How Short of War?

1

The Pittsburgh Press (October 20, 1940)

How Short of War? —
AMERICA IS NOW AN ALLY OF BRITAIN IN ALL EXCEPT FIGHTING
…
Neutrality Has Been Scrapped for Non-Belligerency, And Danger of Actual Military Involvement Looms as We Increase Our Aid
…

This country is no longer neutral. It is “non-belligerent.”

It is engaged in certain enterprises which are called “short of war.”

But how short is this “short of war?” Does it mean we are a little way off, or that we’re on the brink?

Nobody knows. Congressmen can’t find out. When they ask how much of our war equipment is being sent abroad, the War Department refuses to tell.

Are we going to let England have some of our flying fortresses? No answer. Will the bomb sight be released? No answer.

We’re flying blind. And we may be flying hell-bent into the conflict.

Herewith is the first of a series of articles on the general question, “How short of War?” It attempts to survey the steps we have taken and those which may be contemplated in relation to the war.

By Ludwell Denny, Scripps-Howard Staff Writer

Washington, Oct. 19 –

How short is “short of war?” That limit, which President Roosevelt once placed on our help top Britain, is beginning to disappear.

Not that Washington wants war. But the Administration is moving rapidly toward the policy of “all necessary help to Britain,” regardless of the cost – war if necessary.

Despite the Neutrality Act, months ago we ceased to be neutral in fact and became a non-belligerent ally of Britain. As such we can give more effective help than as a direct military participant. For she is absolutely dependent on our supplies and equipment, and does not need lour men. Not yet, at least.

But she does need our Navy in the Pacific. And that is where it is being kept.

Maximum U.S. Aid

For the moment, therefore, Britain is receiving maximum United States aid. At this period in the conflict any change in American status would injure Britain by reducing her supplies. Not only would American military involvement in Europe (utterly impracticable at the moment) weaken Britain, but even an American-British naval war with Japan would cut down American supplies for the all-important defense of England, Gibraltar and Suez.

But this situation is not permanent.

We may go to war.

Next year, the problem of adequate supplies for both Britain and the United States may be solved, allowing Britain to take the offensive on the continent (unless there is peace before). She would then need our Air Corps, part of our Navy, and probably our Army, in Europe as in 1917. Military experts do not think Britain alone could re-conquer Europe from Hitler. Thus the alternative might be either American military action in Europe or a negotiated peace.

Hitler May Decide

But the possibility of direct American military involvement on the continent is distant, many months at least.

The present danger and uncertainty restless with London-Washington policy than with decisions in Berlin and Tokyo. For the London-Washington policy is known, while Berlin and Tokyo have not made up their minds what they are going to do about it.

The London-Washington policy is to increase American material aid and eventual credit to England, and to hold as much as possible in the Far East. But for the same reason London and Washington do not want to fight in the Far East, Hitler would profit by an American-Japanese war.

Moreover, Hitler might gain by drawing us into a war status with Germany in our present unprepared state. In terms of the next 12 months we doubtless hurt Hitler more as a non-belligerent ally than we would as a belligerent arming ourselves instead of Britain.

Hitler at any time can cease treating us as a neutral because of our military alliance with Canada, and the transfer of part of our Navy to Britain. Doubtless he assumes we will be in the war anyway if it lasts. If eventually, why not now while we are unprepared – particularly if we can be made to fight where we are weakest, far from home, and where Japan rather than Germany would take us on?

Japan In Trouble

Fortunately for us, it is not so simple for Tokyo as for Hitler. True, Japan is now more than our naval equal in her own battle area, even if we dared forget our Atlantic defenses. But Japan still has a very big China war on her hands. And a traditional Russian enemy is on her flank.

So an American-Japanese war now would be not only madness for us and Britain, it probably would be suicide for Japan.

The danger is that the war-religion of the Japanese militarists may drive them to an insane “incident” involving the United States. That danger is multiplied because Hitler, who brought Japan into his new anti-American axis, would profit by engaging our ships and supplies by proxy far from the Battle of Britain.

As long as Britain fights, the United States – certainly under Mr. Roosevelt and probably under Wendell Willkie – will aid her increasingly at home and in the Pacific. If Hitler and Premier Konoye of Japan decide to interpret that as war, it will be war.

U.S. Not Bluffing

Mr. Roosevelt has bluffed many times. But there is no evidence he is bluffing now. Berlin and Tokyo should understand that.

They should not misinterpret the fact that many American Army and Navy officers, Congressmen, and public leaders would prefer to concentrate on our own preparedness and on hemisphere defense, and that they fear the Roosevelt policy of sending planes and ships to England and risking our main fleet in the Far Pacific. Regardless of such disagreement, Roosevelt policy rules.

The phrase “short of war” is dangerously misleading. The Kaiser would not have invaded Belgium in 1914 had he known that Britain would fight; Hitler marched on Poland believing that Neville Chamberlain would appease again.

Hitler and Konoye should know that Mr. Roosevelt will not retreat, that there will be war if they force it.

NEXT – Britain’s frontier is on our assembly line.

3 Likes
2

The Pittsburgh Press (October 21, 1940)

How Short Of War? —
U.S. STRIPS ITSELF OF ARMS TO EXTEND MORE AID TO BRITAIN
…
Planes, Tanks and Munitions Remain “On Order” Because the Bulk of What We Make Is Being Rushed Abroad to Help Our Ally
…

American is a non-belligerent ally of Great Britain today – an active participant in the war except for fighting.

And can she keep from fighting?

The answer to that question rests on a definition which nobody knows – a definition of how far “short” is in “measures short of war.”

This is the second of a series of articles discussing these measures, and how they involve the United States as an active material ally and possibly a military ally of England.

…
By Ludwell Denny, Scripps-Howard Staff Writer

Washington, Oct. 21 –

Our desperately needed planes, tanks and munitions remain largely “on order,” instead of “on hand,” because Britain gets most of them.

Arming Britain is placed ahead of arming ourselves. This is not an Congressional policy but is dictated by President Roosevelt. Wendell Willkie has underwritten it in general. Public-opinion polls seem to support it.

The justification is that “Britain is fighting our battle.” This theory is rejected or only partly accepted by many military officers and Congressmen, who think the Western Hemisphere is a large enough frontier without adding England and the Far Pacific – at least until we are armed . But the President is Commander-in-Chief.

These objectors admit, however, that what the United States is losing in preparedness today it may gain a year or two hence. Then when we are scheduled to begin full production for ourselves instead of Britain, we may have the largest productive capacity in the world plus the latest models.

Meanwhile, under the new Anglo-American alliance, we are making the grave sacrifice of allowing another to take our needed arms.

That may sound strange to those accustomed to think of sacrifice in terms only of sending our men to fight. But it is a fact that our men would be a useless burden to Britain, while our arms have saved her from invasion since France fell and are relied upon to save her during coming months.

Britain’s need for supplies, instead of men, is so serious that Canada is revamping her military training plan to avoid slowing down her small armament production. Of course, our larger production is all the more important.

Because the few thousand British pilots fighting off Hitler’s blitzkrieg depend on our factories, the description of American help as “short of war” becomes meaningless. American war participation today, whatever it is called, is actually more effective in stopping Hitler than were the millions of French, Dutch and Belgian troops. Britain’s frontier is on the American assembly line.

Tools Hold the Balance

This is recognized by Hitler no less than by Winston Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt.

Although the value of our help to Britain cannot be measured in money, its scope is at least suggested by figures – about $2 billion worth of exports to the empire since the war began, and from $3–3.5 billion estimated for the next year. In addition to planes and engines, this includes such military essentials as munitions, steel, scrap and machine tools.

Nowhere has our sacrifice been larger, and our contribution to British survival greater, than in machine tools. They are more important than planes, engines and tanks, because they are the machines which make all the other machines.

Now that Nazi bombers are concentrating on British aviation and armament factories, American machine replacements and improvements even more than ever hold the balance. Although our machine-tool industry is the largest in the world, having increased capacity by more than one-third in the last year, it cannot meet the demand for our own vast preparedness program because of British preferences.

Huge Supplies to Britain

Scrap-steel purchases by Britain and Canada have been 50% larger than those of Japan. Though our own consumption had jumped from a rate of 18 to 48 million tons a year and conservation is needed, the new embargo does not touch Britain.

Our high-grade aviation gasoline goes to England through the convenient Canadian loophole in the nominal embargo. And dozens of deadly gadgets, recently considered official military secrets, have been released to our “ally.”

Indeed there is virtually complete pooling of technical skill with Britain on planes, engines, tanks, and the like; and an increasing degree of standardization. This is necessary if our factories are to produce for us after British needs are satisfied.

Agreement on such standardization recently put an order for 4,000 British tanks into production, and has played a big part in engine plans.

No Plane For Training

In planes the British priority is carried to such an extreme that pilots of a crack U.S. Army pursuit squadron recently complained that they were unable to get even one of the newest planes for training purposes. The Knudsen statement that Britain is to get 40% of plane production, compared with 60% for our military forces, is somewhat misleading because he neglected to say when.

Now Britain is getting an estimated 80% – our share will come later, and with trainers long before fighters and bombers. Britain is now receiving more than 500 planes a month, with 1,000 a month expected by February, and 3,000 a month by mid-1942. The newest fighter plane makes 400 mph (compared with 360 for the best European), and has more than double the best European cruising range.

Bombers are even more important to England, because she has fewer. What she wants most is our long-range Flying Fortresses, of which she has none. They would enable her to blast the now-untouched Nazi armament centers of Silesia and Czechoslovakia.

NEXT – Sacrificing Flying Fortresses and naval vessels.

3 Likes
3

The Pittsburgh Press (October 22, 1940)

How Short of War? —
U.S. DEFENSE STRIPPED TO HELP BRITAIN
…
Bombers and Subs May Go Next to Strengthen Our New Ally
…

This is the third of a series discussing America’s status as a non-belligerent ally of Great Britain, engaged in measures “short of war” and attempting to answer the question how “short” it is.

…
By Ludwell Denny, Scripps-Howard Staff Writer

Washington, Oct. 22 –

More of our Navy and of our Air Force will be turned over to Britain, according to Congressional reports.

Senators, who failed to prevent President Roosevelt from disposing of 50 destroyers, are now frantically seeking means to stop the reported new deals. Many are convinced that some of our precious Army Flying Fortresses and comparable Navy giant bombers already have gone the way of the destroyers.

There is no way to get the truth. White House denials of the destroyer plan did not prevent that deal. Now the Administration is not talking.

General Marshall, when asked recently if more Army equipment was on the way to Britain and Canada, replied:

Not at this time.

Congress in the Dark

Congress cannot get an answer. The Lodge resolution points out that the British note on the destroyer deal implied that additional Army and Navy material is to follow.

The Administration even refuses to tell Congress the amount of such equipment already turned over to Britain. General Marshall refused to give this information to Representative Van Zandt (R-PA), “because its release is believed to be contrary to the public interest.”

From other “authoritative sources” the Congressman learned that in the first year of the war, the President released to the Allies:

  • 2,200 planes from the Army, Navy and Marine Corps;
  • 500,000 rifles and 150,000,000 rounds of ammunition;
  • 70,000 machine guns;
  • 6,000 field-artillery guns.

Since then the President has provided Canada with 250 of our World War tanks for training purposes.

London Demands More

According to the William Allen White Committee for more help to Britain, one out of every four of the troops in England is outfitted with U.S. Army equipment.

On top of Army and Navy supplies, ranging from destroyers, planes and tanks to small-arms ammunition, and despite the fact that Britain get priority over our Army and Navy in many American aviation factories, London is demanding more. First she wants as many as possible of the 300 planes built here for Sweden, and the 100 for France now in Martinique.

After Britain requested the planes intended originally for Sweden, it was learned that about half the planes would be sold to the Canadian Air Force. The other half will be retained by the U.S. Army Air Corps.

Sir Walter Leighton, after talking with President Roosevelt, publicly declared:

We need more – ships, guns, airplanes and everything." As we shall see, that “everything” is a pretty big order.

To what extent the President will continue his policy of giving British preference over our own largely unarmed military forces, on the theory that she is fighting our battle for us, is anybody’s guess. But doubtless the President as Commander-in-Chief will continue to do as he thinks best regardless of Congressional maneuvers to stop him.

Senators, including the chairman of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, argue that international law, Congressional law, and Navy Department opposition failed to prevent Mr. Roosevelt from disposing of the destroyers.

Under the Hague Treaty, we agreed that:

The supply in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral power to a belligerent power, of warships, ammunition or war material of any kind whatever, is forbidden.

In the Panama Convention, inspired by us, we agreed against “the fitting out or arming of any ship or vessel to be employed in the service of one of the belligerents.”

Congress twice this summer reaffirmed our law against disposal of any war vessel to a belligerent – once in the Defense Act amendment refusing to change that original 1917 prohibition, and later in banning the sale to Britain of the new naval mosquito boats.

In June, the Acting Secretary of the Navy testified in opposition to the destroyer disposal, on the ground of our own defense necessity. Since then, of course, the Navy has been brought into line by the President.

Britain Wants Subs

No Britain is asking for any Navy equipment she can get. She is interested in submarines. The Navy is reconditioning 36 old ones, in addition to the 81 building and 104 in first-line service.

But London is most interested in the Navy’s giant long-range bombers (PBYs and PBMs) and the Army’s Flying Fortresses. These are more essential to the United States than fighters and small bombers, because they can meet an invader 1,200 miles beyond their sea bases. Long and elaborate training is required for the crews of these mighty ships of the air, and now we have too few for patrol and training purposes.

How many of the 1,100 Flying Fortresses desired by the Army are now on hand is a matter of dispute. Senator Lodge, a reserve officer, says only 46 effectives – and Britain wants 32 of those. So desperate is the Army need, it is flying them from the factory with borrowed engines.

But Britain pleads that he has no long-range bombers. Without them she can neither reach the Nazi armament factories of Silesia and Czechoslovakia, nor hold her own in Africa and the Near East.

As for the British tank request, our two lone armored divisions are less than half-armed. Her demand for a quarter-million more rifles probably will be granted.

NEXT – Moves to Repeal the Neutrality and Johnson No-Credit Laws.

3 Likes
4

I got to say Norman, you are probably the most prolific poster on the forum. This is the first time in a while that I’m caught-up with them. Great Job as always!:+1:

3 Likes
5

The Pittsburgh Press (October 23, 1940)

How Short of War? —
U.S. MEN AND CREDIT WILL HELP BRITAIN
…
Wave of Propaganda Sweeps Us Toward More Assistance
…

America, in a single year, had changed from the status of a neutral nation to that of a non-belligerent ally of England. This is the fourth of a series of stories discussing how short of war are the enterprises in which this government is engaged.

…
By Ludwell Denny, Scripps-Howard Staff Writer

Washington, Oct. 23 –

When American credits and ships are needed, Britain will get them, And probably men, too. This is the growing belief in Washington.

Just as the Administration was able to de-neutralize the Neutrality Act by raising the arms embargo, so Franklin D. Roosevelt or Wendell Willkie probably will be able to kick out “cash and carry” when the time comes.

The fact that the White House has not yet supported publicly the King Bill to repeal the Neutrality Act and Johnson Act bans on credit to Britain is a matter of timing. And Britain is in no hurry.

Even that need has not yet developed. General Strong, after investigating on the spot, reported to the President that Britain’s pilot supply equaled her name supply. As her American plane supply increases, so will her pilot supply from her Dominion training camps. British civilians can train on our southern air fields if Canada gets too cold, under the White House plan.

Aviators Enlisting

If Britain needs American pilots, the President has opened the way. Several hundred crack American fliers already are fighting in England or training men in Canada. The President has approved this so long as they do not take an oath of allegiance to King George, and His Majesty has agreed. Nothing prevents several hundred or thousands more from going, when they are wanted.

Nothing, that is, except that there are few left here. Our Army does not know where to get the instructors for that mighty “on paper” Air Corps of our own. The President may grant the British request for our big bomber aces – Army and Navy officers who have mastered our Flying Fortresses and corresponding seaplanes.

Long before Britain need American infantry and artillery, she will require our ships to carry military equipment and food. Thanks chiefly to our ship sales to her, our merchant marine is now smaller than when the war began, despite the large building program (100 Maritime Commission contracts let during the year and 44 deliveries).

Buys Private Craft

Our Navy had brought more than 100 private craft to use as auxiliaries,. our Army and Navy together require 1,000 for war. Will the President give Britain priority in merchant ships, as he has done in destroyers and planes?

Officially, Britain says she had more merchant tonnage after a year of war than at the beginning. Admitting that the Nazis sank 8% of her tonnage, she says she more than offset that by capture, building and purchase. But now her losses are mounting, and the Mediterranean conflict forces her Indian and Far Eastern supplies to make the long detour around South Africa.

So the “carry” part of the American “cash and carry” law is more serious than the credit ban. Already she is maneuvering for American ships and convoys.

On the credit sale, the stories that she is short of cash are propaganda. Readily available British resources at the beginning of the war were estimated b y the Federal Reserve Board at about $5 billion (central gold reserves, dollar balances, and negotiable securities), plus $1.5 billion of direct investments here. During the first year of war, she let contracts here for about $2 billion, with an estimated $3-3.5 billion for the second year.

Propaganda At Work

But her $75 million output of newly-mined gold – for which we maintain an artificial market and price – more than offset her $700 million unfavorable trade balance for the year. Thus the National City Bank estimates that “only a comparatively small part of the five billion of liquid dollar assets and hold held at the beginning of the war has been paid out,” and that “the ability of the Empire to finance heavy purchases here is not yet strained.”

Nevertheless, British propaganda agencies are busy preparing the way for American financing. Already it is bad form to mention her default on the $5.5 billion debt still due us. The argument for new credit is the same used before the last war: That it means work for the American jobless, and profits for business and farmers; that it helps our preparedness by creating war industries; that Britain is fighting our war for us.

If repeal of the Neutrality and Johnson Act bans on British credit unexpectedly fails, then Canada (already untouched by the latter) doubtless will be exempted from the former.

Indirect Financing

Meanwhile, there are many ways now to finance Britain indirectly, besides providing an unlimited market for her gold mines: Our large purchases from her of tin and rubber reserves, Canadian plant investment by American firms, American purchase of Canadian pre-war bonds, American expenditures on the new British-U.S. bases, the plan for Argentina to sell to Britain on credit and discount the paper here.

When it comes to wholesale American financing of Britain there are always her Pacific bases which she wants us to protect under her flag. For that privilege we can cancel her $5.5 billion debt and advance or give her an equal amount. That is discussed.

NEXT – The Anglo-American Alliance and Proposed “Union.”

2 Likes
6

The Pittsburgh Press (October 24, 1940)

How Short of War? —
UNITED STATES NOW HAS WAR ALLIANCE WITH BRITAIN
…

This is the last of a series of stories entitled “How Short of War?”. America has become a non-belligerent ally of Britain, stripping its own defense of ships, guns, planes, ammunition and other supplies to help her win the war. Today’s article discusses what is actually a military alliance between this country and Great Britain.

…
By Ludwell Denny, Scripps-Howard Staff Writer

Washington, Oct. 24 –

As Britain’s military ally in this hemisphere, and in the Atlantic and Pacific, we are in a state of potential war with the Axis Powers.

We are officially defending Canada and seven other British possessions at war with Germany. We are supplying U.S. Army and Navy equipment to belligerent Britain, usually considered participation in war.

No longer does President Roosevelt limit our aid to Britain to methods “short of war.” He now warns the Axis that we will fight if it tries to stop our war aid to Britain.

Although this policy was inherent in our new military alliance with Britain at war, it was not formally stated by the President until October 12 at Dayton. He said:

No combination of dictator countries of Europe and Asia will halt us in the path we see ahead for ourselves and for democracy. No combination of dictator countries of Europe and Asia will stop the help that we are giving to almost the last free people now fighting to hold them at bay. Our course is clear. Our decision is made.

He added that the United States’ commitment is not limited to this hemisphere:

And when we speak of defending this Western Hemisphere, we are speaking not only of the territory of North and Central and South America and the immediately adjacent islands. We include the right o the peaceful use of the Atlantic Ocean and of the Pacific Ocean.

Joint Staff Activity

Peaceful use of the ocean means: (1) Use as defined by the British Navy at war, under which American cargoes and mails now are subject to rigid British control; (2) American challenge of any Axis curtailment of British control of the Atlantic or Pacific.

The Anglo-American military alliance also includes joint military and naval staff activity, sharing military secrets and espionage, close collaboration on the economic and diplomatic fronts, transfer to Britain of thousands of U.S. Army planes and guns and 50 destroyers, besides British priority over American defense orders in our factories.

Are there any limits to America’s commitment in this alliance? What are its full terms? Neither Congress nor the press can find out.

Questions Unanswered

We do not know whether more U.S. Army and Navy planes, guns and ships are promised to England; or whether repeal of the Neutrality and Johnson Act has been pledged. Informed persons say Yes.

We do not know whether we are pledged to send our fleet to Singapore. Informed persons say Yes. We do not know whether we are pledged to fight for continued British supremacy in Burma and India. Officials statements insisting on the status quo in the Far East seem to answer, Yes.

Whatever his intentions may be, the President is taking steps usually preparatory to war such as removing civilians from the Orient, increasing our armed forces there, and cutting down Axis supplies.

Official statements on both sides definitely threaten war.

Premier Konoye says:

If the United States refuses to understand Japan’s intentions in building a new world order in conjunction with Germany and Italy, and persists in challenging them, there will be no other course open but to go to war.

Secretary of the Navy Knox says:

The military alliance of Japan, Germany and Italy is directed at us. American never has tamely submitted to intimidation. If a fight is forced upon us, we shall be ready for them.

Does the Anglo-American alliance involve alliance with China? Obviously, yes, but how extensively we do not know. Does it involve partial alliance with Russia? Apparently that is what London and Washington are offering Moscow.

Union Is Forecast

Does the American-British military alliance not only pledge us to defend the British Empire as “our first line of defense,” but also involve us in the eventual European-African-Asiatic peace settlement? If so, what kind of settlement? The Roosevelt Dayton statement that we “reject the doctrine of appeasement…it is a major weapon of the aggressor nations” seems to rule out any negotiated peace, or an Axis-dictated peace is a peace dictated by the British (or by the Americans and British).

Finally, do its authors intend that semi-secret military alliance shall lead to political union, as proposed by the “Union Now” organizations? When this question was asked in Parliament it was not denied but sympathetically postponed.

When the two governments went into partnership on the Atlantic bases, in preference to the expected American acquisition of those British possessions. Prime Minister Churchill’s explanation was widely interpreted as a forecast of some form of union. He said:

Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organizations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. For my part, looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. No one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, to broader lands and better days.

4 Likes