieser Auffassung.
Aber weil wir uns nicht den geringsten Illusionen darüber hingeben, welches Schicksal dem deutschen Volk beschieden wäre, wenn es auf diese Herausforderungen nicht unablässig die harte Antwort gäbe, die allein möglich ist, handeln wir wie jedes große Volk, dem man an Leben und Ehre greift.
Nach den Wechselfällen der letzten Monate bekommt der Feind an allen Fronten bereits zu spüren, daß er sich völlig verrechnet hat, als er glaubte, bereits am Ziel zu sein. Was in Québec ausgeheckt wurde, wird erst recht dazu dienen, die Härte unseres Widerstandes und das Gewicht unserer Schläge zu verdoppeln.
Wir legen ihre Entwürfe zu den übrigen, aber es wird bestimmt die Zeit kommen, in der man sie in London und Washington als höchst unerwünschte Erinnerungen an eine der größten Fehlrechnungen der Geschichte ansehen wird.