ATTITUDE OF U.S.A. TO THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 239, 4 July 1940, Page 10

ATTITUDE OF U.S.A. TO THE WAR

New Secretaries’ Views NON-MILITARY AID TO BRITAIN Senate Committees’ Debate

(By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright.)

WASHINGTON, July 2.

The attitude of the United States toward the European war, . in conjunction with the situation in the Far East, was debated by Senate committees today. The two Republicans who were recent y nominated by President Roosevelt for inclusion in the Cabinet, Mr H. L Stimson, who replaces Mr. H. H. Woodring as Secretary of War, and Colonel Frank Knox, who has been named as Secretary of the Navy in place of Mr. C. Edison, were subjected to a cross-examina-tion by their respective committees, on their attitude toward giving assistance to the Allies and the circumstances in which they considered the United States would be justified in actively entering the war. The Senate Military Committee approved the nomination ot Air Stimson as Secretary for War by a vote of 14 to 3. An effort to subpoena Mr. Woodring was defeated, the committee deciding to invite Mr. Woodring to give evidence if he wished. The Naval Committee postponed the taking of a vote on the appointment of Colonel Knox pending the hearing of a witness ryho is allegedly going to quote Colonel Knox as saying that he is in favour of sending an army to Europe.

Mr. Stimson, testifying before the Senate Military Committee, and Colonel Knox before the Naval Committee, declared themselves to. be against active American participation in the European war. Both urged that all aid should be given to the Allies short of war. Mr. Stimson said: “The situation today is much more critical than it was last autumn and the time which, can be saved by the existence of British sea power is much more precious. Facing Grave Emergency. “Wo are facing a grave national emergency fraught with the possibility of immediate peril. The world is a house divided. It is not reasonable to anticipate that any peace which may be patched up with aggressors would be anything except the briefest kind of truce. A modern conqueror, once in power, would last a long time. “The time we have for rearmament is largely dependent upon the continuance of Britain’s control of the North Atlantic. Under these conditions any assistance we can safely give toward the continuance of that seapower is a most important step in our own interests and in the preparation of our defences. “No one would wish to send American troops across our borders unless it was necessary for the protection of the United States itself. On the other hand, I do believe that the United States can safely be protected by a purely defensive defence. Compulsory Service. Mr. Stimson recommended the prompt establishment of selective compulsory training and service, the passage of which would bring home to every citizen the critical nature of the emergency. He added that with the development of long-range bombers, the United States defence line was pushed far into the Atlantic, embracing Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Newfoundland, and north-west Canada. It was recognized that a powerful enemy who secured a base on any of these places could make a devastating attack on the United States eastern seaboard. Replying to members of the committee, Sir. Stimson said that the third term for President Roosevelt was not being 'discussed. “This is a mission unrelated to politics,” he said. Asked how he would regulate the transfer of munitions to foreign purchasers the programme for aid short of war, he said, “I would consider whether the munitions would be more useful to the United States here or there.” Senator Edwin Johnson: Do you believe we shall be the next victims of Hitler? Barrier to Nazi Crossing. Mr. Stimson: No. There is - one victim still holding a barrier on the North Atlantic. When that victim is stricken down we will be, or at least are likely to be. Every day the barrier to Hitler’s crossing the Atlantic holds out the better it is for us. Senator Taft: If Britain could be saved only by the United States entering the war would you favour it, even though Germany had not attacked us?

Mr. Stimson: Only if by so doing it would be better for our defensive posi-

tion. At present our own protection involves the preservation of the British Fleet, but three years hence it might not.

Colonel Knox, refuting charges that he was an advocate of armed intervention, read an excerpt from a speech which be made on October 24 in which he emphasized his belief that the United States should not participate actively in a world war, but in which he supported a two-ocean navy. Senator Walsh asked whether he had ever, publicly or privately, advocated giving military aid to the Allies. Colonel Knox: No, never. Offer of Secretaryship. He added that he had been offered the Navy Secretaryship last December, when be told President Roosevelt that he did not see any pressing reason why ho should enter the Cabinet, but offered his services if the situation be-, came grave. Replying to Senator Holt, Colonel Knox said that he advocated a strong policy in the Far East, but would hesitate to apply it at present. It would be unwise to precipitate a war on both oceans at present. “If the British collapse,” he said, “the United Stares may face a serious situation on the Atlantic.” „ ~ Senator Walsh, chairman ot tno Senate Naval Committee, stated that naval officers had informed the committee that the United States could not successfully wage war to prevent Japan taking the Dutch East Indies, unless-it was with the co-operation of Britain and France. Replying to Senator Walsh’s statement, Colonel Knox said : “In that case we had better not make any threats.” Explaining the position on aiding the Allies by means short of war, Colonel Knox said it did not include collective security with Britain. “It is selfish security,” he said, “and is not done from love of Britain. lam arguing in favour of aid short of war for the British, which might mean a British victory, but at any rate it will give us time to prepare for any possible emergency. Our emergency is that we are unprepared.”Dive Bombers. Colonel Knox added that he favoured giving tlie Allies implements of defence which were not essential to protection of the United States or which could be replaced within three months. He specificially favoured the transfer of dive bombers because they were rapidly growing obsolete. He believed that American dive bombers were faster and more efficient than the German.

Colonel Knox said that it would have been wise to have transferred to Britain some of tlie 111 destroyers which the United States had taken out of commission, but in no circumstances would he favour stripping the United States defences, even if refusal to sell meant the defeat of Britain.

Replying to a question by Senator Holt as to whether vital interests of the nation are in the scales, Colonel Knox said: “An Allied victory vitally concerns the United States, but if you mean vital interests to the extent of going to war on the side of the Allies, no.”