OCR Text |
Show General Johnson Jour: Uuu Fauna Jf WNV fcnto After Winter's Breathing Spell Look for Terrific Air Fighting . . . We Need National Defense Inquiry. By HUGH S. JOHNSON WASHINGTON.- The experience of winter war in Finland does not indicate a likelihood of any immediate imme-diate change from the present strange standstill war anywhere. Few great offensives have ever been begun in winter and few great battles bat-tles fought. The world Is almost sure to have a breathing spell, but the coming of spring threatens terrible things. I don't believe that Goering was bluffing in his New Year message. Nobody ought to prophesy, but how can the spring of 1940 be anything other than now-or-nevcr for the little lit-tle handful of scoundrels at the head of the Nazi party and government? In a war purely of economic strangulation, they cannot possibly win. Furthermore, their gradual relative weakening and their constant con-stant Inaction makes less and less likely any kind of negotiated peace that, politically, they could afford to sign. The only thing that I can think of that will avert a terrible ordeal in the air no later than April is something that could happen within Germany to change its government. That there may be a popular uprising up-rising against the Hitlcr-Gocring gang I am told is most unlikely. But the life of no tyrant or even group of tyrants is ever secure. Assassination is not in the books as part of modern war methods. But when one single warped individual individ-ual holds over the head of the whole world so much misery, danger and death, who would question divine providence if something like that should happen to Adolf? WASHINGTON. I frequently do not agree with Oswald Garrison Vil-lard. Vil-lard. I emphatically do not agree with many of the things said In his latest book, "Our Military Chaos." I can't support many of his conclusions, con-clusions, but I have long supported his principal one which is that we need an impartial non-partisan, extra-governmental commission to look into the question of national defense. In summing up his own book, he says in the main, truly: "It has shown (1) that we have no defense policy whatever; (2) that all our expenditures ex-penditures bear no relation whatever what-ever (?) to an established military program; (3) that we are asking the impossible of the army and navy since we do not tell what to defend or how or where to defend it; (4) that there can be no adequate defense de-fense policy set up until there is a decision as to what our foreign policy pol-icy is to be, until our objectives are defined; (5) that the primary defense de-fense problem for the United States is as to whether we are only to defend de-fend our shores or prepare again to fight abroad; (6) that, because of the failure to define what we shall to defend, our policies, notably in the Pacific, vary from year to year, almost from hour to hour; (7) that until that is settled we are adding to our vast expenditures without the slightest guarantee that those outlays out-lays make for a saner or better defense de-fense . . .; (8) that there are grave faults in the organization of the war and navy departments and (9) that they fail to co-operate with each other; (10) that although no less than seven billions have been spent for defense since the fiscal year 1934-35 the war department admits amazing shortage in supplies of fundamental fun-damental importance; (11) that there is no hope of balancing a normal nor-mal budget without putting a definite limit to the increase of army and navy expenditures now fast approximating approxi-mating two billions of dollars, etc." There Is no room here to point out some of the inaccuracies, overemphasis over-emphasis and conclusions, but in a general way, I strongly feel that the book does bring ample documentation docu-mentation and authority to establishing estab-lishing what he here says it proves. A commission inquiry is imperative. impera-tive. If it finds that this column and Mr. Villard's book are wrong, it will be a splendid vindication which I, for one, would welcome. If it finds that we are only partly right, the country ought to know it. General Marshall, chief of staff, has just said that in spite of these billions, our defense Is not 25 per cent effective. He charges it to the historians and he is right in his reasons, but there are other culprits. I would shudder to see a careful compilation of comparative unit costs per soldier or per ton of shipping ship-ping as between our own and the armies and navies of all other nations. na-tions. It would shock the country. It is no fault of army and navy officers. It is true that congress has not recently been niggardly, but there are plenty of reasons in congress and politics for this cockeyed cock-eyed extravagance. It didn't make so much difference in former years that we paid more than was necessary for defense. We had the money and the need was less. That is no longer true. The worst disposition of this administration administra-tion is to do things without computing comput-ing tneir cost. We are gatting to the end of that rope. |