No Alibi

> Twelve Congressmen told Republican Leader Joe Martin that peace sentiment was stronger in their districts than at any time during the past year.

> Senator Wheeler, in the midst of a second whirlwind speaking tour, talking isolation all the time, reported he had never had such an enthusiastic reception.

> The Gallup Poll reported that 79% of the U.S. was opposed to sending a U.S. Army abroad.

> At an America First rally in Chicago, mention of Churchill drew boos. When Colonel Lindbergh said that England was in a desperate situation, her shipping losses serious, "her cities devastated by bombs," he was stopped--and embarrassed--by applause.

So ran the currents of defeatism in Washington last week. It came not from isolationists. It came from devout New Dealers, adherents of the President's foreign policy. Their theme: the "morale" of the U.S. was bad. President Roosevelt said that the people were not sufficiently "aware," but thought that cracker-barrel talk would make them more so (see p. 13). But Washington believed that around the cracker barrels the talk was all isolation, defeatism, apathy.

No Wave of the Present. How much fact was there in the Washington fancy? Those who read could see that the U.S. press was almost solidly for effective aid to Britain, criticized the Government principally because U.S. aid was not effective enough. But the press is not always a reliable guide to public opinion. Throughout the U.S. were reports of a general lack of enthusiasm. The evidence was that the country felt far more unenthusiastic about isolation than it was unenthusiastic about U.S. foreign policy. The U.S., with only little dissent, had endorsed aid to Britain, had kept foreign affairs out of the campaign, had accepted the Lend-Lease Bill, had voted some $26,000,000,000 for U.S. defense and aid to democracies. Last week a "Fight for Freedom" Committee was organized in Manhattan with 250 sponsors. Its members "accept the fact that we are at war," pledged to "do whatever is necessary to insure Hitler's defeat." Honorary chairman: Carter Glass. Typical backers: Colonel William Donovan, Authors Rupert Hughes, Edna Ferber, Publisher John Farrar, Editor Herbert Agar, Historian Walter Millis. But there was better evidence of the state of U.S. opinion.

No Place to Sit Down. Chicago is considered by the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies to be the second most isolationist spot in the U.S. (Milwaukee is first). Yet last week Colonel Lindbergh, most popular and highly respected U.S. isolationist, drew 10,000 at the Chicago Arena, while General Sikorski, Polish Premier in exile, drew 75,000 to Soldier Field with a pro-Allied plea.

In Minneapolis, the America First Committee closed its downtown office. In Detroit Isolationists Hamilton Fish and Senator Wheeler drew small crowds; Senator Wheeler, the more popular, getting only 3,500 at a high-school auditorium. St. Louis, with a huge German-born population, has had only two isolationist rallies in the past month, both drawing audiences which reporters called large and enthusiastic but not representative. Cleveland has had only one isolationist rally of any note in the last month, with Senator Wheeler attracting a good crowd, according to local reporters, but negligible in relation to the steady progression of pro-Allied meetings. From the whole Midwest the accounts are the same--no slackening of the desire to aid Britain, a fear of U.S. entry into the war, small meetings everywhere opposing U.S. foreign policy, but no movement with strength enough to influence Governmental action.

Most demonstrative crowd on Senator Wheeler's trip came in Denver, where 4,000 attended his meeting, 4,000 more were turned away. He drew only, 2,000 in Salt Lake City, a good crowd, said isolationists, because a blizzard was raging at the time. Senator Nye drew 3,000 in Spokane, 1,500 in Seattle.

There has not been an isolationist meeting in Georgia. Observers calculated that 85% of Southerners are for aid to Britain, up to and including the risk of war. In Texas (which leads the U.S. in volunteers) reporters found two common comments: a fatalistic, unenthusiastic acceptance of U.S. entry into the war, and a grimmer statement: "We should have been in there long ago." Southern interventionists principally regretted that the battle cry was not "To Hell With Hitler" instead of "Aid to Britain."

No one could ponder reports of local opinion throughout the U.S. and conclude that the country was eager to act and sure of what it wanted. But neither could he conclude that its morale was too low to be raised by effective leadership. Last week it appeared that Washington worriers had confused cause & effect, and wanted a high morale before really undertaking a national effort which alone could make it possible.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.