THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 91, 13 January 1944, Page 4

THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY

Comments—Reflections

“It is not a Tory argument. It is common sense.” —Mr. Ernest Bovin, British. Minister of Labour.

“Athens was the glory of Greece, Rome the great capital of a great Empire, a magnet to all travellers. Faris holds the hearts of civilized people all over the world. Russia is passionately proud of Moscow and Leningrad; but the name we have for London is the Great Wren. It need not have been so. Had our seventeenth century forefathers had the faith to follow Wren, not just the history of London, but perhaps the history of the world might have been different. For the effect of their surroundings on a people is incalculable. It is a part of their education. Faith, however, was wanting. It must not be wanting again—no more in our civic than in our maternal lf-3. We can have the London we want: the London that people will come from the four corners of the world to see; if only we determine that we will have it; and. that no weakness or indifference shall prevent it.” —Lord Latholm, chairman of the London County Council, in a foreword to “The County of London (Plan, 1943.”

“I note the tendency to speculate on whether the Germans will surrender to Great Britain and the United States or to Soviet Russia. Those who devote themselves to this question seem sure of a surrender. They overlook the historic fact that revolutions do not surrender. Revolutions create an atmosphere which makes continuance of war or even ordinary life and surrender impossible. Revolutions do not follow the rules of the game; rather is there a stampede of the herd in the least expected direction. For a period revolution produces a vacuum of responsibility. Those who would surrender discover that they have nothing to give up. As long as the enemy is present, anarchy continues, for anarchy is at such a time a means of defence. The greater the disorders the less willing is the enemy to take them over. Those who speak of a German surrender to this or that army apparently preclude a German revolution. They assume some orderly process. Goering will have Hitler killed; Kietel will have Goering killed; Keitel will surrender. It is a pleasant thought that, but if we have to speculate without facts that particular formula seems too simple and roseate. Will not the end of Hitler shake .and shatter Germany like an earthquake and would it not be just as sound to assume the possibility of a German or even a European revolution as a surrender?” — George E. Sokolsky, in the N. Y. “Sun.”

“The smashing American air raid on the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania throws a tragic light on the one-way nature of the collaboration between the Soviet Union and the United States. Had Russia and the United States been on a fully reciprocal basis the raid could have been even more effective and at a fraction of the cost in men and material. Taking off from Egypt, the bombers had to fly 1200 miles just to reach the target, the greater part of the distance over enemy territory. It is now known that the planes were spotted at least two hours before they reached Ploesti. Had the Americans taken off from the Russian Kuban, say from around Krasnodar, the flying distance would have been halved. Not only that, but the flight would have been almost entirely over the Black Sea. Instead of a two-hour warning, the defenders of Ploesti would have had at most some 25 minutes,, because the oil fields, just north of Bucharest, are not far from the coast. Equally important, the same could have carried double the bomb load. It is an open secret that Russia long ago drew a line across the map, and, in effect, said to her allies: “Now you stay on your side of that line.” For some reason or other Marshal Stalin appears to be unalterably opposed to British or American troops fighting side by side with the Red Army. Presumably the same objections prevented the Ploesti raiders from taking off from Soviet soil.”— Condensed from an article by N. Y. “World-Telegram” Washington correspondent William Philip Simms.

‘“President 'Roosevelt predicted in October, 1939, that “when this ghastly war ends there may (be not one million but ten million or - twenty million men, women and children . . . who will enter into the wide picture—the problem of the human refugee.” Even the highest figure mentioned by the President has already been exceeded. The most numerous group consists of those who have had to flee before advancing armies. In China alone there are said to be 50,090,000 of these. There must be almost as many Russians who evacuated or escaped from German-occupied territory. Two million Indians who had long (been settled in Burma found their way to India. Poles who fled to Soviet Russia and who fled from Russian Poland iuto German Poland and the Vilna territory must run into the millions. When thcyLow Countries and France were invaded 30,000 civilians and many more soldiers — Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Czechs and other nationalities —escaped to Great Britain alone. So it has gone in Greece, Yugoslavia, Malaya and the East Indies. Though the vast majority of exiles will wisli to return home, and will be welcomed by their Governments, there will be a residuum unable to return—either because their Governments will not be prepared to receive them or because they themselves will refuse, in view of past events, to incur the fresh risks that might be involved. We cannot estimate today how large the residuum may he, but since the total of displaced persons is already many millions even a small percentage will prresent a formidable problem.”—’Sir Herbert Emerson, in “Foreign Affairs.”

Letter to a Farmer-Soldier. Our harvests are in Warm and sweet with the sun! And heaped in the bin Go the traits—the hay in the barn Is holding the scent of its clover — The sibilant yarn Of the wielded scythe is over. Each widespread field Has ceased to trouble Under the tread of the reapers: The golden stubble Lies open now To the little runners of fail: Summer has stacked her plenty. —From a poem by Edna Mead, in the - .Times”.