The Pittsburgh Press (April 26, 1941)
U.S. NAVY PATROLS TO GIVE ‘SAFE CONDUCT’ FOR WAR AID
…
American planes and warships will keep watch on Axis raiders, report positions to British convoys in new plan to stop loss of munitions
…
By John A. Reichmann, United Press staff writer
Washington, April 26 –
The Navy’s extended patrol of an Atlantic “safety zone” was expected today to concentrate on maintaining a “safe channel” across much of the Atlantic for ships carrying supplies to Britain.
As informed officials understood the plan, American military planes and warships will criss-cross this channel, which will be a few hundred miles wide, tagging marauding submarines or suspicious surface ships and advising cargo ships how to dodge them.
Emphasizing the administration’s statement that this is not a way of convoying Britain-bound ships, the cargo ships will proceed through the area separately, each according to its best abilities.
Extent of patrol
The patrol was expected to extend at least as far toward Britain as the longitude of Greenland, where the United States is moving to take action against any German forces stationed there. Mr. Roosevelt said yesterday that Axis forces may be in Greenland now, although he is not certain.
It was learned that the forces in question are a German survey and weather observation party that landed in Greenland about four months ago and were still there at the time the United States signed a pact to defend the island.
A similar party previously had set up a meteorological station in Greenland, but had been ejected by Danish authorities.
Clue to plan of action
Officials were unable to say whether the second party is in Greenland at the moment. But Mr. Roosevelt said plainly that if they are, the United States will counteract them. He did not specify just what steps would be taken.
A possible clue to the nature of this action was contained in the comment of Senator Tom Connally (D-TX), a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who said:
If Nazi military and naval forces should undertake to seize any part of Greenland, I’d be in favor of instructing the Navy to eject them. I regard Greenland as a part of the Western Hemisphere, which we are pledged to defend.
Legal hazards unimportant
Mr. Connally and other administration officials would not hazard an opinion on what repercussions such a move would produce, but some quarters pointed out that under the defense pact with Greenland, the United States could stand on legalistic grounds.
The plan for cutting a swathe across the North Atlantic with a naval patrol is a refinement of a previously reported idea of operating the American “neutrality patrol” in 300-mile areas circumscribing the new bases in Greenland and Newfoundland.
Under the new plan, vessels and aircraft in the North Atlantic patrol would cover a sweeping route which probably would take them a considerable distance across the Atlantic – most likely to points near where the British have encountered the largest depredations on their overseas supply lines, U.S. warships and planes would work out of Navy bases, including those in Newfoundland and Greenland.
Free British vessels
The British thus could concentrate the bulk of their battle strength in the infested waters near their islands.
The patrol would operate in approximately this fashion:
Battleships, destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers and patrol bombers would ply back and forth along a channel generally 200 miles wide. The patrol would report its observations “in plain English” by radio, thus keeping all merchant ships with radios on the route fully informed of what conditions were.
To all practical intent and purposes the system would maintain a clear sea highway, in which unescorted vessels would have reasonably safe passage at all times. Upon reaching areas where sinkings have been the most numerous, they would be joined by British warships for the rest of the voyage.
Departure from convoys
Such a protective system would be the first tactical departure from the method of convoys – that is, the protection of cargo vessels by constantly escorting warships.
Officials acquainted with details of the proposed setup said that in event a patrolling ship found Axis vessels, ships of superior firepower and speed would be detailed to dog them and report their movements – “in plain English,” not in code.
British warships could, in such instances, move in on the enemy ships.
Official sources admitted that there were risks attached to this proposed patrol system. But they pointed out that as in other instances of “short-of-war” moves to aid nations fighting the Axis, the issue of peace or war with this country rests upon the decision of Germany and Italy “to make something of it.”
Without legal precedent
In enunciating the right of the United States to maintain patrols wherever necessary to protect the security of the Western Hemisphere, Mr. Roosevelt said the present neutrality patrol is being extended. If it is necessary to defend this hemisphere, he added, the patrol could be projected into the Seven Seas.
Experts on international law evinced considerable interest in his differentiation between convoys and patrols. They said international law contains no mention of “patrols,” as outlined by Mr. Roosevelt, and that he therefore appears to be moving without legal precedent.
The use of patrols rather than convoys was expected to ease some of the tension in Congressional circles, although some non-interventionist leaders like Senator Gerald P. Nye (R-ND) put patrols and convoys into the same category.
Next week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will act on the resolution of Senator Charles W. Tobey (R-NH) to outlaw the use of American warships to convoy foreign vessels. Mr. Connally, describing the proposed legislation as “purely negative,” predicted that it was “certain to be defeated,” as the administration has an “unquestioned majority.”