Senate confirms ‘Gen. Elliott’
Vote is 53-11 for promotion
…
There’s no turning back when a bridgehead is won
5th Infantry Division troops keep plugging away at Sure River to get reinforcements across
By Morley Cassidy, North American Newspaper Alliance
…
Navy losses exceed all other wars
WASHINGTON (UP) – The Navy disclosed today that it has lost in action during World War II more than five times the number of Navy men killed in all previous wars.
It reported that 22,481 men, excluding the Marine Corps and Coast Guard, have been killed since Pearl Harbor, compared with 4,232 in all conflicts from the American Revolution through World War II.
In the last war, 422 Navy officers and men died in action.
Simms: If decision on Poland stands, peace plan may be jeopardized
Roosevelt, Churchill gave way completely to Stalin in pact signed in Crimea
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
The Big Three version of Poland after the war is shown on this map. The eastern boundary will follow approximately the Curzon Line. The territory taken from Germany may be as indicated in the other shaded area on the map.
WASHINGTON – If the Big Three decision regarding Poland stands – and it would now seem, to all intents, irrevocable – it may jeopardize Dumbarton Oaks and the whole American peace plan.
Under the pact signed at Yalta, in the Crimea, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill gave way completely to Marshal Stalin, whose plans for the partition of Poland are well known. They agreed to the Curzon Line as the new Russo-Polish frontier and to the Stalin thesis that Poland shall have several large slices of Germany by way of compensation.
The effect of all this on the United States will be tremendous, if, as it is generally expected, this country participates in the collective security guarantees so widely favored by the American people. It would start up a new and bigger “Alsace-Lorraine” between Germany and Poland and make the United States at least partly responsible for its safety.
To get German land
The Big Three did not specify the exact amount of German soil which the Poles might annex. They did, however, make it clear that while Poland’s eastern frontier is really no longer debatable, she “must receive substantial accessions of territory in the north and west.”
And Moscow has already indicated that, in the north, approximately two-thirds of East Prussia will go to Poland and, in the west, practically everything up to the Oder River, that is, up to within 40 miles of Berlin.
However, says the Big Three communiqué, “the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should… await the peace conference.”
The Poles themselves – that is the Polish government-in-exile in London – are under no delusions when it comes to what the annexation of purely Prussian territory will mean to them. They know it is loaded with dynamite.
London Poles alarmed
Some months ago, when the London Poles became convinced that what has just happened at the Big Three meeting was inescapable, they were alarmed. History was full of warnings that it would become a perpetual bone of contention between a diminished Poland and a potentially powerful Germany and they knew they would be doomed unless they had the permanent protection of one or more of the great powers.
So, they approached Washington. They inquired if the United States would guarantee Poland’s proposed new frontiers. The inference, of course, was that if this country acquiesced in the Moscow plan, she should stand ready to guarantee the boundaries in question.
Washington said “no.” The United States never guarantees anybody’s specific frontiers.
Answers now yes
The answer however, might just as well have been “yes.” If the United States, in fact, agrees to the Polish settlement reached at Yalta, and if the Dumbarton Oaks formula is ratified by the Senate, the United States, of course, automatically will become a guarantor of Poland’s new boundaries – unless the Senate writes in reservations.
This means that should Germany stage a comeback 10, 20 or 50 years hence and attack Poland with a view to getting back her lost provinces, the United States would be bound to help put down the aggression.
Destroys all hope
As for Poland herself, the Yalta pact all but destroys any hope she may have had regarding her future independence. Hereafter no government at Warsaw will dare enter into a treaty, trade arrangement, non-aggression pact or any other government without first asking Moscow.
It was agreed that the so-called Lublin (or Moscow-sponsored) regime should be reorganized “on a broader democratic basis” with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and from Poles abroad.
But, however well this plan works out, Poland still will not be a free agent. At best, she will be an international protectorate; at worst, a Russian puppet.
Invasions of Denmark, Norway, Baltic coast may be plan of Allies
Speculation touched off by Big Three pledge of attacks on Germany from the north
By W. R. Higginbotham, United Press staff writer
LONDON, England – Military observers said today the Allied Big Three may have planned invasions of southern Norway, Denmark and even the German Baltic coast to speed victory in Europe.
Speculation was touched off by the Big Three’s promise in the Crimean declaration that Allied armies and air forces would strike “new and even more powerful blows… into the heart of Germany” from the east, west, north and south.
The timing and scope of operations from all four directions “have been fully agreed and planned in detail,” President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Premier Stalin said in the declaration.
Will shorten war
The declaration said:
Our combined military plans will be made known only as we execute them, but we believe that the very close-working partnership among the three staffs attained at this conference will result in shortening the war.
The declaration marked the first authoritative Allied word regarding the possibility of offensives against Germany from the north.
A Moscow dispatch said military circles in the Russian capital attached especial importance to the contemplated “blows from the north.” It was assumed, Moscow said, that these would supplement those from the Soviet bridgehead in northern Norway.
May cut off Nazis
The Big Three’s plan may envisage Anglo-American landings on the coasts of South Norway and Denmark aimed at cutting off German troops in northern and central Norway and forcing the Nazi command to disperse further their already limited forces.
Any landings on the Baltic coast of Germany presumably would be made by Soviet amphibious forces, but there remained a remote possibility of an attempt by Anglo-American fleets to force the Skagerrak and Kattegat into the Baltic.
Significantly, Vice Adm. Sir Harold Burrough, supreme naval commander in Western Europe. said at a press conference several weeks ago that other amphibious landings probably would be made under his command.
Drive in Italy hinted
New blows against Germany from the north also raised the possibility that Allied armies in Western Europe would drive into northern Germany to link up with the Russians along the Baltic coast.
Reference to “new blows” also from the south indicated that the long-dormant Italian front may erupt in a new Allied offensive aimed at clearing northern Italy and reaching the Brenner Pass.
Soviet forces in Hungary and Yugoslavia also probably will renew their drive in force along the Danube Valley toward Vienna and southern Germany. The smashing of organized resistance in Budapest, as announced by Moscow last night, may speed this drive.
Staffs to confer
Military observers were enthusiastic over the Big Three’s announcement that a “very close working partnership” had been attained among the American, British and Soviet military staffs. Meetings of the three staffs will be continued in the future whenever the need arises, the declaration said.
There had been widespread criticism in the past few months at what was felt to be a lack of coordination between offensives on the Eastern and Western Fronts.
Once Germany has been defeated, the Big Three announced their intention of assigning separate zones of occupation to each of the three powers and France.
To sit in Berlin
Coordinated administration and control would be provided under the plan by the establishment of a separate control commission in Berlin consisting of the “supreme commanders of the three nations,” plus a French commander.
The reference to the “supreme commanders” was not clear, but it was believed likely that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, commander of the Western Front, would represent the United States and Marshal Sir Harold R. L. G. Alexander, Allied commander in the Mediterranean, would represent Britain.
Parley lifts veil on Russian plans
Hastening of peace believed effected
By William H. Stoneman
LONDON, England – Russia has finally drawn back the curtain concealing its military plans and, for the first time since it went to war with Germany in June 1941, is about to work in complete conjunction with the United States and Britain in finally crushing Germany.
This truly spectacular result of the Yalta conference ends an impossible situation in which the Western Allies were embarrassed, and at times positively handicapped, by lack of information.
End of war hastened
As a result of the Yalta conversations, it can be assumed that the forces invading Germany from the east and west will join speedily in giving Germany a decisive coup de grace on land and from the air. The end of the war should be materially hastened.
The only regret is that an agreement could not have been concluded months, or years ago.
The Yalta agreement for the division of Germany and Austria into three or four fixed zones of occupation, and for the coordination of Allied administration by a Central Control Commission sitting in Berlin, already had been worked out by the European Advisory Commission in London.
Who will form group
The Control Commission will consist of the supreme commanders of the American, British, and Russian forces in Germany, in addition to a French representative, if the French wish to name one.
If France wishes to share in the occupation of Germany, its zones of occupation, to be fixed by European Advisory Commission, will certainly include the west bank of the Rhine.
The decision not to announce terms of the “unconditional surrender” demands is significant. Obviously, these terms would be announced if the Allied chiefs thought they would contribute to the collapse of Germany’s home front. Thus, it can be assumed that these terms really involve complete surrender and that they are harsh enough to satisfy most proponents of a severe peace.
Ed Flynn’s visit to Yalta a mystery
Washington unable to figure it out
WASHINGTON (UP) – Of all interesting sidelights on the Big Three Conference, Washington pondered the presence of Edward J. Flynn.
The White House explained that Mr. Flynn took no part in the discussions. It said President Roosevelt discovered, shortly before he left this country, that Mr. Flynn planned to go to Moscow. So, he invited the former Democratic National Committee chairman to accompany him as far as Yalta.
Mr. Flynn, the White House said, crossed the Atlantic with the President – method not announced. Then he flew with Mr. Roosevelt from Malta to Yalta. Apparently, he stayed in the Crimean resort town throughout the historic conferences, because the White House said he went to Moscow with U.S. Ambassador W. Averell Harriman. Mr. Harriman attended the entire eight-day conference.
Even Mr. Flynn’s close associates in New York were at a loss to explain his presence in Russia. They professed not to know that he accompanied the President.
Monroe Goldwater, Mr. Flynn’s law partner, said he “thought Mr. Flynn was in Mexico.”
“He left New York about two weeks ago,” was all Mr. Goldwater could add.
If anybody knew the nature of Mr. Flynn’s business in Moscow, they weren’t talking about it. Unquestioned, however, was the fact that he was not wen route to Australia.
Anna Boettiger has key role
WASHINGTON (UP) – The presence of Mrs. Anna Roosevelt Boettiger at the Big Three Crimean Conference gave emphasis today to her new role as confidante, boon companion and adviser to her father.
The tall blond, only daughter of President and Mrs. Roosevelt, returned to the Executive Mansion to live more than a year ago.
Prior to and for a while after Pearl Harbor, she was a columnist and woman’s page editor of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Her husband, John, was its publisher. Mrs. Boettiger moved into the White House while her husband was overseas as an Army major. Now he is stationed in Washington.
Mrs. Boettiger is in her late 30’s. Gifted with her mother’s energy, she plays the role of White House hostess during Mrs. Roosevelt’s frequent absences.
She is good company. Lively, animated and possessor of quick wit, she has a talent for informality.
She and her father have at least one common attribute. They both use long cigarette holders.
Yalta one of best Russian resorts
Town damaged only slightly by Nazis
By the United Press
Yalta is probably the most beautiful of the Russian Black Sea resort towns.
It is situated in a narrow sloping cleft on the cliff-studded southeast coast of the Crimea.
The cliffs rise sheer from the area into towering 8,000-foot mountain peaks, crowned at this season of the year with snow. At Yalta itself there is a sandy curving beach, lined with villas and resort hotels, many of which date from Czarist times.
Occupied two years
Yalta and the whole resort coast of Crimea was occupied by the Germans for about two years, but damage when the Nazis were ousted last spring was comparatively light. In the town of Yalta itself, windows were blown out of a good many seashore buildings and some of the shops were wrecked. But many of the villas and palaces were intact or suffered damage which could be repaired easily.
Winters are mild on the Crimean coast, not unlike those on the California coast. Days are generally warm and sunshiny, but the nights are cool.
The steep, stony land running back up to the mountain crags is covered with vineyards. Crimean champagne and fine wines are famous in Russia and many consider their quality second only to the wines of France.
Sevastopol visit hinted
Above the vineyards the hillsides are deeply forested with pines and other evergreens stretching up to the timber line. Clouds often hang over the high peaks above Yalta, obscuring the mountain crests.
It is probable that the conferees took time out from their deliberations to visit Sevastopol which lies about 40 miles from Yalta on the southwest corner of Crimea. Sevastopol has been back in Russian hands about 10 months.
Italians glum over results
ROME, Italy (UP) – Italians were glum today over the Crimean Conference, making much of the fact that Italy was not even mentioned in the official announcements.
Before the meeting the Italian press had dwelt on hopes that the Big Three would “regurgitate” Italy’s position, which is generally regarded here as depressingly uncertain.
Vatican quarters were equally gloomy. They felt the Crimean declaration was a disappointment in three respects: First, that Italy was not mentioned and appears to have little prospect of participating in the peace; second, that freedom of religion was not mentioned; third, that the Polish issue has been settled on a basis of compromise.
‘Hint’ is found that Russians will fight Japs
Speculation is rife after Big Three talks
WASHINGTON (UP) – Washington observers carefully studied the Big Three report today for indications of Russian cooperation in the war against Japan. Optimists found a few hints – but nothing more than hints.
There was much speculation over the date chosen for the start of the full-dress United Nations conference at San Francisco on the world security organization – April 25.
By design or by accident, that also is the final date on which Russia could notify Japan that she does not care to renew the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact. If no notice is sent by that date, the treaty automatically will be renewed for an additional five years beyond April 25, 1946.
To sit with China
Some observers found a hint of future Russian cooperation in the Pacific War in the fact she will sit down at the same conference table with China at San Francisco.
They recalled that the original Dumbarton Oaks talks had to be split into two sessions because Russia would not participate in the same conference with China.
Less optimistic persons pointed out that the San Francisco meeting would be a full-dress conference of all 44 of the United Nations, whereas the Dumbarton Oaks talks involved only the United States, Britain, Russia and China.
Situation ‘about same’
The fact that Russia agreed to submit the compromise voting procedure for the proposed world security organization to China before making it public also was cited by some observers. Again, however, it was pointed out that this will be strictly in anticipation of the full-dress San Francisco conference.
All in all, the situation seemed to be just about what it was before the Yalta conferees reported on their talks. That is, Russia still maintaining a most discreet and unbreakable silence but the Allies hoping that eventually – probably after Germany surrenders – she will throw in her might with the United States, Britain and China to beat Japan.
French approve Big Three decisions
Will take part in Reich occupation
PARIS, France (UP) – French quarters expressed full agreement with nearly all phases of the Big Three declaration today and said France would accept invitations to participate in the occupation and control of post-war Germany.
France will also send a representative to the United Nations conference at San Francisco in response to the Big Three’s invitation, these sources said.
Bitter over exclusion
Satisfaction over the Crimean declaration was tempered, however, by bitterness over France’s exclusion from the conference though she is Germany’s principal neighbor in the west.
France was kept in the dark as to when and where the conference was being held and what was being discussed. The decisions were finally handed to French Foreign Minister George Bidault by the American, British and Soviet ambassadors last night as they were being announced.
De Gaulle vindication
The Big Three’s invitations to participate in the occupation of Germany and join the Allied control commission at Berlin were seen as vindication of Gen. Charles de Gaulle’s diplomacy.
Gen. de Gaulle twice recently had reaffirmed France’s right to occupy the Rhineland and Ruhr, possibly in connection with the U.S. and Britain at first but later alone. Occupation of a broad strip of the east bank of the Rhine was also seen as a possibility.
Editorial: The Yalta agreement
The Big Three agreement at Yalta was a compromise in which Marshal Stalin dictated most of the terms, and the Atlantic Charter pledges – other than German disarmament – came off second best.
The biggest thing in its favor is that it ties the Big Three together for continuation of the war until unconditional surrender; that it proposes a post-war security organization, and pledges a United Nations meeting in San Francisco in April to open up general discussion among all the Allies.
Like most compromises, it isn’t satisfactory; but it does lay a groundwork for future effort to bring about an eventual settlement worked out in a more democratic manner than is possible in the critical stages of the war.
In justice to the President, it should be recognized that he has much less bargaining power than Marshal Stalin in any Big Three meeting now.
Marshal Stalin enjoyed actual possession of part of eastern Germany and all of Eastern Europe, except Greece, and the strongest military force on the continent. He had secured Prime Minister Churchill’s prior acceptance of Russian claims and sphere of influence, and agreement that these decisions should be made by the Big Three (or four) instead of the United Nations. And, thirdly, he had the power to help us, or not help us, lick Japan later.
As a result, Stalin got what he wanted at Yalta with few exceptions.
The most important exception was his agreement that the entire German military system, as Well as Nazism, must be eliminated permanently. Earlier he had publicly favored a post-war German Army.
Since most of the other terms to be imposed on Germany were kept secret pending unconditional surrender, they cannot be evaluated now. Though war criminals would be punished, no specific reference was made to the Junker generals on Marshal Stalin’s “Free Germany Committee.” Germany must pay reparations in kind – Stalin wanted that, while other Allies have been undecided or divided at home.
Mr. Roosevelt got reaffirmation of the Atlantic Charter pledge of self-government for liberated peoples. first by broadening the representative base of the Russian puppet provisional regimes of Poland and Yugoslavia, and by promising later free elections, But of course the territories taken by Russia will have no such elections.
Nominally, the President won a point in getting a United Nations conference called for April in San Francisco. But whether Marshal Stalin will have veto power over any league action relating to Russia, as he insisted at Dumbarton, is still a secret. Anyway, according to the Yalta plan, the San Francisco conference will not consider the peace settlement but only the machinery for a later security league. It is supposed “to prepare the charter of such an organization along the lines proposed… at Dumbarton Oaks.”
The Polish settlement was the payoff. Mr. Roosevelt agreed to Russia taking eastern Poland up to a slightly modified Curzon Line; whether to include additional southern Polish cities and oil fields, as previously agreed to by Mr. Churchill, was not stated. Poland is to get “substantial” territory in the north and west – the original Stalin plan to load her with large slices of Germany, making Poland a perpetual Russian puppet for defense of a larger “Alsace-Lorraine.”
The Yalta settlement is, after all, simply a Big Three agreement. Perhaps that is all it could possibly be under present war conditions.
The other United Nations have had no voice in the settlement. We hope that they will have an opportunity to be heard and to make their voices effective at the San Francisco meeting.
Background of news –
Refugees and Palestine
By F. M. Brewer
The number of Jewish refugees in Europe is now estimated to exceed 1,500,000. Of this number, it is believed that not more than one-third will wish to return to their former homes – in countries where they suffered brutal persecution before and during the war. The vast majority look forward to permanent settlement in the Jewish homeland in Palestine.
James G. McDonald, chairman of the President’s Advisory Board on Political Refugees, has said:
Only in Palestine can the mass of Jewish refugees hope to be welcome and to be assisted to integrate themselves in the life of the community.
American Jewish organizations have plans for settlement of a million refugee Jews in Palestine within two years after the end of the war. But these plans cannot be carried out unless there is a change in the immigration policy for Palestine laid down by Great Britain as the mandatory power for that country under the League of Nations.
The present immigration policy was set forth in a British white paper issued in 1939, before the outbreak of the present war. It provided for the admission of 10,000 Jews to Palestine in each of the next five years, with an additional allowance of 25,000 to care for refugees. Thus, provision was made for the entry of 75,000 additional Jews, but Jewish immigration was to be cut off altogether at the end of March 1944 – “unless the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it.”
Quota not reached
War conditions made it impossible for the full 75,000 Jews to reach Palestine by last March, with the result that the time limit was given an indefinite extension. However, the number of entry permits at present outstanding is only about 10,000, while the number of Jews wanting to go to Palestine is perhaps a million.
The present immigration policy has been denounced by all Zionist organizations, but it does not result from any unfriendly attitude toward the Jews on the part of the British government.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised the establishment in Palestine of “a national home for the Jewish people” was a British state paper. Immediately after the announcement of the present policy in 1939, it was condemned by Winston Churchill as “plainly a breach and a repudiation of the Balfour Declaration.” But the policy has not been changed since Mr. Churchill became prime minister – in fact, all suggestions for liberalization have been strongly resisted by the London government.
No change could be made without grievously offending the Arabs and avoidance of such offense is a matter of prime importance to the Allied cause in the war.
An ‘Arab empire’?
Arab support was important also in the First World War. Negotiations with Arab leaders led to an agreement in January 1916, in which it was stated that “The British government agree to help in the formation of an Arab Empire completely independent in its internal and foreign affairs.” Palestine was not specifically mentioned, but the Arabs believed it was to be included in the proposed Arab Empire. The subsequent announcement of the Balfour Declaration created indignation throughout the Moslem world.
No steps have since been taken by the British government to promote “the formation of an Arab Empire,” but the Arab states have themselves arranged a meeting at Cairo, February 14, to set up an “Arab Union.” Resistance to further Jewish immigration to Palestine will be one of the principal purposes of the new confederation.
The need to propitiate the Arabs was the chief reason for War and State Department intervention last year when Congress was about to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate lifting of all restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. However, the Republican and Democratic platforms of 1944 both endorsed “unrestricted immigration” and establishment in Palestine of a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth.