America at war! (1941–) – Part 4

Vichy liberated, French report

Algiers hears Pétain executed at Metz
By the United Press

A Fighting French radio station announced today that French Partisans have liberated Vichy, as unconfirmed reports from Algiers said that Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain has been executed by French patriots at Metz.

The Fighting French radio transmitter, giving its location as Vichy, said French Forces of the Interior control the former capital of the Pétain government.

There was no confirmation of the reported execution of Pétain, and French sources in London described them as “incredible” because the aged Vichy Chief of State had never been included on the Partisans’ “death list” of traitors and collaborationists.

The official Vatican City Bulletin said Pétain has been put in a position where it is “impossible for him to exercise his powers.” Leon Berard, Vichy Ambassador to the Vatican, was believed to have informed the Papal authorities that his diplomatic mission was at an end because of the disappearance of the Vichy government.

Pétain had been reported arrested by the Gestapo and removed to Germany.

Bombers blast 12 Jap ships in raids on Dutch Indies

U.S. fliers strike within 750 miles of Tokyo in new attacks on Volcano Islands
By the United Press

Crosby in England

London, England –
Big Crosby, movie and radio star, was en route here by train today from Glasgow where he arrived last night by air from the United States.

americavotes1944

Opponents lay ban on speech to Roosevelt

GOP Senators help stir up controversy

Washington (UP) –
Two Republican Senators today laid on the White House doorstep responsibility for the War Department’s sudden reversal of its decision to let the Socialist Party broadcast “a political address” over Army shortwave stations to servicemen overseas.

The Socialists had sought permission for the broadcast on the grounds that President Roosevelt’s Aug. 12 speech from Bremerton, Washington, rebroadcast to troops, was a “political address.”

Their request was based on the Soldier Voting Act, which provides that if a political address is rebroadcast to troops, equal time must, if requested, be allowed other political parties with presidential candidates in at least six states.

Decision is reversed

The War Department announced yesterday that it would grant the Socialists’ request, apparently agreeing that Mr. Roosevelt’s Bremerton speech was “political.”

Six hours later, Assistant Secretary of War Joseph J. McCloy rescinded the action, holding that the President’s Bremerton “report” was not a “political speech” and that therefore no equal time was due any other political candidate.

Senator Homer Ferguson (R-MI) said that the Socialists should appeal the new War Department decision directly to the White House because if “any pressure” had been brought to effect the Army’s reversal, that would be the place to look for it.

Wherry hits McCloy

Senator Kenneth S. Wherry (R-NE) said there was “no doubt” that the Army did an “about-face” because of White House pressure. He called for a senatorial investigation of War Department official decisions.

The Republican Senators’ views were reflected by Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas who said in Denver that the President “either directly or indirectly” ruled his own speech was “not a political talk.” Mr. Thomas called the War Department’s reversal “unfortunate but not surprising.”

Senator Claude Pepper (D-FL), ardent administration supporter, denied that Mr. Roosevelt’s speech was political. Senator Pepper said the President “could have done a lot better than that in a political speech.”

Calls it a ‘report’

In ordering the Army’s reversal of its decision to grant the Socialists radio time, Mr. McCloy said the Department determined that the President’s “report” was “not political” and that accordingly no broadcast time would be given the Socialists “on such a basis.” In its earlier decision acceding to the Socialists’ demands, the War Department referred to the President’s talk as a “speech.”

Mr. McCloy’s announcement follows:

It has just been called to my attention that a decision was made by an Army agency to grant time to the Socialist Party for an overseas broadcast to troops on the basis of that party’s contention the President’s report at Bremerton was a “political address” within the meaning of Title V of Public Law 227. I have reconsidered this decision. The War Department determines that the President’s report was not “political” and accordingly no time will be granted to the Socialist Party on such basis.

Issued by colonel

The War Department’s Public Relations Office credited the earlier decision favoring the Socialists to Col. Robert Cutler, Soldier Vote Coordinator for the Department. Col. Culter declined to say whether Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson had approved his decision, and Army Public Relations chief Maj. Gen. Alexander D. Surles said he didn’t think “the Secretary was aware of the situation.”

Norman Thomas, in Denver, said of the War Department’s reversal:

There is no way to answer the ruling by the War Department. It is unfortunate, but not surprising.

The Commander-in-Chief has, either directly or indirectly, ruled that his speech was not a political talk. It is a taste of what we can expect in the future if the President is going to exploit his position as Commander-in-Chief!

KRUG SWINGS TO UNITE STRIFE-RIDDEN WPB
Acting head moves to end internal war

Threatens to fire ‘snipers’ in future

americavotes1944

Dulles, Hull agreed on ‘experiment’

U.S. foreign policy to be ‘nonpartisan’

Washington (UP) –
Democratic and Republican Party leaders today placed their hopes of avoiding another bitter League of Nations debate, such as followed the last war, upon an unprecedented campaign-year experiment in bipartisan cooperation.

Foreign policy leaders of both parties – Secretary of State Cordell Hull speaking for President Roosevelt and John Foster Dulles speaking for Governor Thomas E. Dewey – have agreed on numerous aspects of the world security plan presented by the U.S. delegation this week to the Dumbarton Oaks Conference.

They have also agreed that the subject should be kept on a nonpartisan basis, thus asserting, if the policy is followed, united participation in the proposed world security organization whichever party wins the November election.

Dulles wants ‘discussion’

They have not agreed, however, on the degree of nonpartisan public discussion of the world security issue. Mr. Hull wanted it kept “entirely out of politics,” but Mr. Dulles insisted that the understanding on nonpartisanship should not preclude “full public nonpartisan discussion of the means of attaining lasting peace.”

Regardless of that reservation, the joint declaration is unique in American political history, especially if each candidate abides by it to the satisfaction of his opponent.

But the road ahead for the two candidates has many danger spots. Republicans have already accused President Roosevelt of using the war for political purposes. Mr. Dulles cited his recent Bremerton, Washington, speech made upon his return from the Pacific tour as an example.

Dulles gives his views

Mr. Dulles volunteered the following as his idea of nonpartisanship:

To my mind, a partisan discussion distinct from a nonpartisan one would be an approach where you take a position in which you do not believe but which you think will give you votes.

Democrats and Republicans will be watching every word of each other’s candidates from now on for what might be considered a breach of the Hull-Dulles agreement. Until official publication of the American proposals or an American-British-Russian agreement on a plan for world organization, Mr. Dewey would appear to be limited to generalities.

Will history repeat?

Mr. Dulles was confident that he and Mr. Hull had scored a great achievement – “something novel in American history” – but their joint statement itself conceded that “complete agreement” depended upon future developments.

Some political historians, hopeful that this would prevent another low-level partisan political debate on foreign policy such as occurred in 1920, recalled that during the early years of world War I there was also almost-unanimous approval of a league to keep the peace. Samuel Flagg Bemis, in his Diplomatic History of the United States, says:

The elder statesmen of both parties were for it: T. R. Roosevelt, Taft, Bryan, Elihu Root, Lodge and finally Wilson, although Lodge was to desert the idea when Wilson later coupled it with a proposed peace without victory. No one took exception to the proposal of a League of Nations before 1917 and then, among Republican leaders, only Lodge.

British drive in Italy nears Gothic Line

Eighth Army meets little resistance


Alice from Dallas causes trouble

U.S. bombers blast Nazi oil center in Ruhr

RAF hammers enemy from Berlin to Ruhr

Editorial: Matter of ‘gobbledygook’

Editorial: Mlle. Darrieux cleared

americavotes1944

Editorial: PAC shakedown

The bagman for Sidney Hillman’s Political Action Committee sees nothing illegal or even unethical in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union’s shakedown of employers for its campaign money chest.

Hyman S. Blumberg, vice president of the Hillman union, not only defends the solicitation of money from firms having contracts with the union, but asserts he would not be surprised if other meetings to further the collection of funds were to be held “throughout the nation” between now and November.

Mr. Blumberg’s bland assurance that “no high-pressure methods were used” is one of the most cynical statements yet made in the Hillman campaign to create a fund large enough to buy the election.

In bright contrast to Amalgamated’s activities, it should be pointed out that other unions, notably the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, have long recognized that the collection of funds by a union from its employers even for charitable purposes comes dangerously close to blackmail. In fact, David Dubinsky’s union establishes this principle in a strict constitutional provision absolutely prohibiting any such solicitation or collection. And Mr. Dubinsky himself made a noteworthy example of one union official whom he suspended for four weeks for having sold an employer tickets to a benefit in which the union was interested.

If there were any question about the threat to democracy embodied in the huge election fund the PAC is taxing out of its own membership – and now out of the employers – the latest revelations of Amalgamated’s shakedown and its threat of further shakedowns should answer it.

Ferguson: Creed vs. greed

By Mrs. Walter Ferguson

Bishop opposes conscription

He fears ‘excessive nationalism’

Churches appeal for sane V-Day

Newspapers join in urging prayer

America’s newest gypsies are the hotel dwellers

Rooms are limited to certain number of days, then you hunt over again
By Maxine Garrison

Poll: Opinion now favors ruling on manpower

Majority skeptical of rule in June
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion

Millett: Keep students in school

Child should not quit now to work
By Ruth Millett

Browns fighting with backs to wall as lead dwindles

By Glen Perkins, United Press staff writer

Stokes: New WPB chief

Maj. de Seversky: Post-war security

By Maj. Alexander P. de Seversky