Berhard leads Dutch patriots
Prince named aide by Eisenhower
…
Garrison: ‘There ought to be a law’ on eyeing Lamarr
She thinks Hedy ‘too beautiful
By Maxine Garrison
…
Betz wins third straight –
Talbert, Parker in clash for amateur tennis title
…
Yankees cut Browns’ lead to half-game
…
Roving Reporter
By Ernie Pyle
In France – (by wireless)
The last time I was with the frontline medics – a battalion detachment in the 4th Division – they showed me a piece in The Stars and Stripes about Congress passing the new $10-a-month pay increase for soldiers holding the Combat Infantrymen’s Badge.
This Combat Infantry Badge is a proud thing, a mark of great distinction, a sign on a man’s chest to show that he has been through the mill. The medical aidmen were feeling badly because the piece said they were not eligible for the badge.
Their captain asked me what I thought, and so did some of the enlisted aidmen. And I could tell them truthfully that my feelings agreed with theirs. They should have it. And I’m sure any combat infantryman would tell you the same thing.
Praise for the medics has been unanimous ever since this war started. And just as proof of what they go through, take this one detachment of battalion medics that I was with.
They were 31 men and two officers. And in one seven-week period of combat in Normandy this summer, they lost nine men killed and ten wounded. A total of 19 out of 33 men – a casualty ratio of nearly 60 percent in seven weeks!
Special badge suggested
As one aidman said, probably they have been excluded because they are technically noncombatants and don’t carry arms. But he suggested that if this was true, they could still be given a badge with some distinctive medical marking on it, to set them off from medical aidmen who don’t work right in the lines.
So, I would like to propose to Congress or the War Department or whoever handles such things that the ruling be altered to include medical aidmen in battalion detachments and on forward.
They are the ones who work under fire. Medics attached to regiments and to hospitals farther back do wonderful work too, of course, and are sometimes under shellfire. But they are seldom right out on the battlefield. So, I think it would be fair to include only the medics who work from battalion on forward.
I have an idea the original ruling was made merely through a misunderstanding, and that there would be no objection to correcting it.
You must hear about my new stove. You may remember that last winter in Italy we mentioned how practical and wonderful the little Coleman gasoline stove was for soldiers in the field. Well, that remark had repercussions.
It seems the employees of the Coleman Stove Company, in Wichita, Kansas, were very pleased. It made them feel that they were doing something worthwhile for the war So, in appreciation, they decided to make up a special stove as a gift for me.
Engraved like a loving cup
We kept hearing about it over here for weeks, and waited for it the way children wait for Christmas. The other correspondents were as excited about it as I was.
At last, it came. Boy, you should see it. It is an exact duplicate of the regular stove, except that this one is all hand-made and chromium-plated and has my name engraved on it, like a loving cup.
One of the correspondents said, “You can’t light that, it’s too pretty.”
An Army colonel said, “They should have sent a fireplace and a mantel along for you to exhibit it on.”
For days there was a line of soldiers and correspondents at my tent wanting to see the stove. Twice we got ready to light it while photographers took pictures, but at the last minute we couldn’t bear to, and put it away. The boys all kidded me and said they bet I never would light it.
Necessity finally drove me to it. That was in Paris. I had given my old stove to a friend, thinking I wouldn’t need one any more. But the eating situation in Paris was drastic at first, and we had only the rations we brought with us individually.
So, at last I had to break down and light my stove in a hotel room in Paris. Some of the boys had joked and said it was so beautiful it probably wouldn’t work. But it did. It practically melted the hotel walls down.
So, to all of you who had a hand in the stove, my thanks and gratitude. But if this keeps up, I’ll have to be careful about admiring in print any Baldwin locomotives or steam-shovels.
Why we lost the peace –
Simms: ‘Unconditional surrender’ was ultimatum in 1918 too
Germans depended on ‘14 Points’ then, now they have Roosevelt’s ‘Four Points’
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
This is the first in a series of articles on the mistakes made by the Allies at the peace table following the German surrender in 1918 – mistakes which laid the groundwork for World War II.
Washington –
The Allies have now reached Compiègne. There, on Nov. 11, 1918, occurred one of the most variously interpreted events in history. Yet a clear understanding of that event is necessary to further peace.
Today a certain magic is attributed to the formula of “unconditional surrender.” The surrender at Compiègne was unconditional. When Erzberger, Count von Oberndorff and the rest of the German mission stood before Marshal Foch in his private car on a siding in the woods, he eyed them coldly and demanded the nature of their visit.
ERZBERGER: “We have come to receive the Allied peace proposition.”
FOCH: (frigidly) “I have no proposition to make.”
OBERNDORFF: (hurriedly to forestall the gruff Erzberger) “We wish to learn what your armistice conditions are.”
FOCH: (icily) “I have no conditions to offer.”
ERZBERGER: (timidly) “But President Wilson–”
FOCH: (impatiently) “Do you or don’t you wish an armistice? If so, I am here to state the terms.”
Germans hear terms
Glumly, the Germans chorused, “Ja,” they wanted an armistice; whereupon Marshal Foch had the terms read off to them. Nor were they “soft.” On the contrary, they set the mission back on its heels. In addition to the occupation of the left bank of the Rhine, with bridgeheads, they called on the Kaiser to give up practically his entire war machine forthwith. When the Germans demurred, Marshal Foch told them they could take it or leave it and he set a time limit within which they were to answer yes or no.
Erzberger’s feeble effort to drag in President Wilson’s “14 Points” was promptly, and rightly, squelched. The 14 Points had nothing to do with the surrender of the Kaiser’s army; that had to be unconditional. The “points” were a concession to the German people and there was a tremendous difference.
Parallel situation
Today as the Allies face an almost parallel situation. Now as then, insofar as the German Army is concerned, the terms are “unconditional surrender.” But now, as then, the American President has offered generous conditions to the German people. Then, President Wilson put forward his “14 Points.” Now, President Roosevelt holds out his “Four Points” – which have something in common with the 14. President Roosevelt said:
We look forward to a world founded upon the four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech… everywhere in the world. The second, is freedom of worship… everywhere in the world. The third, is freedom from want… of economy understanding which will secure it every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants… everywhere in the world. And, the fourth is freedom from fear with sweeping armaments reductions… everywhere in the world.
Patently these apply to the Germans no less than to others since “all nations” and all peoples are to enjoy them “everywhere in the world.”
There is just one difference between the Wilson and the Roosevelt formulas.
Where President Wilson used his 14 points to drive a wedge between the German masses and the Kaiser – and succeeded – President Roosevelt is putting his Four Points to no such effective use against Hitler.
TOMORROW: Why we did not occupy Berlin in 1918.
Yank grabs sub’s periscope and is towed to safety
Flier forced to leap near Jap-held island ‘rides’ underseas craft for two miles
…
Truman to speak three times in Detroit
Detroit, Michigan (UP) –
Senator Harry S. Truman, Democratic candidate for Vice President, said today that if private industry fails to make “proper post-war use” of armament plants for peacetime production the government should operate such factories.
The Missouri Senator, bidding for workingmen’s support in President Roosevelt’s fourth-term campaign with three Labor Day speeches in this industrial area, also told a press conference that public works and unemployment insurance programs were the Democratic Party’s answer to the pinch of industrial layoffs during transition from war to peace production.
Stokes: Even conservatives rap House reconversion bill
Roosevelt’s refusal to take part in fight indicates he is playing politics on issue
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer
Washington –
The interpretation generally read into Senator Harry S. Truman’s speech accepting the vice-presidential nomination – that Democrats will make the war and foreign policy the dominant issue in the campaign – rings painfully accurate to groups in Congress who battled in vain to provide more cushions for unemployment on the home front in the so-called “reconversion” bill.
For President Roosevelt offered no help whatever in this fight. It was just the sort he would mix into in the days before he asked that the “New Deal” name be dropped in favor of “Win the War.” That was regarded then as a political gesture to hold as many conservatives on his side as possible for the election. Mr. Roosevelt still seems to be playing the same game.
Refuses to join fight
Despite his preoccupation with the war, the President had ample opportunity to step into this situation. When queried at his press conferences, he would reply that he had not followed the bill, or had not examined the amendments, and thus casually pass off the matter. He let the Republican-Southern Democratic coalition have its head without challenge.
What this has all come to is now seen in the bill passed by the House which whittled away at the Senate measure, itself certainly a conservative bill.
Conservatives have now joined critics of this House bill. Bernard M. Baruch, White House consultant on reconversion plans, said he does not feel this measure is adequate. Senator Walter F. George (D-GA), who sponsored the Senate bill as chairman of the Finance Committee, got very much aroused while the bill was before the House and appealed for moderation in the cutting process.
Appeal unheeded
He went unheeded. He is concerned over the House’s refusal to include federal employees in unemployment compensation and the striking out of another Senate bill proviso for travel pay for stranded war workers.
War Mobilization Director James F. Byrnes pleaded with the Ways and Means Committee to provide a nationwide minimum of $20 a week for 26 weeks for unemployment compensation, with the federal government to advance funds for such payments to states where rates are lower. But the committee refused, and the House batted down such an amendment by an overwhelming vote. This would mean meager unemployment aid in some localities, particularly in the South.
These three men are all conservatives which demonstrates how far the House went.
Their influence may be effective in revising the measure in conferences between the two beaches, the next stage. Senator George will be chairman of Senate conferees.
Organized labor tried to get a much more liberal measure. It put up a united front behind the Murray-Kilgore Bill in the Senate and a similar measure in the House. These were hopelessly defeated.
President Roosevelt did not come to their rescue, nor did House Democratic leaders. The fight in the House was directed by second-stringers. The President has taken labor’s support for granted in this campaign, which indicates some of the weakness in labor’s political strategy.
Roosevelt and Churchill may discuss India’s case
Phillips, President’s envoy, wants U.S. to demand voice in that deadlock
…
Battleship building program resumed
…