| Show GENERAL HUGH s. s JOHNSON I 4 ted 1 ee Washington D. D 0 c. V WAR AR POSSIBILITIES In a friendly debate with Major George Fielding Eliot on war possibilities possibilities possibilities two of the principal schools of so-called so thought w were re seen in pretty clear profile On a f few w basic guesses there was complete agreement that this country country country coun coun- try is in no danger of invasion in inthe inthe the measurable future that Germany Germany Germany Ger Ger- I many will not be successful in an in invasion invasion in- in ini i vas ion of England this year year and and that that her chance of doing it later will probably decline that there is no prospect that England will England will lose her mastery of the ocean this year So much seems t to td be a pretty general general general gen gen- eral consensus of opinion among fairly well informed students of the problems of war as they affect us Beyond that there is disagree disagree- ment Major Mayor Eliot who is one of the most painstaking of our military critics is also one of the leaders of those who feel that it is to our interest interest interest inter inter- est to keep the war as far away from our shores snores as possible He quotes the authorities to the general effect that the real line of defense of a great sea-power sea is the coastline coastline coastline coast coast- line of its possible enemies Between the two nations as he correctly says is control of every dominating point on all the oceans England itself Gibraltar Suez Aden Singapore Corregidor Capetown Capetown Capetown Cape Cape- town the Falkland islands Panama Panama Panama Pana Pana- ma Honduras Hawaii and all the great American bases on both coasts Coupled with the superiority superior superior- ity of the two taro fleets he thinks no noland noland noland land power can at length prevail To all this he adds and his adversaries adversaries adversaries adver adver- saries agree that England alone could never retake on land the German German German Ger Ger- man conquests in northern Europe that it could be done if at all only with a new of millions which he does not favor and that Russia is no great threat on the German east flank To most of that the opposing argument argument argument ment is OK but how is the warthen warthen war warthen then to be won by Britain His premises leave only the one answer and he makes it frankly frankly economic economic strangulation of Europe by a British blockade and battering of Germany from the air naval frustration of Japan in in Asia and the Indies Economic The opponents say Economic strangulation unaccompanied by military attack never yet won a war A combination of both did beat our Confederacy and whip Germany In m 1918 In both cases it was a long slow process In this case without constant military pressure requiring of any enemy the consumption of tremendous quantities of scant supplies supplies supplies sup sup- plies it would be interminable and extremely doubtful of result Furthermore Furthermore Furthermore Fur Fur- since we are undertaking to finance this world-wide world military I naval and economic strategy and to become not only the arsenal but the larder banker guardian and good neighbor to half a world it would work our economic ruin It is another another another an an- other great experiment noble in motive but it takes in too much territory for even our resources If we perfect our own defenses and shorten our lines our naval military and air strength will be multiplied in comparison with a strategy of buttering them thin so I Iacross across the whole globe We can become become become be be- come impregnable Half Hall a planet is enough for one nation to undertake to finance and defend The difference difference difference differ differ- ence in cost is tens of billions The difference in risk of war and disaster disaster disaster dis dis- aster is immeasurable Aid Britain Britain Britain Brit Brit- ain Yes up to two very definite limits That it does not weaken our own defense that it does not involve us in a world-wide world war the cause of which we cant can't control The Eliot argument does docs both There are two proposals You pays your money and you takes your our choice e e CONVOY SHIPS TO BRITAIN We are going to convoy ships carrying carrying carrying car car- aid to Britain There is not much doubt that a provision in the lend lease-lend bill prohibiting the President President President dent from using American armed forces on the high seas to protect American property properly would be an unconstitutional unconstitutional unconstitutional un un- un- un constitutional congressional interference interference interference ence with his constitutional power as in commander hief of the armed forces Except for some psychological psychological psychological psycho psycho- logical popular effect it would be useless null nul and void Just now popular opinion is so much against convoys which would be a direct venture into war that it probably would not be attempted at present But a most skillful job has been done of leading popular opinion closer and closer to war and also of so timing action as notto notto not notto to offend it It is easy to see sec how a change to favor convoys could oc oc- cur Some time later in the year our industrial mobilization will begin to disgorge vast quantities of supplies The British demand for them will be great The lease lease-I lend lease nd bill will be a law and there will be no financial or other hindrance to sending pending them Also Hitler's major effort to blockade blockade blockade block block- ade Britain on and under the sea will be at its peak and cargo sink sink- ings will multiply Then we shall hear Are we just building ships and supplies for Hitler Hitler Hitler Hit Hit- ler to sink A ton of supplies on the docks of Liverpool can help win this war |
