War or Peace?

Persistently and fast as rumor always flies, peace talk swept the world last week. In the U.S. isolationists thought that Germany was about to make, or perhaps had already made, a "generous" peace offer to Great Britain, that Britain had better accept it. If such a peace were not forthcoming, they thought President Roosevelt should propose it. The Paris press, which Germany controls, also liked Franklin Roosevelt as a mediator. In Britain and elsewhere there was suspicion that Rudolf Hess had brought peace terms, that official bumbling over the Hess case (see col. 2) was because the terms were being considered. Even Germany buzzed with peace talk, under cover of what inspired Nazis called a "creative pause" before the next big blow at Britain.

From the Far East, too, blew rumors of peace. Japan was coming to terms with the Chinese Communists, who would then take care of Chiang Kaishek; only the U.S. kept Chiang still fighting; Japan was sounding out the U.S. on mediation in China.

Who Wants Peace? At no time since the war began have peace rumors been so well supported by cold logic as they were last week. Hitler held Europe. With France under his control (see p. 27), he held sway over northwest Africa, had a foothold in the Near East. Peace would be fine for Hitler--peace with the status quo. It would give him time to consolidate his conquests, to build a navy, to soften up new worlds to conquer.

Peace with China would be nice for Japan, leaving it free to push southward. But peace in Europe, leaving the U.S. and Britain free to block that push, is the last thing that Japan wants.

Britain has not yet lost a square inch of territory, except the Channel Islands, but Britain may be driven from North Africa the Middle East and the Mediterranean before the war is many months older. Britain may even be driven from Britain. Peace with the status quo would leave Britain her Empire--for the time being, at least. And peace would restore Britain to the senior partnership in the London-Washington Axis, of which she is fast becoming junior partner.

Who Wants War? For the U.S. peace would mean competition with Totalitaria that free enterprise would have difficulty meeting. For both the U.S. and Britain peace would mean that Hitler would have time to consolidate the whole of Europe and build a sea, land, and air power far more threatening than that he now possesses. But Anglo-Saxons do not always make vital decisions on cold logic alone: emotion is often stronger.

James Truslow Adams has pointed out that alliance or union between the U.S. and Britain is unnecessary because in crises both countries act instinctively toward the same end. Last week was a crisis week in World War II, and at week's end both Britain and the U.S. appeared to have made their decision. In London, where it was announced that Winston Churchill would report on Rudolf Hess at the next session of the House of Commons, it was hinted that he would go further and rule out peace once more and for all. And in Washington Secretary of State Cordell Hull gave the first U.S. statement of peace aims. One sentence alone ("Extreme nationalism must not again be permitted to express itself in excess trade restrictions.") showed that these aims cannot be realized without Hitler's defeat.

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