The New York Times Book of World War II, 1939-1945

by The New York Times

  MET BY CHIEF OF PROTOCOL

  The scene inside the villa could only be guessed at from the official account of Sunday night’s meeting issued yesterday morning. It related that the French plenipotentiaries were received at the entrance to the villa by Minister Celesia di Vegliasco, Chief of Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other functionaries of that Ministry. After introductions they were taken to the hall, where the Italian delegation greeted them with the Fascist salute.

  The two groups then sat down on opposite sides of the table. Count Ciano rose and announced that on Premier Mussolini’s orders Marshal Badoglio would give the armistice conditions to the French plenipotentiaries. Marshal Badoglio then asked General Roatta to read the terms, which he did, presumably in Italian.

  Afterward General Huntziger declared that the French delegates had taken note of the terms and asked to be allowed to convey them to the French Government, “giving the decision at the next meeting.” That ended Sunday night’s session.

  The delegates went back to the Villa Manzoni, and there for the greater part of the night discussed the terms and kept in direct communication with the Bordeaux government.

  All yesterday morning the exchange of conversations and discussions went on, showing how difficult the French were finding it to accept the terms the Italians were imposing. So the session at the Villa Incisa yesterday afternoon could hardly have had that same calm, quiet, formal character of the first meeting Sunday night.

  The French delegation escorted by the German victors about to enter Marshal Foch’s railway carriage to sign the 1940 Armistice.

  JUNE 30, 1940

  Editorial

  THE SUN ALSO SINKS

  When we read the history of Napoleon Bonaparte we can say, on arriving at various pages, here he reached the summit of his glory, here he made a mistake, here a prophetic wind might have brought to his ears the sound of the surf at St. Helena. Naturally, we cannot read the day-by-day record of his Austrian understudy, Herr Hitler, with the same foreknowledge.

  We do not know whether the recent battles have been Hitler’s equivalent of the young Napoleon’s Italian campaign, of Austerlitz and Jena, or of Eylau, Fried-land or Borodino. We need not cherish the vain hope that it is Leipzig yet, or that Waterloo will be fought again tomorrow. But we can wonder at what stage of the great plot we have arrived.

  In his own eyes the Nazi Chancellor is unmistakably a man of destiny. As such he plays a conscious part. He did so at Compiègne when he delivered terms to the French from the same chair occupied by Marshal Foch twenty-two years ago. He did so this week when, as an Associated Press dispatch from Paris states, he entered the city “incognito,” “a light brown duster over his uniform,” and stood, “apparently moved,” before the tomb of Napoleon, whom he is known to admire.

  We can guess his thoughts without bothering to put them into words. The former corporal, the struggling artist, the once despised fanatic, the former state prisoner, the man whose bluff was to be called, who had, as Mr. Chamberlain said, “missed the boat,” had come into his own.

  But those who live by theatricals must also die by them. The historical drama does not stand still. Anti-climax follows climax. The sun begins to sink at noon. Is it 10 o’clock or 12 for Adolf Hitler, the end of Act One or of Act Two? We do not know and had better not prophesy. But, soon or late, for each of the little band of conquerors with whom Herr Hitler not unreasonably classifies himself—for Caesar, for Alexander, for Napoleon—the curtain has fallen on tragedy. Each has had a part of a generation, not one a thousand years.

  Chapter 4

  “BRITAIN IS DEFIANT”

  July–September 1940

  The weeks after the defeat of France and the evacuation from Dunkirk saw growing speculation about whether Britain would carry on fighting. In early July the Indian nationalist leader, Mahatma Gandhi, called on Britain to make peace. Anglo-French relations were soured by the British decision to sink units of the French fleet in the Algerian port of Mers-el-Kebir on July 3. American views of Britain were divided. Alongside popular support for Britain in the United States were those like the aviator Charles Lindbergh, as The Times reported in early August, who thought America should accept reality and cooperate with Hitler’s Germany. On July 19 Hitler finally made a limp appeal for Britain to “see reason” and abandon the war. Without hesitation, the British government rejected the suggestion. On July 20 The Times carried a report from the head of its London Bureau, Raymond Daniell, that “Britain Is Defiant,” unmoved by any appeal and committed to Churchill’s promise of no surrender. The big question remained the possibility that Germany might invade Britain and it soon became clear that the Royal Air Force was likely to be the essential barrier between German invasion or safety.

  The Battle of Britain that began in August took definite shape only after it was fought. The Times had other concerns closer to home. Black leaders demanded the right to participate in the American defense effort; on July 21 Roosevelt signed the Two-Ocean Navy Bill that laid the foundation for naval rearmament; a month later the Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, was assassinated in Mexico City, attracting more attention from The Times than might have been expected. The course of the air battle over southern England that began seriously in the third week of August got less attention. Raymond Daniell decided to go on vacation to Cornwall for what turned out to be the first two weeks of the Battle of Britain. The big news before the onset of the more intensive air campaign in September was the announcement on September 4 of the “destroyers-for-bases” deal struck between the United States and Britain. The fifty old destroyers traded in return for U.S. bases on Britain’s Caribbean island colonies had little immediate impact, since the destroyers were delivered only slowly, and needed modification before they could become operational, but it seemed to symbolize a greater American commitment to war. “British Jubilant,” ran The Times headline.

  The onset of heavy German bombing of London on September 7, the first day of what came to be known as the Blitz, brought the war home again to an American audience and prompted the fear that perhaps Britain might be invaded and defeated. “Can Britain Hold Out?,” asked The Times on September 8. A few days later Churchill warned that invasion was near. A Gallup Poll taken in America found that 42 percent of respondents feared that if Britain were defeated, Hitler would invade the United States. But the same day, September 15, the heaviest defeat was inflicted on the attacking German air fleets, when sixty aircraft were shot down, and the invasion fear began to ebb. The day was later remembered as Battle of Britain Day, marking the end of a battle whose consequences, Drew Middleton of The Times would later write, were of enormous importance “to the war and to history.”

  While the future of Europe was being decided in the air battles, Japan took the opportunity to extend its influence in Asia, forcing French Indo-China to accept Japanese troops on French imperial territory. On September 27 German, Italian and Japanese representatives met in Berlin, where they formally signed the Tri-Partite Pact to divide the world into three new spheres of influence, including an Asian “new order” under Japanese domination, undeterred, as The Times observed, by the latest U.S. embargo imposed on exports to Japan. The Axis nations now seemed poised to fulfill their aspirations to dominate the world.

  JULY 3, 1940

  Gandhi Appeals To Britain to Seek Peace with Nazis

  By The United Press.

  NEW DELHI, India, July 2—Mohandas K. Gandhi tonight appealed to all Britons to cease hostilities with Germany and urged that they settle their differences with “non-violent methods.”

  The Indian Nationalist leader urged Britain not to enter “undignified competition with the Nazis in destructive power.” He said he was placing his services at the command of the British Government to “advance the object” of his appeal.

  Mohandas K. Gandhi

  JULY 7, 1940

  THE ENTENTE CORDIALE ENDED AFTER 36 YEARS

  JOHN BULL TOUGH OVER SHIPS<
br />
  By EDWIN L. JAMES

  In the Place Edouard VII, just off the Boulevards near the Opéra, there stands in Paris a monument to the British monarch who, with M. Delcassé, was the author of the Entente Cordiale. Edward VII loved France and he won a place in the hearts of Frenchmen which put him in an excellent position to swing his country into line with the French Republic. When, in 1904, London and Paris reached an agreement, which was largely immediately concerned with African matters, they actually ended a period of friction which stretched back for more than a century. It was not all love on Edward’s part. He was building against Germany. As years passed the entente became closer and closer until, in 1911, as a result of the strength of the Triple Alliance, it became itself a virtual alliance. It was, of course, in the World War that the Entente Cordiale bore its great fruit when it aligned Britain with France against Germany.

  Now the Entente Cordiale has been broken. It was broken on Friday when the Pétain government of France severed diplomatic relations with London. Its breaking will certainly form a page in the hectic history of our times. Formed as a bloc against Germany, it has fallen as an outcome of the victorious march of German armies into France. There may come reason and an opportunity for its rebirth or there may not. But for the present it is dead.

  JOHN BULL GETS TOUGH

  The reason for which the French Government broke with Britain was the British attack on French naval ships in the harbor of Oran. The purpose of the British was to prevent the French warships from passing into the control of the Germans and Italians. It was rough business. Prime Minister Churchill told the Commons it was rough business. But, so runs the British justification, when a country is fighting for its national existence there come moments when it had to be tough.

  As yet the full story cannot be told. But there does stand out the fact that the British offered the French ships the option of going into the Western Hemisphere to be interned and the French admiralty refused, supposedly acting on the instructions of the Pétain government. Naturally, the Germans, in attacking the British action, took the position that, in the armistice terms with France, they had promised not to use the French ships against Britain. The answer to that, as Mr. Churchill said, was that one should not believe Hitler’s promises. Look at a half dozen countries for proof, he said.

  For Americans who saw the last war, when we fought with the British and French, it is sad to see our old friends and associates fall out. We do not know enough about what has been going on in recent weeks to assess accurately the responsibility for their coming to the parting of the ways. If they had been successful in Flanders it would not have happened—at least not yet. But even for the Flanders debacle it is too early to fix the blame. Who was responsible for the German break-through at Sedan? French? Belgians? Or was it plainly German superiority? Did the British quit the fight too soon? Did they fail to send the air forces they might have sent? Did France fail Britain or did Britain fail France?

  We do not know the answers now.

  All that can be said now is that the Entente Cordiale is one of the casualties of Hitler’s war.

  JULY 8, 1940

  Editorial

  CHURCHILL AS WAR LEADER

  It has become commonplace by now to point to the Napoleonic aspect of Hitler’s Europe; but is there not also a resemblance on the British as well as on the German side? If there is a Napoleonic quality in Hitler’s military triumphs, in the fanatical drive of his armies and the frenzied acclaim of the Berliners as he returns from his conquests, is there not also some of the magic touch of William Pitt in the leadership of Hitler’s enemies?

  The leadership of Winston Churchill has now been tested in two months of desperate struggle. We have yet to learn its results on the home front in speeding up the production of tanks and some other war materials, but Lord Beaverbrook announced yesterday that home production of airplanes last month had set a new record, more than doubling the output of June, 1939. We have yet to know whether Mr. Churchill is able to smash all bottlenecks in production as effectively as Mr. Lloyd George did during the last war. But there is every evidence of a spurt in production all along the line in present-day England; and, what is more, there is every sign that galvanic leadership is having its reward. Unlike Premier Reynaud of France, who built his Cabinets on too narrow a foundation, Mr. Churchill has been wise enough to place labor leaders in the key positions of the war effort. Perhaps this is one of the many reasons why the British people are now united under his leadership, irrespective of politics, regardless of class, until, by now, they are truly a garrison of more than forty millions, grimly resolved that their fortress shall not surrender.

  Winston Churchill has rallied his people to face one disaster upon another without flinching. He has kept up their courage by keeping up his own, even in the face of the collapse of France, which must have been the bitterest blow of his lifetime. He has fired their spirits with imperishable words, and had given heart to his people and their friends throughout the world. Is it stretching parallels to feel that William Pitt is alive again? Now, as in Pitt’s last days, every alliance built up by Britain has collapsed; the whole of the Continent is dominated by a ruthless enemy; the prospects of British survival look black. The disaster of Austerlitz came just before Pitt died, and final victory was withheld for more than nine years after he was in his grave; yet his example in organizing British resistance, in inspiring the British people, was felt until Waterloo and long afterward. Whatever the outcome of the present life-and-death struggle may be, future generations of Englishmen will have equal reason to honor the example which Winston Churchill has given them.

  JULY 12, 1940

  NAZI DRIVE GROWS IN SOUTH AMERICA

  Diplomatic and Trade Aides of Reich Intensify Pressure for Friendliness at Havana

  By JOHN W WHITE

  Wireless to The New York Times.

  MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Ju1y 11—German diplomatic agents and commercial representatives throughout South America have combined to bring heavy diplomatic and commercial pressure on the South American counties on the eve of the Havana conference. This pressure is patently designed to keep them in line as friends of Germany despite any economic solutions which may be suggested at Havana.

  The German propaganda machine throughout this continent has recently been conducting a particularly bitter campaign against the proposed economic union of the Americas, stating that this is a “blind” behind which the United States hopes to press its hegemony on the Latin-American countries. South American newspapers have given wide publicity to a recent warning appearing in the Berlin publication Berlin–Rome–Tokyo plainly telling Latin Americans that they are not to participate in the economic recovery which the publication says is to result from the new era in Europe unless they maintain a friendly attitude toward Germany during the rest of the war.

  German diplomats and business agents are assuring South American governments and business men that the war will be over by the end of this year and that Germany and its occupied territories will immediately be in the market for huge purchases of South American products. German agents in Brazil are urging the government and the people not to be alarmed by the present crisis in the export trade, promising to empty the overloaded warehouses in the early months of next year, following termination of the war this year.

  The strong diplomatic pressure which is being exerted on various South American governments is common gossip in diplomatic circles, but it is being done less brazenly than in Central America.

  Nevertheless it has taken a form sufficiently effective to force the Uruguayan Government to release recently arrested Nazi leaders under fear of being subjected to a commercial boycott by Germany. Statements made by the chairman of the Argentine delegation to the Havana conference on his arrival in Rio de Janeiro yesterday, as well as those made by the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs, indicate that the Argentine delegation will not agree to any economic solutions which could tend to lead South American republi
cs away from their former export customers in Europe of whom Germany is one of the best.

  JULY 16, 1940

  ITALIANS ASK FRANCE TO GIVE UP ‘MONA LISA’

  Works of da Vinci and Titian Are Called ‘Loot’ of Napoleon

  ROME, July 15 (UP)—The University of Rome through its official organ, Fascista, today demanded that France return all of the art works “looted” from Italy by Napoleon, including Leonardo da Vinci’s priceless “Mona Lisa.”

  The university publication asked the return of all the allegedly stolen art treasures, which have been among the chief attractions of the Louvre museum in Paris, but particularly the works of da Vinci and Titian.

  “Because these art works have been carefully packed by the French to protect them against wartime air raids and bombardments their return would be an exceedingly easy matter,” it was stated.

  “It would be necessary only to forward them from France to Italy in the packing cases in which they now rest.”

  The demand by the university publication revived demands made many times by various Italian quarters, particularly art experts, and if carried out would strip the Louvre of several of its biggest drawing cards. The “Mona Lisa,” for instance, has been the greatest single attraction of the Louvre for years.

  Other da Vinci works that have been in the Louvre include his “Annunciation” panel, his “St. Anne and the Virgin,” the “Virgin of the Rocks” and his “La Belle Ferronière.”

  Among the Titians at the Louvre have been his “Portrait of Francis I,” “Portrait of a Man with a Glove,” “Laura Dianti” and his “Jupiter and Antiope.”