1944. Pierre Lefevre Reports from Brussels

BBC War Correspondent Pierre Lefevre in Belgium

"Pierre Lefevre, a Free French war correspondent, making a broadcast as a Sherman Firefly tank moves up to the battle area, 5 August 1944" (Photo by Bert Hardy – source)

This broadcast transcript by French war correspondent Pierre Lefevre is from Bill Downs' files. The text in parentheses was originally crossed out.

Pierre Lefevre

BBC Brussels

September 11, 1944

Hallo BBC this is Pierre Lefevre reporting from Brussels.

On the east bank of the Albert Canal sharp fighting took place yesterday. Our armoured patrols reached a point 6 miles north of Beeringhem. At a road junction on the way there was a lively encounter, and the enemy fought quite hard.

But the best news of yesterday's fighting is that we have got a bridge intact over the Scheldt—the river Escaut—and our troops have used the river crossing thus find themselves only a mile and a half from the Dutch border. This bridge is near a little village called De Groot barrier. Further south at Bourg-Léopold the fighting goes on, although there seems little hope for the garrison of the Lèopold barracks (as we are on the Albert Canal and as Liège is now firmly in American hands).

The preparations for the battle go on and TAF are already doing their share of the battle, weakening the enemy in every way before the land fight. Off the Flushing peninsula 5 ships of med size were attacked by Typhoons loaded with bombs. None got away: one was destroyed, the other four damaged. On the Rhine, on the Escaut, everywhere barges have been attacked.

And there is no doubt that the fighter-bombers of the TAF must also be putting their pinpoint attacks on enemy HQs into full play. The technique of striking HQ buildings, forward administrative centres, either during the enemy's withdrawal or during his advance, has been largely responsible for the disorganization of the enemy's staff work.

A senior officer of the RAF told me that since D-Day no less than 450 HQs were attacked by our fighter-bombers. In a pit at Landelin, this officer told me he had seen 14 senior German officers buried together. All had been killed in one attack. Yesterday's score for attacks on rail and road transport is high. 5 locomotives were destroyed in the day, 54 were hit. 11 barges were sunk and fifty damaged.

1970. The New Clean Air Act is Signed Into Law

Nixon Signs the Clean Air Act of 1970

"A younger Doug Draper, sporting a gas mask and sign reading; 'If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the pollution', in front of a polluting mill in Welland, Ontario during the first Earth Day," April 22, 1970 (source)

Bill Downs

ABC Washington

December 31, 1970

President Nixon signed into law today congressional legislation that serves notice on the Detroit auto industry to create its own technological revolution—or someone else will.

The Democratic Congress voted, and the Republican administration concurred, that if that nation has the choice of its present gasoline-powered transportation or an atmosphere free from auto exhaust pollution, then the people must opt for clean air.

It's by far the most far-reaching environmental legislation ever enacted in the history of the US, and will affect the lives of every American, the national economy, and even the appearance of the country as investors come up with new designs to meet the deadline for a virtually emission-free car by 1976.

The new law, signed at the White House at noon, specifies that the motor car industry must come up with a new engine by January 1, 1976 which produces 90 percent less carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants allowable in the 1971 models.

Although many auto engineers say the five-year deadline is too short a time for such a radical design change-over, the Democratic sponsor of the tough legislation, Maine's Senator Edmund Muskie, insisted Detroit could do the job if it had to—although there is a provision to grant a company a one-year extension on new engine production under certain circumstances.

Ironically, Senator Muskie, a 1972 presidential hopeful, was not invited to the White House bill signing—sure evidence of the political potency of environmental pollution as a developing issue for the elections two years away.

The new Clean Air Act also authorizes a billion dollars over the next three years for research and anti-pollution aid to the states.

In addition, the new law provides for the establishment of national air quality standards, which requires the separate states over the next four to six years to enforce these standards.

Industries or power plants violating the federal standards will be subjected to fines and jailing. And the law gives the government the right to inspect private property, subpoena records, and requires factories to install pollution monitors if violations are suspected.

In signing the new Clean Air Act, President Nixon said 1970 was the year of the beginning of the job of cleaning up the environment. 1971 will be the year for action.

If, as it appears now, the environment will become a major issue in the 1972 race for the White House, there will be action all right as both Democrats and Republicans play to outdo each other at pollution politics, which in this case is the advantage of a two-party system.

With rigid and fair enforcement, only the nation can win.

This is Bill Downs in Washington with "The Shape of One Man's Opinion," a service of ABC News.

1940. Guesses at What Peace Terms Would Look Like If Germany Wins

A Dire Outlook for the World

German police march before Hitler at the Nazi Party Congress rally in Nuremberg, September 10, 1937 (source)

This article is part of a series of posts on how newspapers covered the rise of fascism before and during World War II. In late May 1940, with France on the verge of falling and Britain undertaking the Dunkirk evacuation, the Axis powers looked close to victory. New York Times correspondent George Axelsson considered the question: What will Germany's peace terms entail if the Allies surrender?

From The New York Times, May 26, 1940:

GUESSES AT A GERMAN PEACE

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

If Hitler Wins He Is Expected to Make Terms to Satisfy His Many Grudges

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

By GEORGE AXELSSON

BERLIN, May 25 — If Germany wins this war—and she considers herself on the threshold of victory—the world must look for some sort of reversal of that Westphalian treaty that almost 300 years ago dissolved the old order of the Holy Roman Empire and made Germany a mere patch on Europe's map.

At Versailles the world saw the spectacle of well over fifty nations gathered to share the spoils of victory. The Westphalian documents were signed by only two victors—France and Sweden—and given a German success only the "big four"—Germany, Italy, Russia and Japan—are likely to sign the new treaty, with the possible inclusion of Spain to accept the stewardship of Gibraltar plus a few minor concessions on the North African mainland.

The peace conference, when and if it occurs, under these auspices therefore may be expected to turn out much simpler than the affair at Versailles and certainly more drastic and perhaps, more severe, on the vanquished than was the treaty of Westphalia.

Wide Revenge Expected

Surmises in Nazi quarters as to what a victorious Germany's peace terms would consist of are, of course, only conjecture. But it is reasonable to assume that Herr Hitler has so many grudges against various nations that a successful war will tempt him to avenge not only Versailles but also the treaty that ended the Thirty Year War so disastrously for Germany in 1648.

Should the Nazis win the war, Germany must be seen as the all-powerful guarantor of this new peace which will certainly exclude Britain from any further say in the affairs of the Continent. Germany will reserve for herself the right of interference in the affairs of conquered States with a vote in their councils. The treaty, furthermore, is likely to be incorporated into the fundamental law of those countries and form the basis of their subsequent treaties with the Western Hemisphere, particularly those with the United States.

One German explanation of why Herr Hitler did not wait for victory to reincorporate Belgian Eupen and Malmedy into the Reich to which they belonged before Versailles, was that he wanted to make the population a gift of the "advantages of membership in the German community" against the time of a peace settlement.

Future of Belgium

This provides another argument for those who think the Nazi peace will be hard on the vanquished; it suggests the Belgians will fare as badly as the rest of Germany's enemies. One of the motives of Nazi philosophy as often expounded by party members, at least in private conversation, is that small nations, choosing deliberately to place obstacles in the path of Germany, have no right to an independent existence.

The Germans already predict rather openly that Belgium has been invaded for the last time. They stress the racial and language divisions between the Walloons and "oppressed" Flemings which in turn suggests that Belgium might be split into two, each part separately under German domination with the Reich Army assuming the role of protector against any challenger disputing Germany's rights.

The May 10 memorandum accompanying the invasion specifically stated that the Reich had no intentions on Belgium's sovereignty or form of government. Therefore it is possible that at least the Walloons will be permitted to keep their country and the Royal House, although as a mere vassal.

Holland to Be Reduced

Holland, in a similar predicament, runs the risk of being reduced to the state of a colony.

England, deprived of further influence on the Continent, would likely find herself an isolated kingdom, Ireland would be given complete independence, as would Ulster. It is expected that the British colonies and dominions would decide, or try to decide, their own fate and they might all succeed in doing so with the exception of South Africa, which, there is reason to believe, Herr Hitler will wish to annex to Germany.

India and Australia would be left as prey for covetous neighbors but they would have a chance for independence if they fought for it.

Canada, already enjoying the protection of the Monroe Doctrine, might try independence or solve her problems by soliciting membership in the United States.

The Mediterranean would once more become an Italian sea, of course, at the expense of Gibraltar and Egypt and, it is likely, at that of Yugoslavia and Greece. Just now Bulgaria and Hungary are basking in the sunshine of Italo-German approval as do Spain, Sweden and Denmark.

Baltic and the U. S.

The future of the Baltic basin rests on the degree to which Russo-German friendship is maintained.

It is taken for granted that Herr Hitler will strongly oppose any attempts on the part of the United States to have a finger in the peace pie even as an "unofficial observer." Herr Hitler has often expressed distrust for American diplomacy as far as, in his opinion, it has sought to thwart his plans.

The fate of France in Herr Hitler's new deal remains the least grateful subject for the guesser. Defeat would certainly rob her of the departments of Alpes-Maritimes and the two Savoies in order to deprive her of a favorable frontier against Italy, and further of Corsica and Tunis. Whether she would also lose Alsace-Lorraine is a question that no German feels competent to answer just now.

1970. The Agnew School of Alliterative Insult

An Age of Puerile Political Partisanship

Future vice president Spiro Agnew after his election as governor of Maryland, 1966 (source)

Bill Downs

ABC Washington

December 21, 1970

Whatever its questionable literary value, Vice President Agnew's emergence on the national political scene has brought the "alliterative insult" back into favor, a move which may or may not be dividing the country, as the more fearful pundits claim. But this reporter thinks it might have at least one good residual effect. It certainly has led a lot of people to rediscover the dictionary.

This was brought home to me in a recent letter from an irate listener who took exception to a news story I covered, and my report on that story which greatly upset the listener.

Since I switched from newspaper reporting to broadcast journalism some twenty-eight years ago, I've had no end of mail—the "you cur, sir" types—so the assumption was that I was doing something right at least part of the time.

But since Mr. Agnew got so much mileage attacking the news media, a whole passel of presumptuous politicians—if the VP will pardon the phrase—have taken up the thesaurus with a vengeance—like Samson who converted the jawbone of the ass into a fairly effective weapon.

The particular non-fan letter I received from this particular member of a state senate raised some pretty pertinent questions:

"Who is this pipsqueak Downs," it asked, "to interject his puerile political partisanship on the nation?...Who is he and other of his ilk pontificating their sniveling sentiments as the ultimate in wisdom?"

Since this is Ed Morgan's usual time and this is a vacation-relief stint, we'll have to wait a couple of weeks for the "other ilk" to reply. But for the most part, we who try to report, analyze, and comment on how men and nature perform in our universe can no more be classified, catalogued, or branded than any other group of free citizens—including elected public officials or, say, radio engineers.

One man's politics are always puerile to his critics, and it must be admitted that everyone's sentiments sometimes have a tendency to snivel one man's "pip" is another man's "squeak," and never are they the alleged "ultimate in wisdom."

The trouble with the Agnew school of alliterative insult is that it tends to get out of hand. There's a tendency toward overkill, like accusing the "ilk" in the media of being the real "polarizers of America."

Not so, says none other than Spiro Agnew. He said last Thursday in Akron, Ohio, that polarization is good for the country, and you'd better believe it.

This is Bill Downs in Washington with "The Shape of One Man's Opinion," a service of ABC News.