In guaranteed fast colours Suitable for all purposes, at very reasonable prices more amazing. There were no statements condemning German aggression, no attempt to give moral support to the Poles, no indication that international law had been flouted by one side and upheld by the other. Instead the Administration adopted the thesis of Congress which it had previously condemned and took its stand on the principle enshrined in the Neutrality Acts that the United States had no business to concern herself with the rights or wrongs of the struggle but must merely. concern herself with seeing that her own safety was secured ana must moreover act as though both sides were equally to blame. There was no hint of the "quarantining" which the President had spoken of in October 1937, no hint of the measures "stronger than words but short of war" of which the President had spoken in his message to Congress in January of this year. Instead there was an exhortation that Americans must do nothing even to show their disapproval of German tactics. The Radio was urged not to permit "propaganda" talks by commentators, and Hollywood was requested to abandon the production of pictures which might be offensive to Germany and therefore unneutral.
The press meanwhile, with few exceptions, adopted the somewhat strange attitude that the completely impartial attitude of the neutral required that news from either camp must be treated as equally suspect and despite the long German record of prevarication Berlin accounts of the origins of the war were given equal credence with those outlined in the House of Commons by Mr. Chamberlain The exhortations which had followed Munich that a strong stand should be taken were forgotten and Britain, which at that time had been blamed for putting pressure on the Czechs not to resist the German demands by armed force, were now blamed for failing to put similar pressure on the Poles. Accompanying this attitude which it is difficult not to describe as hypocritical were smug and sanctimonious reflections on the superiority of the American position and attitude. "Aren't these Europeans awful fighting again," was the general tenor of this type of comment.
The peculiar nature of American support and the very limited value of American friendship was thus made evident. It was of a type which ceased when most needed. In order to gain American good will and retain it a course was followed, advocated by the United States which when it led those who followed into grave and overwhelming danger resulted in the friendship being withdrawn. There is no doubt that if the German demands had been accepted and another compromise made the United States, both its official spokesmen and its press, would have been loud in their condemnation. British action in compromising with force and aggression and lawlessness would have been contrasted with America's firm and uncompromising opposition and there would have undoubtedly been loud complaints that the United States had been let down by British action, There is no hint as yet discernible in American comment that there is any consciousness that the United States has let down the Democracies, or that in her own peculiar way, she has been guilty of as gross a be-tradal as Soviet Russia. But fortunately nations, like individuals, can change their minds. It is too early yet to speak of Judas (though the word was hurled violently at Britain with less cause a year ago); we may only have to speak of Cranmer. The original denial of everything which America has stood for in the past may be a temporary phase, caused like Archbishop Cranmer's apostasy, by the sudden shock of fear at the consequences. It is very different to urge others to take a stand which may lead to war and to take such a stand yourself.
There were a few comforting straws which showed which way the current might turn in Administration action during the first weeks of the war. The redefinition of the Monroe doctrine to include Canadian defence against German attack, the official publication of Ambassador Biddle's telegrams describing Polish bombing of open towns, the establishment of a "neutrality patrol" operating several hundred miles from the American coast coupled with the President's declaration that American territorial waters extended just as far as America's interests required them to extend, the suggestion that if the American public sought information on the extent of belligerent rights they should study the demands made by the Northern Government during the Civil war, and finally, the summoning of a special session of Congress to revise the neutrality act.
The main criticism that one can make against the Administration attitude on the neutrality act is that it seeks to achieve its desired end by indirection. On the other hand if any other strategy were adopted it might not achieve its desired end at all.
The assumption of the isolationists seems to be that the neutrality act should "neutral liza" the existence of the British navy. The President has asked for the repeal of the arms embargo section and the re-enactment of the "cash and carry" clause, The isolationists object that owing to the existence of the British navy this would mean that the two Democratic powers could obtain supplies while Germany could not. This would be an unneutral act, might invite German reprisals and drag America into the war. Why the export of arms should do this any more than the export of raw materials is not stated. A long debate is in prospect with its accompanying newspaper skirmishes which will reflect little credit on many of those engaged but the final result, it is generally thought, will be that the President will be granted the changes which he requests.
The opposition to doing anything which might be remotely interpreted as helpful to the allies is not based on any friendship for Germany. There might be something to be said in justification if there were. There is nothing which can be said in favour of a Congressman who will hamstring a friend while protesting loudly that he wishes him all the luck and success in the world. Intellectual honesty, which has become so rare in the councils of the Totalitarian states, is unfortunately at a discount in Congress as well.
There are also some Americans, it must be stated regretfully, who look upon the war as a heaven sent opportunity for cleaning up financially. Even a paper like the New York Herald Tribune, whose Editorial policy is as clear-sighted as one could wish, published the astounding headline on its final cial page, "Speculation and Peace called twin threats to U.S. Economy." Business men, the article went on, had "acted to protect themselves against either eventuality." Prospects that both British and German South American trade will drop into the lap of the United States are contemplated with relish. Prices have already been raised in anticipation of a shortage due to allied purchases in many lines. The chief thought of American seamen confronted with the humanitarian task of rescuing stranded Americans from Europe was to go on strike for higher pay and war-risk bonuses.
As time passes the whole picture may change. Many Americans are already uneasy at some of the consequences of the "neutrality" mentality and feel that their Country has adopted a role which might be considered a trifle ignoble. The immediate effect of the war has been fear—fear that America might become involved. The long range reaction may be a different type of fear,—fear that the American way of life for which England and France are fighting may not survive the ordeal unless America lends her aid.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.