The Pittsburgh Press (August 3, 1941)
Says that U.S. isolationist group doesn’t understand Americans
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
Robert E. Wood of the America First Committee tells news reporters that four out of five Americans don’t want to get into this war. That isn’t news. Nobody wants to get into this war.
The Norwegians didn’t, nor the Dutch, nor the French, nor any of the countries that have been attacked and conquered. They all agreed with the purely defensive policy advocated by the “America Next Committee.” Just one group of nations did not follow this policy. They were not well-armed. Most of them were a long way from the scene of the fighting, and they don’t want to fight either, but the people of the British Empire went after the enemy. They don’t wait for him to get on their soil.
They fought him wherever they could get at him, and with whatever they had to fight with, and when he came after them in their island headquarters, they licked him in the air. This policy of aggression paid. Hitler has been after the British Empire for almost two years now, but thanks in large part to help from the United States that the isolationists did not want to give, he has got none of it yet.
Those who simply waited to be attacked have been conquered. A defensive policy has been a policy of defeat.
The “America Next Committee” does not understand Americans. That we don’t want to fight to no indication that we will not fight, or are afraid to. A 60 to 20 report by Gallup endorsing the aggressive seizure of Iceland does not sound like the breed had run out yet.
The small nations had excuses for fearing to cooperate with others in joint aggressive action. They were right on Hitler’s doorstep. No such excuse can justify a policy here. There is no sense, in the light of events, for our pretending that our faith in the good judgment and good sense of our neighbors that we call democracy can survive if the dictators overrun all other free societies. Just one force is big enough to stop Hitler, and that is a fighting union of the remaining free countries.
The isolationists have not only opposed helping Britain, but, by and large, they have been against every effort of Americans to help themselves. They were against the naval appropriations two years ago, against the draft, against the destroyer deal, against the securing of bases in the Atlantic, against arming Guam, against taking any aggressive action whatsoever to help ourselves. Now they are for breaking up the Army and releasing half-trained men in a desperately dangerous national situation.
What Wood and Wheeler and Taft and Lindbergh stand for is the line handed out by Goebbels from Berlin.
Don’t do anything to annoy Hitler, and then he won’t, honest to goodness cross my heart, he won’t do anything to hurt you. In fact, if you’re good and stop sending aid to Britain, Mr. Hitler will even sign a perpetual non-aggression pact with you, just like he did with the others.
This doesn’t fool our commander-in-chief. It doesn’t fool our military and naval advisers.
These isolationists aren’t all fools either, and nobody thinks them cowards. Very few people think of them as traitors, but we have listened to them for a long time and what they advocate sounds both foolish and cowardly, and would be disastrous to our national security.
CYRIL J. BATH
Cleveland, OH
Says editorial obscures issue of U.S. war entry
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
The leading editorial in The Press for July 30 seems to obscure the issue upon which our entrance into the war depends. It argues that Mr. Churchill is wrong, or at least should be wrong, in saying that we are on “the very verge of war” for (1) the majority of the American people oppose war, (2) the President’s avowed “policy is to keep us out,” (3) Hitler “has avoided a shooting provocation,” (4) England and Russia are keeping Germany busy, (5) the threat of war with Japan should keep our fleet in the Pacific, and (6) “the Army will not be ready for another year… partly because of British priorities…”
The basic assumption here seems to be the one that has already proved so disastrous for the conquered countries, for England, and even for the United States, that a country can stay out of war unless given the kind of “shooting provocation” that Hitler carefully avoids until he is in a position to win. If we waited for this kind of provocation, we probably should not be in the war very soon – but only because of those “British priorities” that the editorial deplores.
But in the long run, we do not have the option of staying out of war until our ships are sunk or New York is bombed; long before that time, if England is defeated, the encroachments on our possessions, on our trade, on our level of living, on our freedom of enterprise, will force us to fight – just as England was forced to declare war. With an English defeat, our only chance of staying out of the war would be gone, and we should face a hostile world alone.
The President’s policy, apparently, is to work for an English victory as the only possible means of “keeping us out,” but to risk a fight on the side of England rather than fight alone against a totalitarian world. Factors like English and Russian success, the danger of war with Japan, and the state of our army must, of course, influence the practical application of this policy, but they cannot alter the wisdom and, indeed, the necessity of pursuing it.
The imminence of war, therefore, depends on what Germany does as this policy is put into effect. The Atlantic patrol and the occupation of Iceland have not resulted in shooting, but if in order to keep the control of the Atlantic necessary to an English victory, we sent Marines to the Azores or to Dakar, the story might be different. Public opinion has supported the patrol and the landing in Iceland, and if shooting resulted from pursuing this policy further, the majority might well favor a declaration of war.
Thus as long as the government is willing to take advantage of the only possible means of keeping us out of war – that is, by insuring a British victory – our active participation is, paradoxically enough, imminent. But by blurring the central issue and representing our involvement as volitional under static or slowly changing conditions, the editorial confirms that dangerous sense of security which, together with the criticism of the administration that it engenders, has already gone too far to obstruct national defense.
W. P. ALBRECHT
Wilkinsburg, PA
Consumer cooperation system is advocated
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
The National City Bank of New York bulletin said in its June issue:
It is natural that people should look after what they conceive to be their own interests, but regrettable that the definition of self-interest is not broad enough to cover the general welfare, for an advantage gained by one group over others is never more than temporary.
Industry, business, labor and agriculture have all been thinking of their own interests. We reverse this selfish attitude. Think in terms of becoming our brother’s keeper. Cast our bread upon the waters, and the return will be a thousandfold. What system, other than consumers’ cooperation, does this? Why do we keep groping for the answer to the world problem when it is right in our own hands? Join hands as consumers. The vital element of economic control is the free decision of the user to buy in any market he chooses. Build an economy of abundance, and we can blot out the misery and lack of things that drive people to war.
CHARLES HOCK
6201 Station St.
Sees England as world’s leading ‘beggar nation’
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
The English should be ashamed! They have become the No. 1 beggar nation of the world, or is it just that great American boobs that are being circulated until it hurts?
First, in 1918, England had to call on the U.S.A. to save her from complete destruction. Again in 1941, England called for help and the U.S.A. passed the British gimmie bill and now comes a floor of loose-mouthed English propaganda – save England’s children, send us money to buy the English soldiers cigarettes, save England’s maternity hospitals, send us money to buy the English home-guard guns to shoot possible parachute invaders.
We in the U.S. are 100% for seeing Hitler whipped, but we are also 100% for seeing England’s armies begin to do something for her, and for her people, old and young.
When I have money to give for charity, there are plenty of worthy causes crying for need at home. For my part, England and her people can care for their own troubles until they start some token of payment on her debt to the U.S.A.
J. G. FULLMAN
Says press agentry never won a war
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
Roosevelt tried to fight the depression with the alphabet. Now, Churchill is trying to fight Hitler with the letter “V.”
Isn’t Churchill a bit comical? Press agentry never won a war and never will. The “V” campaign is just rubbing defeat in on the common folk of Europe.
THOMAS E. COLL
1216 Kunkle Ave.
Nazi propaganda is seen in Congressional Record
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
Anyone who has kept posted about the official propaganda line emanating from Berlin, through news dispatches, and various other forms of propaganda from all points of the Axis, knows perfectly well that pages upon pages of the Congressional Record are identical with the Nazi “party line.” We have had congressmen and senators in Washington for several years who have been exact echoes of what we have heard straight from Berlin. And the speeches of these men have been faithfully recorded in the Congressional Record, and are there for all to read.
The Congressional Record has become an American source-book of propaganda evolved in Berlin. Hitler has used American civil liberties to introduce ideas that are entirely treasonable to the Constitution of the United States, and the spirit of this nation, into the minutes of our government bodies; and we have senators and congressmen who are more than willing to see that those portions of the Congressional Record are repeated and quoted for and by the citizens of the country, in an effort to prevent them from upholding the government and institutions of the United States.
KATHERINE HAYDEN SALTER
1610 Adams St.
Madison, WI
She’s puzzled by administration’s foreign policy, defense action
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
Citizens are puzzled over the unexplained actions of our Administration at Washington, particularly of the group who have charge of military affairs and defense matters.
We know the part England has played in U.S. history. We know that England collected from Germany to pay for World War No. 1, but neglected to repay the United States the millions she borrowed.
Can anyone explain why, if one is for America First instead of for England, he or she is called a fifth columnist or be accused of treason as was Senator Wheeler? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to suppose that those who are putting England’s welfare first would be the ones to be accused of disloyalty to the United States? Who can tell why if aluminum is getting scarce we should be sending all our planes and materials to England?
Can anyone explain why, if we are in no danger of an attack from Germany, as Charles A. Lindbergh states, that our federal officials should revile Lindbergh, though apparently agreeing to the extent of keeping nothing in this country to defend us?
Who knows why the Lend-Lease bill was so named? Would it be any more possible for England to return used war materials and food supplies than it would be for an individual to “lend-lease” his dinner to another, expect it to be eaten and still returned?
Here is another puzzle, the greatest of all: A month ago, Russia was a despised nation and Communists in the U.S. were being investigated and put in jail with loud cries for the deportation of those who were alien. Now, overnight, they are angels of light. We are trying to “save democracy for the world,” yet we are the only democracy left!
Why don’t we keep our powder dry for our own defense if necessary? Why should the U.S. be expected to rebuild other nations who have deliberately destroyed each other? If a child destroys his toys, parents may buy him new ones after chastising him, and exacting a promise that the child will take care of the new ones. The countries of Europe are just like a bunch of destructive children, but the U.S. is not their father or their mother, but only “Uncle Sap” and not responsible for what they do. We are told to cut down on our children’s milk and butter supply so more can be sent overseas. Those nations should have been producing such things for their children instead of trying to kill each other.
It’s as though a mother should force her child to forego proper food and clothing in order that she may provide for Johnny across the street, whose father won’t work. Many people believe that the U.S. has already been sold out to Britain to become again a colony of the British Empire, else why should Churchill and Lord Halifax dictate the policies of our government?
And why should the people of the U.S. no longer be permitted to vote on important questions as the draft, convoys, and the sending of an A.E.F. overseas?
Perhaps there are satisfactory answers to these questions. After all, we should be reassured by remembrance of our President’s solemn promise:
I say to you again and again and again, you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.
MRS. CLAUDE KENNEDY
Springdale, PA
Views of Pegler on foreign-born seen retarding unity process
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
It seems curious that the Anti-Defamation League and certain “research bureaus,” which allegedly work toward the elimination of prejudice against the foreign-born and racial minorities, do not raise their voice against the columns of Westbrook Pegler, which are outstanding examples of Fascist propaganda in U.S. Or, are these institutions concerned only with the production of the refugees of recent years and let pass the defamation of the millions of naturalized citizens who came here long before the various “isms” were ever heard of?
Pegler advocates Fascistic racial intolerance by his smear campaign against the naturalized citizens of America. He forgets that they represent a large section of the population of America who helped to build the wealth of this nation by hard work and the sweat of their blow. Their absolute loyalty is accepted without question, their taxes are never refused and they are expected to die on the battlefield for the defense of their country as they did in 1917-18. Yet Mr. Pegler does not want them to vote or hold public offices.
About the latter, Pegler need not worry at all! I wish somebody would lend him a powerful microscope to find out how many foreign-sounding names he can discover among the public office holders, not to mention the executives in private industry. Let him scan over the lists of the boards of directors of various companies or the boards of trustees of institutions. The naturalized citizens are seldom allowed to hold more than routine jobs no matter how much executive ability they may possess! The uneducated ones, on the other hand, do usually the hardest manual work avoided by native-born citizens.
Mr. Pegler’s greatest complaint against the foreign-born is that they dare to belong in their own societies and thus “preserve a culture and custom which are not those of the United States.” But Mr. Pegler ought to know that only the American system can be blamed for that, a system encouraging clannishness which is the most undemocratic symptom in our country.
The American people like to belong to all kinds of “exclusive” clubs and societies, many of them veiled in mysterious secrecy, whose purpose is not always entertainment and wholesome recreation, but the promotion of their members into lucrative jobs of all sorts. The foreign-born citizens of America know that they are not welcome in these societies. Is it any wonder then that they keep together and organize their own societies?
Yet Mr. Pegler could easily convince himself that these societies are harmless, that most of them function openly, visited by countless numbers of old stock Americans who enjoy themselves immensely in an atmosphere of old world culture. He would find that the language spoken in these clubs is mostly English and that they should be commended for working toward the speedier Americanization of their members.
I am not trying to defend the refugee aliens who came here in recent years and try to plant into this soil European hatred, blind chauvinism and ancient enmities. Nor do I approve of radical and Fascist-minded organizations advocating intolerance and undermining our democratic institutions. Indeed, they should not be tolerated here for a moment!
However, I do say that the majority of the naturalized American citizens can claim one thing that native Americans cannot claim: that they came here through their own choice during their lifetime. Mr. Pegler is here because his birth put him here, but the ones whom he seems to despise came because they were attracted by the American way of life! Thousands outside of myself could have enjoyed far better incomes in Europe, but were driven here by the chauvinistic hatred rampant in the old world! Individuals like myself, who arrived here with the greatest love and enthusiasm for the American ideals, know that such writings as those of Pegler pave the way toward racial intolerance which we were so glad to leave behind us in Europe.
It is a folly to try Americanization by force in this great melting pot of races. The natural process of assimilation has been progressing so satisfactorily that the children of the foreign-born almost invariably talk back in English to their parents using their native language. In my own family, English is used exclusively, although I speak five foreign languages.
What does all this show? Does it not indicate that a unified nation is here in the making? It is indeed a great pity that some writers retard this natural process by advocating Fascistic ideas such as racial tolerance.
DR. J. J. S. SEBASTIAN
1003 W. Grant Ave.
Duquesne, PA
Says battle for freedom is this country’s also
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
The fact that we live in the United States is a great cause for us to rejoice. We should be thankful that we have a Congress elected by us, who have given their consent to send vital war supplies to Great Britain, fighting to retain her freedom and that of all conquered people against the tyranny of Adolf Hitler.
Maybe you do not have any love for the British. That doesn’t matter. Maybe they are not the most expert fighters, but at least they are trying. Maybe we will never be repaid, but this will also be immaterial, if freedom is restored to all oppressed men. Let us give the British everything within our power to continue their struggle against this slavery, and let us all remember that we have a party in this battle, if we are ever to see freedom and justice triumphant once more.
Our forefathers fought for freedom, and we can never let their faith in us be destroyed by a man whose only purpose in life is to enslave us all. Yet there are many men in the United States who are opposed to paying higher taxes for preserving democracy in this world.
If Great Britain is defeated by the Nazis, we alone will have to continue the battle for freedom against Hitler. We are proud that our government will never allow Hitler to dominate the whole world, and that she will never tolerate a world in which the people are deprived of freedom of speech, press, and religion.
The United States is a great country. She is great only because she does not desire to seize any part of the world and because she grants to all people freedom. The citizens of this country wish to see the world made a better place in which to live, not only for ourselves, but for all people to come.
ELNORA CRAMER
Blairsville, PA