FRICTION WITH RUSSIA
Pressure on Iran.—The months of February and March were marked by increasing tension between the Soviet Republic and the western powers over Iran, over the broadening of the government in Bulgaria, over Soviet military activities in Manchuria, and over pressure on Turkey. Details of these controversies are given below. By late March it was assured that the Iranian Government would itself lodge a protest with the UNO Security Council, at its New York meeting on March 25, regarding the continued occupation of its territory by Soviet troops. This decision was despite a Soviet warning that such a protest would be regarded as an unfriendly act. At Teheran talks on oil concessions to Russia were reported underway, and it was evident that a primary motive of Soviet pressure on Iran was to secure oil rights in the northern area, and perhaps a new agreement which would permit garrisoning by Russian troops.
According to treaty pledges, Soviet troops were to have evacuated Iran by March 3. On the day preceding, Moscow announced that it intended to withdraw some forces from “quiet areas,” but that others would remain “until the situation has been elucidated.” Both the United States and Britain thereupon sent notes of inquiry, requesting a prompt reply and reminding Russia of her pledge in the treaty of January 19, 1942, to respect the sovereignty of Iran and to withdraw troops by six months after the end of the war. Premier Ahmad Ghavam was in Moscow at the time, but returned on March 7 after 16 days of discussions in which he failed, apparently, to accede to Soviet demands. Before the middle of March Soviet reinforcements were pouring into the Persian area and spreading out to south and west. It was this tense situation that was to come before the Council at its March meeting.
Bulgarian Dispute.—Difficulties over establishing a more representative government in Bulgaria, though somewhat thrust into the background by the Iran dispute, were also a cause of tension with the Soviets. In late February the State Department in Washington issued a memorandum urging Bulgaria to find “a mutually acceptable” basis for including in the cabinet two representatives of the old-line parties, thus carrying out the “broadening” process called for at Moscow last December. On March 8 the Soviet Government raised objections to this memorandum on the ground that it had been issued without consulting other interested powers, and that “mutually acceptable” conditions were not explicitly called for by the Moscow agreement. These charges the United States in turn sharply refuted, pointing out that Russia’s envoy in London had been notified, and that conditions acceptable to both sides were essential to any real liberalizing of the Bulgarian government. The changes in Bulgaria are essential before any final peace settlement.
Manchurian Issues.—American policy in Manchuria was clarified by a note sent to Moscow on March 5, on the same date as the note relating to Iran. Though the Manchurian note was not published, Secretary Byrnes made clear its emphasis on the principle that troops should not be kept in the territory of another country against its wishes, and that the disposition of former Japanese property and machinery in Manchuria was a “matter of common concern to those Allies who bore the major burden in defeating Japan.” Prior to the note, the State Department had learned from Chungking that Soviet authorities had claimed Japanese factory installations as “war booty” and had also proposed to China a joint operation of power plants, coal mines, and other Manchurian industries. The Chinese had refused to concede these demands, but newsmen in Manchuria reported that factories had been “systematically stripped” by order of the Soviet commanders.
On March 10 Soviet forces suddenly evacuated Mukden and moved northward, perhaps as part of general withdrawal. At the same time General Marshall in his return to Washington reported that well-equipped Chinese Government troops were being transported to the northern province.
Demands on Turkey.—It was fully revealed in March that Russia, as conditions essential to a treaty of friendship with Turkey, had called upon that state to cede, or “return,” the districts of Kars and Ardahan on the Caucasian frontier, and also to grant bases which would give Russia a share in the control of the Dardanelles. Turkish officials indicated their firm intention to resist these proposals, but naturally sought support from the Western powers. The decision at this time to send the U. S. battleship Missouri to Constantinople, with the body of the former Turkish ambassador at Washington, could perhaps be interpreted as a gesture of some such import.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Views on American Policy.—The return of our representatives from the London UNO conference was followed by some noteworthy statements on American foreign policy. Senator Vandenberg, in his report to the Senate on February 27, stressed the “desperate need for mutual understanding” between the United States and Russia, and declared the two nations could get along “if the United States speaks as plainly as Russia does . . . and if we assume a moral leadership which we have too frequently allowed to lapse.” He favored, if Russia wanted it, a direct treaty of mutual defense, subject to UNO obligations.
Secretary of State Byrnes, speaking a night later in New York, declared it was positively established by Security Council decisions that “no state has the right to maintain its troops in the territory of another independent state without its consent.” He added that “no state has a right to help itself to alleged enemy properties in liberated or ex-satellite countries before a reparations settlement has been agreed on by the Allies,” and that “if we are going to maintain our place in the world, we must maintain the power to do so, and we must make it clear that we will stand united with other great states in defense of the charter. . . . We cannot allow our military establishment to be reduced below the point required to maintain a position commensurate with our responsibilities.”
Later, on March 12, Senator Connally pronounced the UNO meeting “an outstanding success.” He also called for “an adequate army, a superior navy, and a superlative air force for defense and to sustain our international rights and obligations.” He desired a resumption of meetings of the Big Three chiefs of state to discuss, “with language clear and plain, and if need be blunt,” the problems threatening peace.
Mr. Churchill’s Speech.—With the statements of American leaders may be compared former Premier Winston Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Missouri, on March 5. He spoke of Russia’s “expansive and proselytizing tendencies,” and added that while he did not believe Russian leaders desired war, they did desire “the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” To meet the threat to peace he advocated “a fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples.” The Russians, he said, “admire nothing so much as strength,” and “if the Western democracies stand together in strict adherence to the United Nations Charter, their influence will be immense. ...” He pointed out later that he did not advocate a formal treaty or political union. His speech was received in this country with divided sentiment, much of it critical. In Russia it was denounced as anti-Russian and not calculated to make for peace.
Views on Naval Policy.—The quarterly magazine Foreign Affairs for January contains no less than four articles of direct naval interest. The contents of these arc briefly indicated below, together with some mention of other articles bearing on naval or foreign policy.
New Tactics in Naval Warfare, by Bernard Brodie. The author notes that, though “in World War II sea power reached the culmination of its influence on history,” the traditional “command of the sea” was difficult of attainment, especially in the vast reaches of the Pacific. Hence “task forces” were employed to cover widely separated areas, or to concentrate strength in areas of special importance. The Guadalcanal campaign was undertaken and fought out with naval control still in dispute, but with steady accretion of American strength and attrition of the enemy’s. By the close of 1943, however, we were able to advance against the Gilberts with “a task force” which was really an entire battle fleet, and fleets of similar strength were used in all later operations, establishing “decided command around any land area invaded.” Aiding in this establishment of sea control was the increased offensive air power of a “truly mobile air force” based on carriers, and the immense strengthening of anti-aircraft defense. Okinawa and the Kamikaze attacks were a reminder that “tactical problems are never solved conclusively,” and present rocket and atomic developments suggest that the defense of surface ships against air attack presents increasing difficulties, and that both “strategical and tactical doctrines . . . validated in the war just ended must nevertheless be reviewed constantly to see if they remain valid.”
America at War: Triumph of the Machine, by Hanson W. Baldwin. The author stresses the point that with all due credit to leadership and sound strategy, World War II was won “not by big battalions but by big industries”—in particular by America’s industrial “know-how” and extraordinary capacity for mass production. It was a war not of massed man power but of massed machines. Figures are cited to show the immense American production of naval vessels and armament, merchant ships, aircraft, and munitions, and the general excellence of the weapons provided, though the author notes also the enemy’s superiority at times in certain fields, such as torpedoes, rockets, jet propulsion, and tanks. “This time,” he concludes, “we had quantity if not always quality. We must make sure that henceforth our weapons will be the best, as well as the most abundant. The keystone of our material power is our mass production. Facing the uncertain world of tomorrow, it would be stupid indeed if we frittered away this birthright.”
Our Armed Forces: Merger or Coordination? by George Fielding Eliot. After careful consideration, Major Eliot casts his vote for co-ordination, assuming always unity of command in the field and a unified national military policy. His conclusion is based chiefly on the experience of other nations, which shows that “each service—army, navy, air—develops most successfully under its own autonomous organization.” He proposes, however, the permanent legal establishment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the creation also of a National Security Council, including the Secretaries of State, War, Navy, and Air (if set up), and provided with a Secretariat, an Intelligence agency, and a Central Research and Development agency.
Russian Naval Aims, by Prof. Robert J. Kerner (U. of California). In his article the author sketches the history of the Russian Navy up to 1940 and its not insignificant defensive role in World War II. He points out Russia’s major naval difficulty of four widely separated sea fronts—in the Arctic, the Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Far East. For the present or immediate future, any Soviet aim at “command of the seas” would in the author’s view be fantastic, but she will seek fuller control of the Baltic and of her life line out of the Black Sea. In any attempt to internationalize the Turkish Straits,
Russia will seek to have the decisive voice in preventing warships of non-Black Sea powers from entering the Black Sea, which she is determined to control. Next, to make certain that the straits are never closed to her, she will insist on a decisive share in whatever military, naval, or air forces are designated to control them. Her predominance in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia assures her that the Straits will not fall into the hands of a hostile power. British predominance in Greece and the Aegean assures Britain that her lifeline can be protected. . . . Our increasing interest in the oil of the Middle East, and the important role which the British Empire plays in our own security, makes it likely that we shall support the British here.
PEACE AND REHABILITATION MOVES
UNO Council Meets.—The UNO Security Council was scheduled to hold its second session on March 25 in temporary quarters at Hunter College, the Bronx, New York. The military Staff committee was also to meet, possibly before the assembling of the council. Matters likely to come before the Council might include an appeal from Iran based on the occupation of her territory by Soviet troops, and an effort by France to raise the question of the Franco Government in Spain. It was expected that the Bronx headquarters of the UNO might be used for the next three to five years, especially in view of local opposition to the transfer of the Westchester-Fairfield site.
Progress on Peace Treaties.—The deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers in London continued through March their work on the draft of peace treaties with Italy and the East European states. A subcommittee, referred to as a four-power Italy- Yugoslav Boundary Commission, visited Trieste during the month to tackle the difficult task of settling claims in the Venezia- Giulia area. Yugoslavia has advanced claims to the entire Istrian peninsula, and the problem is further complicated by an Austrian proposal for a corridor to Trieste and the internationalizing of that port. About 30 per cent of the exports through Trieste are Austrian. In London, the deputies turned to consideration of the Rumanian terms. Difficulties here arose chiefly over economic clauses, oil control, and Anglo-American efforts to prevent a Soviet monopoly of Rumanian trade and industry.
As regards Germany, France indicated in March that she would oppose any return of the Ruhr and Rhineland to control by a German national government. M. Bidault suggested a four-power conference to consider the establishment of a central German administration along with the Ruhr-Rhine- land problem.
Bank and Fund Meeting.—At Wilmington Island, near Savannah, Georgia, delegates met in March to complete the establishment of the International Bank and Monetary Fund. The meeting was attended by representatives of 35 nations who had ratified the pacts setting up the Bank and Fund, and also by observers from nine nations, including Russia, who had signed but not ratified. Of the Bank’s projected $9.1 million capital, $7.6 million has been subscribed; and of the Funds’ $8.8, $7.3 has been subscribed. Secretary of the Treasury Fred M. Vinson was elected Chairman of the Board of Governors of both institutions. The permanent headquarters was to be set up in Washington.
EUROPEAN ISSUES
Pressure on Franco.—Following the execution of ten Republican leaders in Spain, France in late February closed the Pyrenees border and halted economic exchanges, whereupon the Spanish Government did the same and strengthened its garrisons on the French frontier. In subsequent notes to Washington, London, and Moscow, France proposed joint action in bringing the Spanish issue before the Security Council as a threat to world peace. In reply to this proposal, the United States declined to join in such action on the ground that Spain at present did not constitute a menace and that a change in government was a matter for the Spanish people to accomplish by themselves.
In an earlier note (February 27), however, our State Department had proposed a joint declaration with France and Britain calling upon Franco to withdraw and make way for an interim government and free elections. This was approved by the powers concerned and the statement was issued in March 4. It was accompanied by a mass of documents proving the close collaboration between Franco’s Government and the Axis, including the fueling of submarines and supply of war materials. In response to this pressure, the Franco Government warned against intervention and declared that foreign interference would only “serve to heighten the national feelings of the Spanish people.”
New Belgian Cabinet.—In the Belgian elections in February there was a rather decided swing to the right. The Christian Socialists, a liberalized revampment of the old Catholic party, won 92 out of 202 seats in the Chamber. The Socialists secured 68 seats, Communists 23, and Liberals 17. Though no party had a clear majority Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak on March 11 announced a reorganized Socialist Ministry, in which he acted as both Premier and Foreign Minister and in which most of the members of the Van Ackers Cabinet were retained. Even with new curbs on the bread ration, Belgium was described as best off of the former occupied countries. General sentiment favored restoration of the monarchy, preferably by the abdication of Leopold III in favor of his son Prince Baudouin, now 15.
Greek Election Plans.—Hot strife between Right and Left elements continued in Greece over postponement of the elections set for March 31, the Leftists threatening to boycott the voting unless it were set back at least a month. When Premier Sophoulus insisted on the date set, 6 of his 13 cabinet members resigned on March 11. In London Parliament approved a loan to Greece of £10,000 to stabilize the currency, though Labor leaders raised the question whether insistence in early elections would not upset the country.
First Voting in Italy.—Italy on March 10 held its first free local elections in 466 districts, and these were to continue on successive Sundays until 7,700 communities were covered. Thereafter the plan was to hold, on June 2 or later, a referendum on continuance of the monarchy and at the same time an election for a Constituent Assembly. In the first two local elections there was a large turnout of both men and women voters and little or no disorder.
Perón Elected in Argentina.—Though not all the ballots had been counted, it was conceded in late March that Colonel Juan D. Perón, candidate of the Labor Party for President of Argentina, and chief power in the Farrell Ministry, had gained a decisive majority of the presidential electors. The popular vote, however, was closely divided between Peron and Dr. José Tamborini, candidate of the Democratic Union of opposition parties. The elections, held February 23, were described as fairly conducted. Perón’s success was attributed chiefly to his hold on the masses, but also in part to sentiment in his favor aroused by the United States White Paper attacking his pro-fascist regime. The election, it appeared, would give Perón’s control a constitutional sanction and increase the difficulties of reconciliation between Argentina and the States ranged against the Axis in the war.
Spy Work at Ottawa.—By mid-March the investigation of espionage operations in Canada revealed that the activities of Soviet agents to secure atomic, radar, and other secret military data involved at least eleven men and two women attached to the Canadian Government. Interim reports of the investigating Commission indicated that Russian attaches had sought and obtained photographs and documents from employees of the National Research Council, including formulas for explosives, processing of uranium, and other secret information. Among those implicated were a scientist at Magill University, and Fred Rose, a Labor Progressive Member of Parliament. In Moscow the activities were admitted, but the results were described as “unimportant,” Canada’s publication of the charges was criticized as intended to cause “political damage,” and unusual in that an explanation from Moscow was not sought beforehand, as customary “among nations maintaining normal relations.”
COLONIES AND FAR EAST
Dutch Indies Parleys.—At Batavia, in mid-March, conferences were re-opened between Governor General Van Mook, British special envoy Sir Archibald Kerr, and representatives of the unrecognized Indonesian Republic. The Dutch stand ready to renew their offer of a “Commonwealth of Indonesia” as a partner in the Netherlands realm, with opportunity later of choice for or against complete separation. On March 12 Premier Sutan Sjahrir announced a reorganization of his cabinet, with 12 former members and 4 new ones. All but two were regarded as favorable to the Premier’s “moderate” policy. During March large contingents of Netherlands troops were landed in Java, and British forces were to be withdrawn as early as possible.
British Empire Problems.—In Parliament on March 15 Prime Minister Atlee more definitely extended to India the choice between complete independence or continuance in dominion status within the British Commonwealth. This was coupled with the condition that the Indians themselves must agree on their future constitution. On March 19 a commission left for India composed of the British Secretary for India, Lord Pethick Lawrence, Sir Stafford Cripps, and A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty. During the preceding month severe disturbances broke out in Bombay and other cities of India, caused initially by a strike or mutiny among the crews of the Indian Navy. The mutineers surrendered their ships on February 22, but the street disorders resulted in 59 killed and 650 wounded.
In Egypt anti-British riots in late February resulted also in numerous killed and wounded and the destruction of British clubs, schools, and churches. The new Egyptian Premier, Ishmail Sidky Pasha, banned street demonstrations, but renewed the Egyptian demand for evacuation of British troops and turning over of the Sudan.
France Clings to Empire.—At the close of February, France and China signed an agreement providing for the evacuation of all Chinese troops from Indo-China and French resumption of government and police control, as well as responsibility for repatriation of some 75,000 Japanese forces still in French territory. France also relinquished extraterritorial rights in China. While France thus resumed colonial control in Asia, there were reports of widespread disturbances in her colonial empire, including Togoland and the Cameroons. As regards the evacuation of French troops from Lebanon, Paris stated that it could not be fully accomplished before April of 1947, though the British plan to be out by May 1 of this year. There are only about 8,000 French troops in Lebanon, but the delay is explained as due to lack of shipping and difficulty in removing military installations.
Russians Fire on U. S. Planes.—The Washington State Department announced on March 1 that it had protested to Moscow over the firing on American planes in the Port Arthur-Dairen area. In a first encounter on October 15 an American plane had flown close to Port Arthur, but the second attack on February 20 occurred 25 miles at sea. In the earlier episode it had not been understood that Soviet restrictions on foreign planes covered the Port Arthur area in Manchuria.