by James Johns
Perhaps the best, yet least known, example of patrol activity was that of the North German Lloyd Line passenger ship SS Columbus, the thirteenth largest steamship in the world at that time. In late August 1939, just days before the war started in Europe, the Columbus departed New York City for a tourist cruise. When the shooting started in Poland at the beginning of September, Captain Wilhelm Daehne entered Havana Harbor, discharged all passengers, and headed for the neutral port of Veracruz, Mexico. By December 14, Captain Daehne was ordered back to Germany, and he made a break for the open sea. He felt he had a good chance with the Columbus because her cruise speed was faster than that of most British ships.
Soon Daehne discovered an American destroyer on his trail. There was no apprehension, however, because President Roosevelt had announced that the United States would remain neutral. Shortly after he discovered the destroyer, it was replaced by a second destroyer, the USS Benham (DD-397).
The British were now notified of the location of the Columbus. Suspiciously, the Columbus was now being followed by a number of American ships, the destroyers USS Cole (DD-155), USS Ellis (DD-254), USS Schenk (DD-159), USS Jouett (DD-396), USS Philip (DD-76), USS Lea (DD-118), USS Greer (DD-145), USS Upshur (DD-144), and the cruiser USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37). Captain Daehne was careful to navigate well within the International Neutrality Zone along the U.S. East Coast until he made a break for the open sea off the Delaware Capes, heading east.
Now the Canadian destroyer HCMS Hyperion appeared in time to witness the reported scuttling of the Columbus. Her crew was put aboard the Tuscaloosa, whose captain was briefed as to what to report to the media upon his arrival in New York. Basically, while on their neutrality patrol, they just happened to be in the area of the Columbus and were happy to rescue the nearly six hundred who had survived the sinking.
Other examples of the Neutrality Patrols’ efforts included the American destroyer Broome (DD-210), which identified, reported, and tracked a German freighter and monitored its position until a British ship arrived and sunk the freighter while the Broome observed. And the American destroyer USS Niblack (DD-424), was rescuing Dutch survivors from a freighter south of Iceland when she detected a U-boat and attempted to sink it with depth charges.
Everyone in Congress who had voted for or against Lend-Lease had done so with the sincere opinion that his vote was the best means to keep the country out of war. And now there were rumors that each month, American naval yards would refit ten Royal Navy destroyers, another breach of international law inciting another act of war.
Another outspoken senator who had opposed Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease bill was Senator Charles Tobey (R–NH). An isolationist who allied himself with the America First Committee, Tobey was also concerned about what many believed to be Roosevelt’s abuse of executive power. With convoying becoming such a hot debate, Tobey confronted Senator Barkley for his opinions.
Barkley had been another fervent Roosevelt supporter, giving the keynote address at both the 1932 and 1936 Democratic National Conventions. Supporting the New Deal, as well as Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, he served as House Majority Leader from 1937 to 1947 and would later become President Harry Truman’s vice-president. Although he was the Senate’s sponsor for the Lend-Lease bill, he still could not provide Senator Tobey with any straight answers. And during congressional debate at the end of March, Tobey questioned Barkley as to whether or not he would defend convoying. Barkley responded, “And I am answering the Senator in good faith; if we have violated international law in such a way as could result in a declaration of war against us by Germany, we have already done that, and the convoying of ships would only be an incident.”50 Barkley continued, “If Germany wants an excuse to declare war against us, she already had it, and we know from her history with other nations that if it was to her interest, she would have done it without any excuse.”51
When Senator Tobey inquired as to whether convoys were not a greater danger than anything else, Barkley answered, “It may be; I am not disputing that; but what I am trying to ascertain is whether the Senator from New Hampshire thinks that Germany would wait if Germany saw it to her interest to declare war, or whether Hitler would wait, for I do not really like to associate Hitler with Germany, because I have great respect for the German people; I have none for Hitler, and I hope the time will come when they will themselves recognize the difference between the German people and Hitler.”52
Tobey continued to press the point that convoying would only lead Americans to war, proposing a resolution that would prohibit convoying:
The Congress and the President having assured the American people they were going to do all they could keep out of war, then it logically follows that the Congress should take every step to keep this Nation out of war and use all the powers vested in it by the Constitution to prohibit the use of our ships of peace for war purposes. To that end I am introducing a joint resolution which I will take the liberty of reading. It is as follows: “Joint resolution prohibiting the use of the armed forces of the United States and American vessels and aircraft for transporting, delivering, or convoying articles or materials to belligerent countries. Resolved, etc., That, except in time of war, hereafter no part of the land or naval forces of the United States, and no vessel documented, or aircraft registered or licensed, under the laws of the United States, shall be used, directly or indirectly, beyond the limits of the territorial waters of the United States and its territories and possessions, to transport or deliver, or in connection with the transportation or delivery of, or for convoy purposes in connection with the transportation or delivery of, any articles or materials to or for the use of any foreign country with respect to which the President has issued a proclamation under section 1 of the Neutrality Act of 1939, or which is engaged in actual hostilities with one or more foreign countries, even though a state of war has not been declared or recognized in any such proclamation.”53
The arguments became more technical, particularly the clause “except in time of war.” It was a time of war. The United States just wasn’t in it.
The debates continued, and on April 17, an article appeared in the New York Daily News stating, “Charges that battle craft of the Navy and Coast Guard are now giving armed escort to munition-laden British merchantmen leaving Atlantic ports for the European battlefront exploded in the Capitol tonight.”54 Detailed information followed. The president reported that the navy was only observing and reporting on keeping war from America’s front doors.
Senator Tobey now charged that the White House was sitting on thousands of letters “from the rank and file of the American people demanding to know what the President’s policy is on convoys and where the administration stands on this issue.”55 He even produced one himself that he had received from one of his constituents who had obtained firsthand information of the Atlantic convoys. This letter to Tobey stated:
A young relative is in the Navy. He has been at sea on service. He was taken ill and put ashore in order to go to a hospital. I cannot tell you the name of the port. In fact I should not write this at all, but I think you should know.
He tells me that the United States Navy has been convoying ships for about 1 month. His ship was one of the convoys. If I tell you the name of the ship or the lad’s name I would perhaps get him in trouble. He has been worried and thinks someone should know.
He says that they in the service know that the President’s delay on the subject of convoying—the “put off”—as he expresses it, is because it is secretly going on.
I trust you to use this information as you see fit, and only wish I could have given more details.56
In response to these charges, Senator Barkley then reported that after a conference with both the secretary of the navy and the chief of naval operations, he had been unequivocally assured that no ship carrying war materials was being convoyed by an American ship and that no future such orders were contemplated.
Still not satisfied, Senator Tobey now re
ad a telegram that he had prepared for the president:
The White House, Washington, D.C.
The people of America are aroused on the issue of convoys. The time has come for a frank, unequivocal, and complete statement from you on this vital matter.
For several weeks word-twisting phrases of avoidance and indirection have been used to conceal rather than reveal the policy of the Chief Executive on the matter of convoys. Please review in your mind the events of the past several weeks. During the period when the administration was soliciting support of the people for the lease-lend bill the question of convoys came up, and you stated that convoys mean shooting, and shooting means war, thereby implying to the people that you were opposed to convoys.
Your Secretary of the Navy expressed his opposition to convoys in public testimony before the House and Senate Committees at their hearings on the lease-lend bill, but added that he would change his mind in favor of convoys if you gave the word.
During the first week of April reliable newspapers reported that Secretary Knox was in favor of convoys. When queried by the press as to whether he had, in fact, changed his mind, he replied, “I have no comment.” Thus the American people were not enlightened. Then the Associated Press reported your statement to legislative leaders that suggestions for convoys were “too absurd to talk about at this time.”
The next step was a New York Times report of conferences between British and American naval representatives to determine how a joint convoy system could be operated. The Christian Science Monitor and other leading papers reported that detailed plans for the use of convoys had already been drawn up and submitted to you.
During this time you, Members of the Senate and House, and I were receiving thousands of letters from the American people seeking definite assurance that the Navy was not going to convoy.
Then the Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee sounded the note for convoys.
Then you in a press conference admitted that the plan for convoys was under consideration.
Then your spokesman, Representative Sol Bloom, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, issued a public statement denying the right of the Congress to prohibit convoys and asserting that you and you alone had the unrestricted authority in the matter. Then your White House Secretary, Mr. Stephen Early, said that you were very much amused at newspaper reports that American ships would be convoying.
During this time, the American people in increasing numbers were continuing to write to Washington for information as to your policy on convoys.
Then in your latest press conference you stated that on the convoy question more nonsense was being written and more statements made by people who did not know a hill of beans about it than you had ever seen before. You stated that you knew more about it than the writers and orators, but that you were not talking about it. Thus again the American people were left unenlightened because you did not care to discuss the subject.
Yesterday reports persisted that the Navy is already being used to escort merchant vessels carrying war materials to belligerents. This morning your Secretary of the Navy said that there was not a syllable of truth in the report. Later this morning your White House Secretary, Mr. Stephen Early, branded the report as a deliberate lie, and still, regardless of these conflicting reports, you are silent in the face of the people’s justified desire for direct, complete information from you.
On different days of the past 3 weeks you have alternately advised the people that the suggestion of convoys was too absurd to talk about, that a plan for convoys was under consideration, and finally, that you know more about the subject than anyone else but do not care to discuss it.
Is not this issue of vital concern to the millions of American people? Have you not stated that convoys mean shooting and shooting means war for this country? Are not the people entitled to frank and honest dealing on this vital issue? Is this the kind of maneuvering that builds up the faith of the people in their Government?
I recall to your memory your statement made to the American people over a Nationwide radio broadcast in which you said to them, “You are, I believe, the most enlightened and the best informed people in all the world at this moment. You are subjected to no censorship of the news, and I want to add that your Government has no information which it has any thought of withholding from you.”
In this hour when the men and women of the United States are asking for a statement from you, their national leader, in this hour when it is imperative in the national interest that the people be enlightened, and informed on the vital issue of convoys, which holds in the balance the question of our involvement in the war, I respectively [sic] urge that you give me at this time a frank, informative, and unequivocal statement of your position on the issue on convoys.
I further ask for direct replies to the following questions:
1. At any time during the past several weeks, have United States aircraft or naval vessels or Coast Guard cutters been used to convoy, escort, or otherwise used in conjunction with merchant vessels carrying goods to belligerent countries?
2. Are any such aircraft or vessels now being so employed?
3. Is there contemplation of such use of such aircraft or vessels in the near future?
4. What instructions have been given to the officers of any such aircraft or vessels with regard to action in the event that any of these merchant vessels carrying goods to belligerents are attacked?
A few weeks ago on another matter of importance to the people, you were asked for a statement of your position and you replied to me in a letter marked “personal and confidential.” I emphasize at this time that this is an issue vital to the people of America on which they are entitled to information, and I therefore respectfully request that your reply be of such a nature that I may give the people the assurance which they are entitled to.
Charles W. Tobey
United States Senator57
Posing straightforward questions that deserved straightforward answers, Tobey now suggested that there was suspicion on the part of the whole nation concerning American convoys.
The president blatantly denied the convoy rumors, calling them absurd, but within just a few days after this, he reported that convoys were under consideration. And then a naval seaman confirmed to a relative that he had been on a convoy ship for a month. Suspicion and doubt were growing. As Tobey put it, anyone who was not suspicious of the contradictions “ought to go to a school for feeble-minded.”58 Congress and the American public were growing more concerned but unable to get a “yes” or “no” answer from Roosevelt.
On April 10, 1941, an announcement of an aggressive nature was released by the State Department. By permission of the Danish Minister in exile in Washington, an arrangement was made whereby the Americans would occupy areas of the Greenland coast for the establishment of air bases and military installations, all to be incorporated into U.S. defense and control of the western Atlantic, and specifically to allow for better management of delivering Lend-Lease.
On April 24, in a reversal of his previous inference, Navy Secretary Frank Knox announced, “We cannot allow our goods to be sunk in the Atlantic—we shall be beaten if they do [are]. We must make our promise good to give aid to Britain. We must see the job through. All of this is needed for our own safety and our future security. This is our fight.”59
President Roosevelt continued to reject that the government had any plans for armed American ships to escort British convoys. However, he did suggest that the United States had some warships and aircraft involved in patrolling. Within just the preceding twelve months, patrolling had been as close as one hundred miles out to sea. But with the absorption of the British colonies in the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, it was now determined necessary to increase the distance to many hundreds of miles.
The president compared the current patrols with those of the Old West. Although wagon trains had guards to protect them, the reports from scouts or patrols were what determined when a
nd in what direction to proceed. Roosevelt’s policy was that when an aggressor vessel was reported in the Western Hemisphere, the details were sent directly to him and he would make any decision necessary. What would that decision be? Again, there were no answers for the American public.
As the Lend-Lease debates wore on, and more pointedly, the unresolved issues of convoying, tensions on the high seas were mounting. Americans received news of the torpedo sinking of the SS Robin Moor in the South Atlantic, officially announced by Roosevelt in his June 20 message to Congress. This was the first American-owned and -operated ship to be sunk by a German U-boat. The Robin Moor was en route from the United States to South Africa when it was stopped by the German submarine, U-69, on May 21. Allowing the crew and passengers to board the lifeboats, the U-69 torpedoed the Robin Moor, which took only about thirty minutes to go down.
The passengers and crew wound up spending eighteen days in rafts before being picked up. Although there were no fatalities, the incident fueled FDR’s agenda, and he took advantage and delivered a very vindictive message, citing Germany’s complete disregard “for the most elementary principles of international law”60 and branding the German government as an international outlaw. Others, however, didn’t see it that way. Senator Burton Wheeler, claiming the Robin Moor had been carrying contraband, actually defended Germany’s right to sink the ship, and in turn, accused Roosevelt of taking the country one step closer to war.