THE WORLD WAR

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21155, 3 July 1940, Page 8

THE WORLD WAR

ATTITUDE OF AMERICA COLONEL KNOX’S VIEWS SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE (United Press Assn.—Elec. Tel. Copyright) (Received July 3, 3.15 p.m.) WASHINGTON, July 2 The Senate Military Committee % approved of Mr Stimson’s nomination as Secretary of War by 14 to 3 votes. An effort to subpoena Mr Woodring was defeated, the committee deciding to invite Mr Woodring to testify if he wished to do so. The Naval Committee postponed a vote regarding Colonel Knox’s appointment as Secretary of the War, pending the hearing of a witness, who allegedly quoted Colonel Knox as favouring sending an army to Europe. Colonel Knox, refuting charges that he was an advocate of armed intervention, read an excerpt from his speech on October 24, in which he emphasised his belief that the United States should not participate actively in a world war, but supported a Navy in two oceans. Senator Walsh asked whether he had ever, publicly or privately, advocated military aid to the Allies. Colonel Knox: “No, never.” He added that he had been offered the Navy Secretaryship last December, when he told President Roosevelt that he saw no pressing reason to enter the Cabinet, but offered his services if the situation became grave. Replying to Senator Holt, Colonel Knox said he advocated a strong policy in the Far East, but hesitated to apply it at present. It would not be wise to precipitate a war in both oceans at present. If the British collapse the United States may face a serious situation in the Atlantic. Aid For Britain Replying to Senator Walsh’s statement that Navy officers had testified that the United States could not successfully wage war in the Far East without British and French cooperation, Colonel Knox said: “Then we had better not make any threats.” Explaining the position on aiding the Alhes by means short of war, Colonel Knox said he did not include collective security with Britain. “It is selfish security, not done out of love for Britain. I am arguing for aid short of war for the British. That 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 not prepared.” He added that he favoured giving the Allies implements bf defence which are not essential for United States protection or could be replaced within three months. He specifically favoured the transfer of dive bombers, because they were rapidly growing obsolete. He believed that the American dive bomber was faster and more efficient than the German. It would have been wise to transfer to Britain some of the 111 destroyers which America had decommissioned, but under no circumstances would he favour stripping the United States defences, even if the refusal to sell meant the defeat of Britain. Replying to Senator Holt’s question, whether the vital interests of the nation were in the scales. Colonel Knox said: “The Allies’ victory vitally concerns the United States, but if you mean vital interests to the extent of our waging war at the side of the Allies—no.” The Next Victims Senator Edwin Johnson said: “Do you believe that we will be the next victims of Hitler?” Mr Stimson: “No, there is one victim still holding the barrier on the North Atlantic. When that victim is stricken, down we will be. At least, we are very likely to be. Every day the barrier to Hitler’s crossing of the Atlantic holds out the better it is for us.” Senator Taft asked: “If Britain is only saveable by America’s entry into the war, would you favour it, even though Germany has not attacked us?” Mr Stimson: “Only if by so doing it would better our defensive position. At present our own protection involves the preservation of the British Fleet, but three years hence it might not.”