American Ambassador in Hot Water

Manawatu Times, Volume 68, Issue 59, 11 March 1943, Page 5

American Ambassador in Hot Water

Criticism of Russia Officially Disowned (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) Received Wednesday, 7.35 p.m. WASHINGTON, Mar. 9. The American Ambassador, Admiral Standley’s statement that the Russian people were not fully informed of American aid, was not made with prior consultation with the United States Government, said Mr. Simmer Welles at a Press conference. Mr. Welles said he had cabled Admiral Standley for the full text of his statement, and meantime preferred to refrain from comment. Mr. Welles, however, plainly indicated displeasure at the published statements and expressed confidence that Admiral Standley’s remarks were not intended to cast doubt on the trust and understanding which should exist between the Allies. He added: “The United Nations’ purpose of utterly defeating Axis tyranny would be worthless if it were not based on complete trust between all. ’ * Mr. Sol Bloom, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it was very unfortunate if Admiral Standley had said what had been reported. Mr. Bloom explained that he consulted the State Department, looked up Russian newspapers, and found that they had published full reports of American military assistance. They had carried fully the statement recently made by Mr. Stettinius. In fact American aid to Russia received wide publicity in the Soviet Press. The Moscow radio to-night broadcast fully the statement made by Mr. Stettinius on March 6 detailing the supplies from Britain and America to Russia. “No one in America wants to aoublecross Russia now or in the future,’’ 3aid Mr. Wendell Willkie, replying to Mr. Wallace and Admiral Standley. The Russians are fully aware of American aid but feel that they axe bearing the brunt of the war, and measured in casualties that is true. We are sending supplies in increasing quantities and are perhaps entitled to more credit than were are receiving, but the Russians naturally regarded the loss of their own young men as more important than materials. The Russians have long believed that we should relieve the pressure by opening a second front and consider it would be the best military strategy. Our military authorities thought otherwise. Only history can decide which has been correct. Meantime tolerance in understanding Russia’s viewpoint and rational statements about America’s attitude after the war will help.” Moscow was Admiral Standley’s first diplomatic appointment, according to the Times’ Moscow correspondent, who adds: “His tilt at Russia was made in characteristically undiplomatic language. He admitted that American deliveries were behind schedule. After his appointment to Moscow Admiral Standley frequently declared that his principal aim was to increase supplies to Russia to the maximum, for which reason it must be assumed that his unexpected statement was calculated to aid the President’s policy of full aid to Russia and that he was hoping to induce the Russian Government to make some public acknowledgement which presumably would still the voices of the President’s opponents in Congress who complained that the United States was not receiving sufficient credit for her sacrifices.

“If such were the Ambassador’s Intentions it may well be that a serious miscalculation of the Russian mood has been made and that exactly the contrary effect has been achieved to that desired. Russian policy about publicising Allied supplies is Russia’s own business and is considered outside a foreign diplomat’s sphere of public comment. The great bulk of the fighting equipment on the gigantic Don front is produced by Soviet factories. To reveal even in the vaguest terms the proportion supplied by the Allies might react like a boomerang on Russia’s allies.

“Two hundred thousand lorries would not tip the balance against an equal number of dead. Few Russian families are not mourning close personal bereavement and statistics about American boots will not heal their smart. Until Russia’s allies are clearly seen making sacrifices comparable to hers there will always be a tendency to consider material aid as a substitute for flesh and blood. Very great tact is required under such conditions in the common interests of the United Nations.

“The Russians are far from being as ignorant of British and American aid as the Ambassador’s strictures would imply. The illustrated papers show the distribution of American boots in the liberated areas. Newsreels publicised the American Red Cross. Many working for the removal of inter-Allied misunderstanding will regret Admiral Standley’s comments which might be seen as calculated to ruffle relations during a delicate phase of the war if Admiral Standley’s conviction that in helping Russia America will best be helping herself were not so well known. ’ 9 The London Times, in a leader, says: “European security depends on joint and continuous British-Russian vigilance. If either remains aloof or reverts to isolationism the domination of Europe by Germany becomes inevitable. Russia as well as Germany was excluded from the last peace settlement. There will be no excuse for advocating a repetition of this cardinal blunder. To suppose that Britain and America with the aid of some lesser European Powers could maintain permanent security in Europe through a policy which alienated Russia would be midsummer madness. Two essential tasks must engage British diplomacy: Firstly, the development of the spirit of growing confidence between Britain and Russia which requires ungrudging and unqualified agreement between them on future conditions of security in Europe. The other task is to interpret to the United States’, Britain’s and Russia’s common interest in European security and the means of attaining it.” “There is no reason why the United Nations’ differences should not be aired in mutual trust and confidence.” says the New York Times editorially. ‘ ‘ The "best way to attain this is a direct exchange of views between the Governments concerned rather than the present method of long-distance debate, it is imperative that Lend-Lease aid continue and he distributed—whether it is acknowledged or not—according to military requirements and global strategy, ; not according to political demands.”