PARTICIPATION IN WAR

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 3, 3 July 1940, Page 8

PARTICIPATION IN WAR

.NEW SECRETARIES QUESTIONED

"BRITAIN HOLDS LAST BARRIER"

(By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright.)

(Received July 3, 2.15 p.m.)

WASHINGTON, July 2

The attitude of the United States towards the European War, in conjunction with the situation in the Far East, was debated by Senate Committees today. The two Republicans who were recently 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-examination by their respective Committees, on their attitude towards 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 of Mr. 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 who 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 iv the European war. Both urged that all aid should be given to the Allies short of war.

"CRITICAL SITUATION."

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.

"We 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 re-armament is largely dependent upon the continuance of Britain's control of the North Atlantic. Under these conditions any assistance we can safely give towards 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.

DEFENCE LINE EXTENDED,

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 recognised 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, Mr. 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."

THE NEXT VICTIM.

Senator Edwin Johnson: Do you believe we shall be the next victims of Hitler?

Mr. Stimson: No. There is one vie-

CHARGES REFUTED.

Colonel Knox: No, never,

Tim 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 position. 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 he made on October 24 in which he emphasised 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.

He added that he had been offered the Navy Secretaryship last December, when he told President Roosevelt that he did not see any pressing reason why he should enter the Cabinet, but offered his services if the situation became 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 States may face a serious situation on the Atlantic."

UNABLE TO CHECK JAPAN.

Senator Walsh, chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, stated that naval officers had informed the committee that the United States could nat 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 casewe 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. I am 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."

Colonel Knox added that he favoured giving the Allies implements of defence which were not essential to protection of the United States or which could be replaced within three months. He specifically 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 the 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."