September 24, 2017

1949. Simmering Tensions Over the Ruhr

Occupation Authority is Tested
Protest in East Berlin against the Occupation Statute of Germany on February 11, 1949 (source)
Bill Downs

CBS Berlin

January 12, 1949

Three American airlift fliers were killed early this morning when their C-54 returning from Berlin crashed near the Rhine-Main airport at Frankfurt.

Authorities are investigating the cause of the accident, which occurred shortly after one AM as the plane was coming in for a landing. Visibility was bad at the time, and there was a light snow falling. Names of the casualties are being withheld pending notification of the next of kin.

This morning's deaths brings the total number of men killed flying over the Russian blockade to thirty-three—twenty-six Americans and seven British.

The British military government declared today that seven Ruhr Germans who agreed to work on the dismantling of the Bochum steel plant and then refused would be prosecuted in a British military court. The seven were part of a crew of twenty-one hired by the British reparations commission to tear down the drop forge section of the plant. German workers at the big steel plant are resisting the dismantling, claiming it will throw them out of jobs. The trials will be the first prosecuting civil disobedience.

A dozen Germans showed up for work today. German police are standing by, however there have been no disturbances—strictly passive resistance. Yesterday two presses, valued at fifty-thousand marks, were removed from the factory. The case is being carefully followed by the Germans. It is a serious test of occupation authority in one of the most important industrial areas of Europe. The Ruhr is being planned as a mainstay of the European Recovery Program.

And a footnote. The Harnack House, the fanciest officer and civilian club in Berlin, last night reversed itself and voted that if frauleins can be guests of the club, then enlisted men can be guests too. That settles that.

This is Bill Downs in Berlin. Now back to CBS in New York.

September 23, 2017

1942. Two Ignominious Anniversaries for Fascist Italy

Mussolini's Italy Comes to the Fore
"Greek Army soldiers use a rangefinder to target invading enemy Italian positions in the Pindus mountain range during the Greco-Italian War" (source)
Bill Downs

CBS London

October 28, 1942

Today is an Italian anniversary—the anniversary of two events that rank high in the history of world infamy.

It was twenty years ago today that Benito Mussolini made his abortive march on Rome and established a dictatorship that has put a tarnish on the glory that was Rome.

Then it was two years ago today that this same Benito Mussolini attacked Greece. This attack accomplished just one thing. It made heroes of the Greek people and lowered the Italian people in the eyes of the civilized world to depths unwitnessed since the Dark Ages.

It is significant, therefore, on this anniversary of Fascist ignominy, that it was revealed Greek troops are in the battle against the German and Italian forces in Egypt.

This is the first direct evidence of the United Nations fulfilling their promise to the conquered nations of Europe that Allied military might will assure their restoration.

But it is more than that. At this moment, it would appear Italy has become the main military objective in the United Nations' fight against the Axis. Ever since the American envoy to the Vatican, Myron Taylor, returned to the United States, Italy has come more and more into the news.

The RAF has pounded the Northern Italy industrial area. The seas around the Italian boot have been subject to heavier and heavier aerial and submarine attack. Both Britain and America have poured propaganda in ever-expanding force in their radio broadcasts to Italy.

In the coming weeks of the Egyptian offensive, it will be a good idea for you to keep a close eye on Mussolini's Italy. The way the wind appears blowing, the Allies are going to make it as difficult as possible for him to play whipping-boy to Hitler.

For the first time in this war, it would appear that Britain and America are going to try the old reliable strategy of divide and conquer.

September 22, 2017

1967. Public Confidence in Congress Continues to Drop

Congress' Ethical Dilemma
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (center) with President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew for a luncheon, January 29, 1969 (source)
Bill Downs

ABC Washington

March 8, 1967

Remember the deep freeze and the vicuña coat which put so much publicity and heat on the Truman and Eisenhower administrations?

And remember all the righteous wrath and tongue-clicking speeches about morality in government that floated down from Capitol Hill at the time as senators and congressmen piously deplored the questionable ethics of the opposition party?

Well today, as often happens in official Washington, the tables have been turned—and the heat's now on the US Congress, which finally is becoming concerned about "the imperfect image" of the US Senate and the House of Representatives in the public mind.

The case of Adam Clayton Powell may have precipitated the present concern on Capitol Hill about the overall moral climate in the national legislature. But the loss of reputation has been many years in the working, as indicated by a recent Gallup poll that really shook up the current Congress.

The Gallup people asked Americans across the country whether they thought their senators and representatives misused government money as a fairly common practice. Only 21 percent of those polled expressed complete faith in the honesty of the men they elected to Washington. 19 percent said they didn't know. And a whopping 60 percent allowed as how the misuse of public money by members of Congress was a fairly common thing.

Both Republican and Democratic leaders are worried about a so-called "crisis in confidence" in the Congress. And they expect the situation to get worse before it gets better. This Powell case will be kept in the public eye through the New York congressman's legal efforts to force the House of Representatives to seat him, and also through the special election in Harlem next month.

And on Monday the question of congressional morality again will make headlines when the Senate Ethics Committee reopens its investigation of Connecticut's Senator Thomas Dodd, who is accused of converting political campaign funds to his personal use. Dodd denies the charges.

Most Democrats and Republicans agree that it's impossible to codify integrity or legislate propriety. Over the decades, both the House and the Senate have established precedents which allow members with big oil holdings to promote legislation benefiting the petroleum industry. Congressmen who own big farms can sit on key committees and vote major price supports for crops they raise on their own land. Bankers can sit on committees which form laws affecting fiscal and banking policies.

And even now, it's not considered completely improper in the current Congress to practice a bit of polite nepotism. A recent Associated Press survey revealed that more than fifty senators and representatives had their wives, sons, or daughters or some other relative on their payrolls at some time during the past year.

It seems to be inevitable that the House will again attempt to draw up a code of ethics for its members. The Senate already has an Ethics Committee, which after many years has not gotten around to drawing up a code of behavior—although the committee says it will produce one this year for sure.

Joe Clark of Pennsylvania and Clifford Case of New Jersey are proposing legislation which would require every senator to reveal in detail his personal wealth and sources of income.

Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen, however, regards such disclosure regulations as childish. "I did not give up my citizenship when I came to the Senate," Dirksen declares.

The late Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma took another tack. Kerr was an oil millionaire who voted enthusiastically for all legislation benefiting the petroleum industry.

"My constituents expected me to do it," the Oklahoma Democrat used to say. "After all, Oklahoma is an oil state. Hell, if everyone abstained from voting on the grounds of personal interest, I doubt you could get a quorum in the United States Senate on any subject."

Was he right—or was he wrong?

This is Bill Downs for ABC in Washington.

September 21, 2017

1940. New York Times: What Would a Nazi Invasion of Britain Look Like?

Britain Prepares for a Fight to the Death
"The British Isles: Decisive Battleground in Europe's Struggle." Map printed in The New York Times, June 23, 1940
From The New York Times, June 23, 1940:
THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN: HOW WILL IT BE FOUGHT?
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Hitler Must First Try to Win Complete Mastery of Air Before Attempting An All-Out Assault on the Island
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
By HANSON W. BALDWIN

As the Germans drove deeper into France last week and France signed an armistice, Britain, facing a Continent dominated by her enemies, prepared for a fight to the death.
The impending "Battle of Britain," as Prime Minister Churchill made clear, will be more than another battle; it may be the final act in a tragic drama of long duration.

The opening phase of this battle may have been marked last week by the bombs dropped in the Ruhr and on British towns, but at the week-end it was not clear how soon it would reach its maximum intensity or to what extent its course would be affected or postponed by the terms of the French peace or possible Hitlerian overtures for a final peace with Britain. It seems certain, however, that Hitler will act quickly; his whole strategy is based on speed.

It seems equally certain that, if he wins the Battle of Britain, Hitler has won the war and probably ended the life of the empire upon which the sun never sets; whereas, if Britain wins the battle, her task has only begun. For the impending struggle is climactic in the fate of the British Empire and in the course of the war—if Hitler wins. If Hitler loses the Battle of Britain, he has lost in his attempt to crush the empire, but he has not lost the war; he still retains his hold upon the Continent of Europe, unless his repulse is so decisive as to cause Germany's collapse. That is possible but unlikely.

Britain's Two Big Tasks

Britain therefore has ahead of her two gigantic and separate tasks; first, the defense of Britain, the home base; second, subsequent operations designed to win the war. Entirely aside from the defensive measures which Britain must pursue in order to escape being crushed, she must adopt measures other than the blockade if she hopes to crush Germany.

Britain's fleet, it is true, is still supreme at sea, but in the Napoleonic wars it was not alone the stout walls of her navy that defeated Napoleon, but a combination of blockade with the power of the British pound and a system of opportunistic alliances. Today Britain has to blockade a continent. Her blockade plus the ravages of war may induce a famine in Europe next Winter, but we can be sure it will not be the Germans who will starve. The pound may again try to do the work of soldiers as it did 100 years ago, but it will be difficult to make it serve in a Europe dominated by economic autarchy. And the potential allies of Britain are, for the moment, few and frightened—a hesitant and alarmed Turkey; perhaps in the future a threatened Russia, though even this seems unlikely.

Dependence on Allies

The second of Britain's tasks therefore—the winning of the war—seems tremendous. But it must be clear that this second task is distinct from and does not necessarily stem from the first, which is the defense of Britain against a Germany still on the offensive, still retaining the initiative as she has done since the war began. But the first must be successfully conducted if the second ever is to develop. It seems apparent, therefore, that if Britain can ward off the immediate and deadly danger threatening her the war might yet be a long one, with unpredictable developments and Britain's chance of ultimate victory depending mainly on allies. Or the combatants might negotiate a peace, the terms of which might well leave Hitler in virtual control of the Continent and England with her empire still intact.

What are Britain's chances of guarding herself against the Hitlerian blow?

There are two ways in which Germany, with the help of Italy, can strike at the "tight little isle." One is a campaign of attrition or blockade—blockade by submarines and planes and perhaps small surface ships such as motor torpedo boats. The other is a campaign of assault. The method of one is starvation, the other of invasion; one is investment, the other attack.

Applying the Methods

There are several means of applying either of these methods; in fact, the two methods in some instances merge, and in such instances the Germans by one operation may utilize the methods of both investment and assault.

A bombing raid, for example, against docks, warehouses, shipping and convoys would not only tend to increase the difficulties of applying England but also would strike from the air against the people of England and against their morale. A raid from the sea in which guns took the place of bombs would serve the same double purpose; so, too, would long-distance artillery fire from emplacements at Calais and Dunkerque against the southeast coast and the Thames docks.

Even so, with submarines assisting in the blockade, a campaign of attrition in which bombing raids were limited to ports and perhaps munitions factories and no actual physical invasion was attempted might require too much time for Hitler's purpose. No sudden, blinding results, such as those that have occurred in the West since May 10, could then be expected and there would be time for American aid to become more effective. Besides, this method would permit the British Navy to operate under conditions most favorable to it, against an enemy it now understands how to cope with. The slow process of attrition would not seem to accord either with Hitlerian strategy or with German tradition. A blockade of England unquestionably will be attempted, but almost certainly it will be accompanied by an assault.

Methods of Assault

This may take two forms: the first, widespread and relentless assault by bombing against docks, factories, sources of supply, power stations and ultimately if not initially against the people—all with the idea of crushing the will of the people and of the nation to resist. The second form may be assault from the air as preliminary to actual physical invasion—from the air by parachute troops and transport planes; from the sea by small parties landed from small boats, submarines or light vessels at widely separated points. If a port should be captured, these invaders would be reinforced by troops transported in larger ships.

It is thus clear that regardless of what method or combination of methods the Germans may elect to try, air power will play the principal role in victory or defeat, for it is only through the full use of air power that the Germans can hope to win a definite victory either by assault or by blockade. Thus the first battles must be air battles. The Germans must decisively win air superiority over the British Isles if their plans are to succeed.

But the British, though on the strategical defensive against the German assaults, do not have to remain quiescent, withholding action until the German blows are launched. Their fleet with its attempted blockade of the Continent of Europe is actually an offensive instrument and, tactically, the bombers of the Royal Air Force which are already ranging deep into Germany, bombing the Ruhr, are important instruments of retaliation, offensive weapons of defense.

Bombing of Enemy Planes

In this first struggle for air superiority both sides will strive to reduce the enemy's air strength by bombing his planes on the ground, to reduce the enemy's capacity for plane replacements by bombing aircraft factories, to reduce capacity for plane operation by bombing air fields and fuel supplies.

Such a struggle must preface and accompany submarine and motor torpedo boat operations in the narrow waters around Britain by some of the 150 to 250 submarines and several score of motor torpedo boats available to the Axis powers. Britain will counter with the convoy system, the surface ships of her powerful navy and the plane.

If invasion is attempted it cannot be expected until Britain has been "softened" by preliminary operations intended to disrupt communications, disorganize defense, cut off outside supplies.

Then, if invasion does come, it is more likely to be general rather than limited—parachute troops dropping all over the country; small boats landing small bodies of troops all along the eastern and southern coasts, in attempts to establish bridgeheads on British soil, at strips of beaches and airports, where reinforcements in considerable numbers could be landed.

What Troops Would Do

If troops are once landed in sufficient numbers—and there are a thousand difficulties between the writing and the doing—the effort will undoubtedly be to cut Britain into separate unconnected areas by spearheads thrust along the lines of her great water courses and communication arteries. Drives must be attempted, for instance, from the Wash to the Thames or to the Severn in the south; from the Humber to the Mersey; from the Tyne to Solway Firth; from the Firth of Forth to the Clyde, and from Moray Firth to Loch Linnhe.

But such operations are at present only speculative and must be opportunistic. The Battle of Britain must first be fought in the air. The Summer months will tell a tale unpredictable in its outcome but certain to be sanguinary in its results.