Monday, April 12, 2021

April 12, 1921 International hands off, and hands on.

 

Warren G. Harding arriving to deliver his first address to Congress.

President Harding delivered his first speech to Congress.  In it he reiterated that the United States would not be joining the League of Nations.


His speech was:

Members of the Congress: 
You have been called in extraordinary session to give your consideration to national problems far too pressing to be long neglected. We face our tasks of legislation and administration amid conditions as difficult as our government has ever contemplated. Under our political system the people of the United States have charged the new Congress and the new Administration with the solution—the readjustments, reconstruction, and restoration which must follow in the wake of war. 
It may be regretted that we were so illy prepared for war's aftermath, so little made ready to return to the ways of peace, but we are not to be discouraged. Indeed, we must be the more firmly resolved to undertake our work with high hope, and invite every factor in our citizenship to join in the effort to find our normal, onward way again. The American people have appraised the situation, and with that tolerance and patience which go with understanding they will give to us the influence of deliberate public opinion which ultimately becomes the edict of any popular government. They are measuring some of the stern necessities, and will join in the give and take which is so essential to firm reestablishment. 
First in mind must be the solution of our problems at home, even though some phases of them are inseparably linked with our foreign relations. The surest procedure in every government is to put its own house in order. I know of no more pressing problem at home than to restrict our national expenditures within the limits of our national income, and at the same time measurably lift the burdens of war taxation from the shoulders of the American people. 
One can not be unmindful that economy is a much-employed cry most frequently stressed in preelection appeals, but it is ours to make it an outstanding and ever-impelling purpose in both legislation and administration. The unrestrained tendency to heedless expenditure and the attending growth of public indebtedness, extending from federal authority to that of state and municipality and including the smallest political subdivision, constitute the most dangerous phase of government today. The nation can not restrain except in its own activities, but it can be exemplar in a wholesome reversal. 
The staggering load- of war debt must be cared for in orderly funding and gradual liquidation. We shall hasten the solution and aid effectively in lifting the tax burdens if we strike resolutely at expenditure. 
It is far more easily said than done. In the fever of war our expenditures were so little questioned, the emergency was so impelling, appropriation was so unimpeded that we little noted millions and counted the Treasury inexhaustible. It will strengthen our resolution if we ever keep in mind that a continuation of such a course means inevitable disaster.
Our current expenditures are running at the rate of approximately five billions a year, and the burden is unbearable. There are two agencies to be employed in correction: One is rigid resistance in appropriation and the other is the utmost economy in administration. Let us have both. I have already charged department heads with this necessity. I am sure Congress will agree; and both Congress and the Administration may safely count on the support of all right-minded citizens, because the burden is theirs. The pressure for expenditure, swelling the flow in one locality while draining another, is sure to defeat the imposition of just burdens, and the effect of our citizenship protesting outlay will be wholesome and helpful. I wish it might find its reflex in economy and thrift among the people themselves, because therein lies quicker recovery and added security for the future. 
The estimates of receipts and expenditures and the statements as to the condition of the Treasury which the Secretary of the Treasury is prepared to present to you will indicate what revenues must be provided in order to carry on the government's business and meet its current requirements and fixed-debt charges. Unless there are striking cuts in the important fields of expenditure, receipts from internal taxes can not safely be permitted to fall below $4,000,000,000 in the fiscal years 1922 and 1923. This would mean total internal tax collections of about one billion less than in 1920 and one-half billion less than m 1921. 
The most substantial relief from the tax burden must come for the present from the readjustment of internal taxes, and the revision or repeal of those taxes which have become unproductive and are so artificial and burdensome as to defeat their own purpose. A prompt and thoroughgoing revision of the internal tax laws, made with due regard to the protection of the revenues, is, in my judgment, a requisite to the revival of business activity in this country. It is earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Congress will be able to enact without delay a revision of the revenue laws and such emergency tariff measures as are necessary to protect American trade and industry. 
It is of less concern whether internal taxation or tariff revision shall come first than has been popularly imagined, because we must do both, but the practical course for earliest accomplishment will readily suggest itself to the Congress. We are committed to the repeal of the excess-profits tax and the abolition of inequities and unjustifiable exasperations in the present system. The country does not expect and will not approve a shifting of burdens. It is more interested in wiping out the necessity for imposing them and eliminating confusion and cost in the collection. 
The urgency for an instant tariff enactment, emergency in character and understood by our people that it is for the emergency only, can not be too much emphasized. I believe in the protection of American industry, and it is our purpose to prosper America first. The privileges of the American market to the foreign producer are offered too cheaply today, and the effect on much of our own productivity is the destruction of our self-reliance which is the foundation of the independence and good fortune of our people. Moreover, imports should pay their fair share of our cost of government. 
One who values American prosperity and maintained American standards of wage and living can have no sympathy with the proposal that easy entry and the flood of imports will cheapen our cost of living. 
It is more likely to destroy our capacity to buy. Today American agriculture is menaced, and its products are down to prewar normals, yet we are endangering our fundamental industry through the high cost - of transportation from farm to market and through the influx of foreign farm products, because we offer, essentially unprotected, the best market in the world. It would be better to err in protecting our basic food industry than paralyze our farm activities in the world struggle for restored exchanges. 
The maturer revision of our tariff laws should be based on the policy of protection, resisting that selfishness which turns to greed, but ever concerned with that productivity at home which is the source of all abiding good fortune. It is agreed that we can not sell unless we buy, but ability to sell is based on home development and the fostering of home markets. There is little sentiment in the trade of the world. Trade can and ought to be honorable, but it knows no sympathy. While the delegates of the nations at war were debating peace terms at Paris, and while we later debated our part in completing the peace, commercial agents of other nations were opening their lines and establishing their outposts, with a forward look to the morrow's trade. It was wholly proper, and has been advantageous to them. Tardy as we are, it will be safer to hold our own markets secure, and build thereon for our trade with the world. 
A very important matter is the establishment of the Government's business on a business basis. There was toleration of the easy-going, unsystematic method of handling our fiscal affairs, when indirect taxation held the public unmindful of the Federal burden. But there is knowledge of the high cost of government today, and high cost of living is inseparably linked with high cost of government. There can be no complete correction of the high living cost until government's cost is notably reduced. Let me most heartily commend the enactment of legislation providing for the national budget system. Congress has already recorded its belief in the budget. It will be a very great satisfaction to know of its early enactment, so that it may be employed in establishing the economies and business methods so essential to the minimum of expenditure. 
I have said to the people we meant to have less of Government in business as well as more business in Government. It is well to have it understood that business has a right to pursue its normal, legitimate, and righteous way unimpeded, and it ought have no call to meet government competition where all risk is borne by the public Treasury. There is np challenge to honest and lawful business success. But government approval of fortunate, untrammeled business does not mean toleration of restraint of trade or of maintained prices by unnatural methods. It is well to have legitimate business understand that a just government, mindful of the interests of all the people, has a right to expect the co-operation of that legitimate business in stamping out the practices which add to unrest and inspire restrictive legislation. Anxious as we are to restore the onward flow of business, it is fair to combine assurance and warning in one utterance. 
One condition in the business world may well receive your inquiry. Deflation has been in progress but has failed to reach the mark where it can be proclaimed to the great mass of consumers. Reduced cost of basic production has been recorded, but high cost of living has not yielded in like proportion. For example, the prices on grains and live stock have been deflated, but the cost of bread and meats is not adequately reflected therein. It is to be expected that non-perishable staples will be slow in yielding to lower prices, but the maintained retail costs in perishable foods can not be justified. 
I have asked the Federal Trade Commission for a report of its observations, and it attributes, in the main, the failure to adjust consumers' cost to basic production costs to the exchange of information by "open-price associations," which operate, evidently, within the law, to the very great advantage of their members and equal disadvantage to the consuming public. Without the spirit of hostility or haste in accusation of profiteering, some suitable inquiry by Congress might speed the price readjustment to normal relationship, with helpfulness to both producer and consumer. A measuring, rod of fair prices will satisfy the country and give us a business revival to end all depression and unemployment. 
The great interest of both the producer and consumer—indeed, all our industrial and commercial life, from agriculture to finance—in the problems of transportation will find its reflex in your concern to aid reestablishment, to restore efficiency, and bring transportation cost into a helpful relationship rather than continue it as a hindrance to resumed activities. 
It is little to be wondered that ill-considered legislation, the war strain, Government operation in heedlessness of cost, and the conflicting programs, or the lack of them, for restoration have brought about a most difficult situation, made doubly difficult by the low tide of business. All are so intimately related that no improvement will be permanent until the railways are operated efficiently at a cost within that which the traffic can bear.
If we can have it understood that. Congress has no sanction for government ownership, that Congress does not levy taxes upon the people to cover deficits in a service which should be self-sustaining, there will be an avowed foundation on which to rebuild. 
Freight-carrying charges have mounted higher and higher until commerce is halted and production discouraged. Railway rates and costs of operation must be reduced. 
Congress may well investigate and let the public understand wherein our system and the federal regulations are lacking in helpfulness or hindering in restrictions. The remaining obstacles which are the heritance of capitalistic exploitation must be removed, and labor must join management in understanding that the public which pays is the public to be served, and simple justice is the right and will continue to be the right of all the people. 
Transportation over the highways is little less important, but the problems relate to construction and development, and deserve your most earnest attention, because we are laying a foundation for a long time to come, and the creation is very difficult to visualize, in its great possibilities. The highways are not only feeders to the railroads and afford relief from their local burdens, they are actually lines of motor traffic in interstate commerce. They are the smaller arteries of the larger portion of our commerce, and the motor car has become an indispensable instrument in our political, social, and industrial life. There is begun a new era in highway construction, the outlay for which runs far into hundreds of millions of dollars. Bond issues by road districts, counties, and States mount to enormous figures, and the country is facing such an outlay that it is vital that every effort shall be directed against wasted effort and unjustifiable expenditure. The federal government can place no inhibition on the expenditure in the several States; but, since Congress has embarked upon a policy of assisting the states in highway improvement, wisely, I believe, it can assert a wholly becoming influence in shaping policy. 
With the principle of federal participation acceptably established, probably never to be abandoned, it is important to exert federal influence in developing comprehensive plans looking to the promotion of commerce, and apply our expenditures in the surest way to guarantee a public return for money expended. 
Large federal outlay demands a federal voice in the program of expenditure. Congress can not justify a mere gift from the federal purse to the several states, to be prorated among counties for road betterment. Such a course will invite abuses which it were better to guard against in the beginning. 
The laws governing federal aid should be amended and strengthened. The federal agency of administration should be elevated to the importance and vested with authority comparable to the work before it. And Congress ought to prescribe conditions to federal appropriations which will necessitate a consistent program of uniformity which will justify the federal outlay. 
I know of nothing more shocking than the millions of public funds wasted in improving highways, wasted because there is no policy of maintenance. The neglect is not universal, but it is very near it. There is nothing the. Congress can do more effectively to end this shocking waste than condition all federal aid on provisions for maintenance. Highways, no matter how generous the outlay for construction, can not be maintained without patrol and constant repair. Such conditions insisted upon in the grant of federal aid will safeguard the public which pays and guard the federal government against political abuses, which tend to defeat the very purposes for which we authorize federal expenditure. 
Linked with rail and highway is the problem of water transportation —inland, coastwise, and transoceanic. It is not possible, on this occasion, to suggest to Congress the additional legislation needful to meet the aspirations of our people for a merchant marine. In the emergency of war we have constructed a tonnage equaling our largest expectations. Its war cost must be discounted to the actual values of peace, and the large difference charged to the war emergency, and the pressing task is to turn our assets in tonnage to an agency of commerce. 
It is not necessary to say it to Congress, but I have thought this to be a befitting occasion to give notice that the United States means to establish and maintain a great merchant marine.
Our differences of opinion as to a policy of upbuilding have been removed by the outstanding fact of our having builded. If the intelligent and efficient administration under the existing laws makes established service impossible, the Executive will promptly report to you. Manifestly if our laws governing American activities on the seas are such as to give advantage to those who compete with us for the carrying of our own cargoes and those which should naturally come in American bottoms through trade exchanges, then the spirit of American fair play will assert itself to give American carriers their equality of opportunity. This republic can never realize its righteous aspirations in commerce, can never be worthy the traditions of the early days of the expanding republic until the millions of tons of shipping which we now possess are coordinated with our inland transportation and our shipping has government encouragement, not government operation, in carrying our cargoes under our flag, over regularly operated routes, to every market in the world agreeable to American exchanges. It will strengthen American genius and management to have it understood that ours is an abiding determination, because carrying is second only to production in establishing and maintaining the flow of commerce to which we rightfully aspire. 
It is proper to invite your attention to the importance of the question of radio communication and cables. To meet strategic, commercial, and political needs, active encouragement should be given to the extension of American-owned and operated cable and radio services. Between the United States and its possessions there should be ample communication facilities providing direct services at reasonable rates. Between the United States and other countries not only should there be adequate facilities, but these should be, so far as practicable, direct and free from foreign intermediation. Friendly cooperation should be extended to international efforts aimed at encouraging improvement of international communication facilities and designed to further the exchange of messages. Private monopolies tending to prevent the development of needed facilities should be prohibited. Government- owned facilities, wherever possible without unduly interfering with private enterprise or government needs, should be made available for general uses. Particularly desirable is the provision of ample cable and radio services at reasonable rates for the transmission of press matter, so that the American reader may receive a wide range of news, and the foreign reader receive full accounts of American activities. The daily press of all countries may well be put in position to contribute to international understandings by the publication of interesting foreign news. 
Practical experience demonstrates the need for effective regulation of both domestic and international radio operation if this newer means of intercommunication is to be fully utilized. Especially needful is the provision of ample radio facilities for those services where radio only can be used, such as communication with ships at sea, with aircraft, and with out-of-the-way places. International communication by cable and radio requires co-operation between the powers concerned. Whatever the degree of control deemed advisable within the United States, government licensing of cable landings and of radio stations transmitting and receiving international traffic seems necessary for the protection of American interests and for the security of satisfactory reciprocal privileges. 
Aviation is inseparable from either the army or the navy, and the Government must, in the interests of national defense, encourage its development for military and civil purposes. The encouragement of the civil development of aeronautics is especially desirable as relieving the government largely of the expense of development, and of maintenance of an industry, how almost entirely borne by the government through appropriations for the military, naval, and postal air services. The Air Mail Service is an important initial step in the direction of commercial aviation. 
It has become a pressing duty of the federal government to provide for the regulation of air navigation; otherwise independent and conflicting legislation will be enacted by the various states which will hamper the development of aviation. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, in a special report on this subject, has recommended the establishment of a Bureau of Aeronautics in the Department of Commerce for the federal regulation of air navigation, which recommendation ought to have legislative approval. 
I recommend the enactment of legislation establishing a Bureau of Aeronautics in the Navy Department to centralize the control of naval activities in aeronautics, and removing the restrictions on the personnel detailed to aviation in the navy. 
The army air service should be continued as a coordinate combatant of the army, and its existing organization utilized in cooperation with other agencies of the government in the establishment of national transcontinental airways, and in cooperation with the states in the establishment of local airdromes and landing fields. 
The American people expect Congress unfailingly to voice the gratitude of the republic in a generous and practical way to its defenders in the World War, who need the supporting arm of the Government. Our very immediate concern is for the crippled soldiers and those deeply needing the helping hand of Government. Conscious of the generous intent of Congress, and the public concern for the crippled and dependent, I invited the services of a volunteer committee to inquire into the administration of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the Federal Board for Vocational Training and other agencies of government in caring for the ex-soldiers, sailors, and marines of the World War. This committee promptly reported the chief difficulty to be the imperfect organization of government effort, the same lack of co-ordination which hinders Government efficiency in many undertakings, less noticed because the need for prompt service is less appealing. 
This committee has recommended, and I convey the recommendations to you with cordial approval, that all Government agencies looking to the welfare of the ex-service men should be placed under one directing head, so that the welfare of these disabled saviors of our civilization and freedom may have the most efficient direction. It may be well to make such an official the Director General of Service to War Veterans, and place under his direction all hospitalization, vocational training, war insurance, rehabilitation, and all pensions. 
The immediate extension and utilization of the government's hospital facilities in Army and Navy will bring relief to the acute conditions most complained of, and the hospital building program may be worked out to meet the needs likely to be urgent at the time of possible completion. 
The whole program requires the most thoughtful attention of Congress, for we are embarking on the performance of a sacred obligation which involves the expenditure of billions in the half century before us. Congress must perfect the policy of generous gratitude, and conscientious administration must stamp out abuses in the very beginning. We must strengthen rather than weaken the moral fiber of the beneficiaries, and humanize all efforts so that rehabilitation shall be attended by respiritualization. 
During the recent political canvass the proposal was made that a department of public welfare should be created. It was indorsed and commended so strongly that I venture to call it to your attention and to suggest favorable legislative consideration. 
Government's obligation affirmatively to encourage development of the highest and most efficient type of citizenship is modernly accepted, almost universally. Government rests upon the body of citizenship; it can not maintain itself on a level that keeps it out of touch and understanding with the community it serves. Enlightened governments everywhere recognize this and are giving their recognition effect in policies and programs. Certainly no government is more desirous than our own to reflect the human attitude, the purpose of making better citizens—physically, intellectually, spiritually. To this end I am convinced that such a department in the government would be of real value. It could be made to crystallize much of rather vague generalization about social justice into solid accomplishment. Events of recent years have profoundly impressed thinking people with the need to recognize new social forces and evolutions, to equip our citizens for dealing rightly with problems of life and social order. 
In the realms of education, public health, sanitation, conditions of workers in industry, child welfare, proper amusement and recreation, the elimination of social vice, and many other subjects, the government has already undertaken a considerable range of activities. I assume the maternity bill, already strongly approved, will be enacted promptly, thus adding to our manifestation of human interest. But these undertakings have been scattered through many departments and bureaus without coordination and with much overlapping of functions which fritters energies and magnifies the cost. Many subjects of the greatest importance are handled by bureaus within government departments which logically have no apparent relation to them. Other subjects which might well have the earnest consideration of federal authority have been neglected or inadequately provided for. To bring these various activities together in a single department, where the whole field could be surveyed, and where their interrelationships could be properly appraised, would make for increased effectiveness, economy, and intelligence of direction. In creating such a department it should be made plain that there is no purpose to invade fields which the states have occupied, in respect of education, for example, control and administration have rested with the states, yet the federal government has always aided them. National appropriations in aid of educational purposes the last fiscal year were no less than $65,000,000. There need be no fear of undue centralization or of creating a federal bureaucracy to dominate affairs better to be left in state control. We must, of course, avoid overlapping the activities by the several states, and we must ever resist the growing demand on the federal Treasury for the performance of service for which the state is obligated to its citizenship. 
Somewhat related to the foregoing human problems is the race question. Congress ought to wipe the stain of barbaric lynching from the banners of a free and orderly, representative democracy. We face the fact that many millions of people of African descent are numbered among our population, and that in a number of states they constitute a very large proportion of the total population. It is unnecessary to recount the difficulties incident to this condition, nor to emphasize the fact that it is a condition which can not be removed. There has been suggestion, however, that some of its difficulties might be ameliorated by a humane and enlightened consideration of it, a study of its many aspects, and an effort to formulate, if not a policy, at least a national attitude of mind calculated to bring about the most satisfactory possible adjustment of relations between the races, and of each race to the national life. One proposal is the creation of a commission embracing representatives of both races, to study and report on the entire subject. The proposal has real merit. I am convinced that in mutual tolerance, understanding, charity, recognition of the interdependence of the races, and the maintenance of the rights of citizenship lies the road to righteous adjustment. 
It is needless to call your attention to the unfinished business inherited from the preceding Congress. The appropriation bills for army and navy will have your early consideration.
Neither branch of the government can be unmindful of the call for reduced expenditure for these departments of our national defense. The government is in accord with the wish to eliminate the burdens of heavy armament. The United States ever will be in harmony with such a movement toward the higher attainments of peace. But we shall not entirely discard our agencies for defense until there is removed the need to defend. We are ready to cooperate with other nations to approximate disarmament, but merest prudence forbids that we disarm alone. 
The naval program which had its beginning in what seemed the highest assurances of peace can carry no threat after the latest proof of our national unselfishness. The reasonable limitation of personnel may be combined with economies of administration to lift the burdens of excessive outlay. The War Department is reducing the personnel of the Army from the maximum provided by law in June, 1920, to the minimum directed by Congress in a subsequent enactment. When further reduction is compatible with national security, it may well have the sanction of Congress, so that a system of voluntary military training may offer to our young manhood the advantages of physical development, discipline, and commitment to service, and constitute the Army reserve in return for the training. 
Nearly two and a half years ago the World War came to an end, and yet we find ourselves today in the technical state of war, though actually at peace, while Europe is at technical peace, far from tranquility and little progressed toward the hoped-for restoration. It ill becomes us to express impatience that the European belligerents are not yet in full agreement, when we ourselves have been unable to bring constituted authority into accord in our own relations to the formally proclaimed peace. Little avails in reciting the causes of delay in Europe or our own failure to agree. But there is no longer excuse for uncertainties respecting some phases of our foreign relationship. In the existing League of Nations, world-governing with its superpowers, this republic will have no part. There can be no misinterpretation, and there will be no betrayal of the deliberate expression of the American people in the recent election; and, settled in our decision for ourselves, it is only fair to say to the world in general, and to our associates in war in particular, that the League covenant can have no sanction by us. 
The aim to associate nations to prevent war, preserve peace, and promote civilization our people most cordially applauded. We yearned for this new instrument of justice, but we can have no part in a committal to an agency of force in unknown contingencies; we can recognize no super-authority. 
Manifestly the highest purpose of the League of Nations was defeated in linking it with the treaty of peace and making it the enforcing agency of the victors of the war. International association for permanent peace must be conceived solely as an instrumentality of justice, unassociated with the passions of yesterday, and not so constituted as to attempt the dual functions of a political instrument of the conquerors and of an agency of peace. There can be no prosperity for the fundamental purposes sought to be achieved by any such association so long as it is an organ of any particular treaty, or committed to the attainment of the special aims of any nation or group of nations. 
The American aspiration, indeed, the world aspiration, was an association of nations, based upon the application of justice and right, binding us in conference and cooperation for the prevention of war and pointing the way to a higher civilization and international fraternity in which all the world might share. In rejecting the League covenant and uttering that rejection to our own people, and to the world, we make no surrender of our hope and aim for an association to promote peace in which we would most heartily join. We wish it to be conceived in peace and dedicated to peace, and will relinquish no effort to bring the nations of the world into such fellowship, not in the surrender of national sovereignty but rejoicing in a nobler exercise of it in the advancement of human activities, amid the compensations of peaceful achievement. 
In the national referendum to which I have adverted we pledged our efforts toward such association, and the pledge will be faithfully kept. In the plight of policy and performance, we told the American people we meant to seek an early establishment of peace. The United States alone among the Allied and associated powers continues in a technical state of war against the Central Powers of Europe. This anomalous condition ought not to be permitted to continue. To establish the state of technical peace without further delay, I should approve a declaratory resolution by Congress to that effect, with the qualifications essential to protect all our rights. Such action would be the simplest keeping of faith with ourselves, and could in no sense be construed as a desertion of those with whom we shared our sacrifices in war, for these Powers are already at peace. Such a resolution should undertake to do no more than thus to declare the state of peace, which all America craves. It must add no difficulty in effecting, with just reparations, the restoration for which all Europe yearns, and upon which the world's recovery must be founded. Neither former enemy nor ally can mistake America's position, because our attitude as to responsibility for the war and the necessity for just reparations already has had formal and very earnest expression. 
It would be unwise to undertake to make a statement of future policy with respect to European affairs in such a declaration of a state of peace. In correcting the failure of the Executive, in negotiating the most important treaty in the history of the Nation, to recognize the constitutional powers of the Senate we would go to the other extreme, equally objectionable, if Congress or the Senate should assume the function of the executive. Our highest duty is the preservation of the constituted powers of each, and the promotion of the spirit of cooperation so essential to our common welfare. 
It would be idle to declare for separate treaties of peace with the Central Powers on the assumption that these alone would be adequate, because the situation is so involved that our peace engagements can not ignore the Old World relationship and the settlements already effected, nor is it desirable to do so in preserving our own rights and contracting our future relationships. The wiser course would seem to be the acceptance of the confirmation of our rights and interests as already provided and to engage under the existing treaty, assuming of course, that this can be satisfactorily accomplished by such explicit reservations and modifications as will secure our absolute freedom from inadvisable commitments and safeguard all our essential interests. 
Neither Congress nor the people needs my assurance that a request to negotiate needed treaties of peace would be as superfluous and unnecessary as it is technically ineffective, and I know in my own heart there is none who would wish to embarrass the Executive in the performance of his duty when we are all so eager to turn disappointment and delay into gratifying accomplishment. 
Problems relating to our foreign relations bear upon the present and the future, and are of such a nature that the all important future must be deliberately considered, with greater concern than mere immediate relief from unhappy conditions. We have witnessed, yea, we have participated in the supremely tragic episode of war, but our deeper concern is in the continuing life of nations and the development of civilization. We must not allow our vision to be impaired by the conflict among ourselves. The weariness at home and the disappointment to the world have been compensated in the proof that this republic will surrender none of the heritage of nationality, but our rights in international relationship have to be asserted; they require establishment in compacts of amity; our part in readjustment and restoration can not be ignored, and must be defined. 
With the supergoverning league definitely rejected and with the world so informed, and with the status of peace proclaimed at home, we may proceed to negotiate the-covenanted relationship so essential to the recognition of all the rights everywhere of our own nation and play our full part in joining the peoples of the world in the pursuits of peace once more. Our obligations in effecting European tranquility, because of war's involvements, are not less impelling than our part in the war itself. This restoration must be wrought before the human procession can go onward again. We can be helpful because we are moved by no hatreds and harbor no fears. Helpfulness does not mean entanglement, and participation in economic adjustments does not mean sponsorship for treaty commitments which do not concern us, and in which we will have no part. 
In an all-impelling wish to do the most and best for our own republic and maintain its high place among nations and at the same time make, the fullest offering of justice to them, I shall invite in the most practical way the advice of the Senate, after acquainting it with all the conditions to be met and obligations to be discharged, along with our own rights to be safeguarded. Prudence in making the program and confident cooperation in making it effective can not lead us far astray. We can render no effective service to humanity until we prove anew our own capacity for cooperation in the coordination of powers contemplated in the Constitution, and no covenants which ignore our associations in the war can be made for the future. More, no helpful society of nations can be founded on justice and committed to peace until the covenants reestablishing peace are sealed by the nations which were at war. To Such accomplishment—to the complete reestablishment of peace and its contracted relationships, to the realization of our aspirations for nations associated for world helpfulness without world government, for world stability on which humanity's hope are founded, we shall address ourselves, fully mindful of the high privilege and the paramount duty of the United States in this critical period of the world.

On the same day Italy and Turkey announced they'd reached an agreement secretly designed to prevent Greece from obtaining Turkish territory in the ongoing war between them.

D. W. Griffith released his two hour long movie, "Dream Street".  The movie is regarded as a silent movie, but it introduced Griffith's Phtokinema disk which was a synced disk for some sound effects.


This railroad disaster was photographed in Alaska:




Blog Mirror: This Farming Life

 

This Farming Life

Sunday, April 11, 2021

Infrastructure and Inflation

General Motors and Ford are having to cut automobile production due to a chip shortage.  Chrysler has already idled some plants.  All over the country constructions materials are climbing in price so rapidly that prices quoted one week, aren't good the next.

What can we do to make that a really roiling inflation fire?

Well poor a bunch of dollars back by nothing into the economy, that's what!

The real news on the economy is being missed, which is simply that it never got as bad as the news outlets had it. Rather, for the most part, people kept their jobs throughout the pandemic but the workers worked from home, if they could.

Where things were bad is in the service sector, and that makes sense.  Workers working from their homes didn't go out at noon and get lunch, for example, and in many places restaurants just closed down. That part of the economy isn't rebounding and, frankly, it might not ever rebound.  This shift towards home offices may simply be permanent, and for more than one reason.  Some workers don't want to go back into the office, and some employers realize they don't need offices.  Effectively, we're getting a revival of a early 19th Century, and earlier, style of employment when artisans of all types, and professionals as well, simply moved from one part of their house to another for the work day.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that it was actually the post mid 19th Century style of employment that was deeply unnatural and only came about due to the Industrial Revolution.  You can make shoes as a single shoemaker from your house.  Amalgamated Mega Shoe can't do that.  Amalgamated drove individual shoemakers, for this example, mostly out of business through economies of scale over time, and people who makes shoes went into the factories.

Well, more accurately for this example, they went into the factories and the shoe makers went to Southeast Asia and China and now people in those areas are making them.  But never mind, you get the point.

Or take lawyers and doctors, for example.  At one time most of them just went to another part of the house, unless they were in relatively large cities.  Now, almost none of them do that.

Well, the old pattern has returned in a modified form.  People are largely still working for somebody else but a lot of them aren't coming into the office and they're not going to.  This is going to have a permanent effect.  Restaurants, bars, etc., that really depended upon downtown workers are never going to see that business pick back up.

Indeed, a friend of mine who is a Denver native recently went back downtown for the first time since the pandemic (that person no longer lives in Denver) and reported downtown abandoned to the street population.  Denver's always had a pretty sizable street population but its really grown since Colorado adopted the fiction that week=money.  In actuality, weed=social problems=decay=spending money, but no mind.  I noticed this too last time I was downtown.  I don't think it will rebound.

Given that, this is a probable permanent shift.

No infrastructure bill is going to change this.

Which means the Delia Kane's of this country aren't going to have their economic boats lifted by an infrastructure bill.

Indeed, the entire thing is either charmingly naive or massively cynical, I'm not sure which.

As the economy has pretty much rebounded, as it never really collapsed, but the service sector remains sick, a person has to believe somehow that investing in infrastructure will cause a revival in that sector and, if you don't want to make the entire economy sick, you have to believe either that 1) the sort of "infrastructure" being discussed will boost jobs for these very people, or 2) a collapse in the infrastructure is keeping people from going downtown, or 3) people aren't looking at the data.

Clearly people know you can go downtown, so #2 isn't it. They just don't want to.

So, basically, what we're being lead to believe is that everyone works in this sector and pouring money into the economy this way is for all of our benefits. But that's false.  So what you have to believe in order to support it is that all the Delia Kane's are going to switch over to being Rosie the Riveter, or that every infrastructure workers will be really hungry during lunchtime.

Miss Kane now?

There probably is an element to that hope. I.e., the thought may be that now that these jobs are gone forever, and jobs like them of which there are a pile, a migration will follow boosting infrastructure spending.

Maybe, but at this rate it will also boost inflation, and if that doesn't completely kill the downtown economy nothing will.  Right now there are a lot of things in flux, maybe, in regard to that.  One thing is that companies that maintain expensive downtown rentals are likely wondering if they should keep them.  If they were able to keep on keeping on during the pandemic with people at home, they're probably figuring they don't need to.  And if the owners of the buildings have to start raising the rents due to inflation, they'll abandon them and accelerate the shift.  That will hurt the downtown businesses even more.  And, it was like the disasterous 1970s, and the 1970s were a disaster, we'll see a period of stagflation, that's almost impossible to stimulate the economy out of.  During that period, which I'm old enough to remember, the Federal Government tried to bring in wage and price controls which failed.  People quit eating out as you couldn't afford it.  It was horrible.

Ronald Reagan brought the country out of that period by throwing the economy into a major recession.  People hated him for it, but he was right. And we haven't experienced that again since that time. We're about to.

Indeed, not only are we about to, but like large national debts we're getting government functionaries telling us that we need now worry about "a little inflation". We need to worry about it.

Of course, a person would be well entitled to simply ask how much of this massive spending proposal is not about stimulating the economy or infrastructure at all, but rather a clever way to camouflage an economic and manufacturing transition.  That's a completely different topic, but it doesn't reduce the risk of inflation.  Be that as it may, what that would entail is a big bill pitched to the American people as "infrastructure", as people who live in large cities and the like that see their bridges decaying are really happy to have people who live in  Shoshoni help pay for them, even if the latter will never use them.  If this is it, it's in the age old spirt of "never letting a crisis go to waste".  And there's frankly some merit to that sort of thing, even its really cynical.

And to at least some degree, there's some elements of that at work.  "Infrastructure", generally, are bridges and the like in Old Blight, New York, or some such place. They built them back in the day when New York paid for its own stuff, but anymore, nobody does, so a proposal to borrow money from future generations and tax everyone a little bit more is really appealing to the people in Old Blight, the same way having the Federal Government occupy so many things that were once occupied by state and local governments, or local institutions and even individuals, once did.  But some of it also is an effort to accelerate a fundamental shift in fuel consumption in the US. The Democratic Party has been trying to do this for some time, but now with a supposed crisis in the offering, its being used as a vehicle to do that now.

And your view on that is going to depend on what you think of that effort.

April 11, 1941. Scenes of the old world in more or less modern times.

Ceremonies in Jerusalem Easter period, 1941. Nebi Musa banners presented by Mr. Keith Roach. Group at Bab es Silseleh with Mr. Keith Roach and army staff officer."
 

April 11 in 1941 was a Friday, and not just a regular Friday, it was Good Friday on the Latin calendar.  


Then, as now, this was a day of celebration and religious observance in Jerusalem, just of course as it is all over the world.  The day is special in the Holy Land, of course.


At the time, the Holy Land was the British administered Palestine, a League of Nations mandate.


By some accounts, this is the day that the siege of Tobruk commenced.  I ran the date from the first armed contact, which occurred yesterday.

Today in World War II History—April 11, 1941

The siege of Tobruk begins

Hungary stepped in to occupy territories in defeated Yugoslavia, invading territory adjacent to it.  The worst instincts of nations were coming out, which sounds rather obvious, but is evident here as countries made territorial adjustments at the expense of their neighbors, looking back to imperial borders that died during World War One. When World War Two ended, nations making such adjustments often were severely punished for having done so.


Here, Hungary and Italy took territory that they saw as theirs dating back form the those days. Germany took territory that it considered German via Austria.  Bulgaria also seized Yugoslavian territory.

To the south of the Kingdom of the Southern Slavs, the German and British Commonwealth forces clashed in Greece for the first time.  The battle would run two days and result in an Allied defeat.

Australian troops in Greece, April 1941.


April 11, 1921. Glass Arm Eddie, First Broadcast Lightweight Boxing Match, 67th Congress, Transjordan, Cigarettes in Iowa.

Eddie Brown.

On the same day that Eddie Brown, Centerfielder, was photographed, the first radio broadcast of a lightweight boxing match may, or may not have, been done:

Old Radio: April 11, 1921: The First Lightweight Boxing Match...: April 11, 1921: The first lightweight boxing match on radio between Johnny Ray and Johnny Dundee was broadcasted live on this day ...
Pity the poor blogger on something like this. . . 

On this Monday of April, 1921, the 67th Congress was sworn in.


The United Kingdom established the Emirate of Transjordan, which today is the Kingdom of Jordan. Abdullah, the future king, was the Emir.  His grandson is the present king. 

The kingdom has been in the news recently as it may be that a case of sibling rivalry has popped up, and is even potentially dangerous.  

Iowa lifted a prohibition on the sale of cigarettes, a retrograde act that shows the could happen.  

Indeed, cigarette prohibition was an early 20th Century thing that shows the dangers of tobacco, while not really fully understood, weren't completely unknown either.  Prior to Iowa three other states had banned the sale, and even the possession, of cigarettes.


World War One, however, hadn't helped matters.  Indeed, while the Great War had helped push alcohol over the top in terms of being passed, the same factors were somewhat at work.  Thousands of men had been exposed to young drinking during the war and to societies in which, at that time, alcohol was simply part of life and a matter of routine daily consumption.  And cigarettes had poured into the trenches during the war in no small part due to the stress of the situation, and the fact that cigarettes were easier to smoke than their competitors.

1919 cigarette advertisement with  youthful smoking veteran.

For whatever reason, cigarettes really are more dangerous than pipes or cigars, health wise, which doesn't mean any of them are safe.  Lung cancer rates would start to spike in the 1930s due to them.

It's odd to think that my father's father, who was from Iowa originally, was a lifelong Camel cigarette smoker, albeit "life long" is deceptive as he died in his 40s.

On the same day, telephone service was established from Florida to Cuba, and as that lays on the path to cell phones, it was also a retrograde movement. A look at somebody in a distant land, from what seems to be the distant past:

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Wapiti Valley Church, Wapiti Wyoming.

Churches of the West: Wapiti Valley Church, Wapiti Wyoming.

Wapiti Valley Church, Wapiti Wyoming.


This large log church is a protestant church in Wapiti Wyoming.  The establishment of the church dates to 1988, but the structure to 1992.

The Best Posts of the Week of April

 The best posts of the week of April 4, 2021.

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgist Part 12. Play Money, Cheyenne to Denver (and beyond) by rail, Prisoners of the State









Saturday, April 10, 2021

April 10, 1941. The Siege of Tobruk Commences.

The siege of Tobruk, which would last until November, commenced on this day when the Germans probe the defenses of the city invested from the land.  Australian infantry repulsed the German efforts.

The fighting there would go on until November and go on to become the basis of heroic British Commonwealth legend with the Australians playing an outsized role in the city's defense.

Australian infantry at Tobruk.

On the same day, the Germans took Zagreb and proclaimed an independent, fascist, Croatian state that would be the scene of all of the horrors associated with fascism and Nazism.

Other events occurring on this day in the Second World War can be read about here:

The Agrarian's Lament: A Tribune op ed and some thoughts on outfitters and locals.

 A Tribune op ed and some thoughts on outfitters and locals.

April 05, 2021

We recently ran the item below.

The Agrarian's Lament: Two Hunting Season Reflections

A column appears in the Tribune today, by an outfitter, congratulating the Legislators involved in this matter (voting the bill down) for their thoughtfulness.  Interested folks can find it here:

Outfitters: Senators deserve our thanks for taking a thoughtful approach

The argument basically is the one I noted.  The bill would have reduced, the way the op-ed termed it, "hunter tourists" by 50%.  And that's true.

That doesn't rise to the level a good argument in my view. After all, legalization of marihuana was subject to the same pocket book interest. And Colorado was, and probably still is, getting stoner tourists. But that is the way that a lot of people tend to look at any question, and this question in particular.

The bill claims the Senators were verbally attacked, which if true is inexcusable, but which probably does show the deep seated cultural feelings on this issue here in this state.  Natives, of which I am one, tend not to be too sympathetic to this argument.

Why would that be?

It's  not, by and large, that most natives and long time residents are opposed to people keeping their jobs and we generally don't want to hurt the owners of restaurants and hotels and the like.   And we're keen on sporting goods stores. So none of that is it.

What is it, is being locked out.

Hunters and fishermen have sort on odd admiration/aggravation relationship with farmers and ranchers (quite a few of which, we should note, are hunters also).  And outfitters have made this worse.  It has to do with access to land.

Now, I'm not going to wax too romantic about this and there's always been places that hunters and fishermen, and from here out we'll just refer to both as "hunters" as fishermen are simply fish hunters, could not go.  But they were much fewer before outfitting became a big business in the state.  

That wasn't until the 1980s and the impact wasn't immediately felt. But by the 90s it was.  Outfitters were part, but not all, of that.

Indeed, out of state land ownership was also a big part of that.  Rich people would buy ranches in Wyoming and lock them up, if they could, whereas the same lands before had been ones of ready access for hunters.  Outfitters, however, came in and bought the hunting access, often locking up public lands that were landlocked by private lands at the same time.

Ranchers and farmers of course participated in this for a variety of reasons, simple economics being one but also because that often meant that they didn't have to deal with the minority of hunters who were some sort of a problem to them.  The outfitters guided their clients and hence controlled them.  

The entire development has impacted the local land culture a lot.  Access to private lands is harder to come by than it once was.  Given that, local hunters are unlikely to love outfitters if they've been pushed off of their former hunting lands.

The Game & Fish, for its part, has tried to redress this and has done so fairly successfully by effectively becoming sort of an outfitter, sort of, itself, by buying access to hunting lands under various agreements with landowners. That's a great program that I highly encourage, but of course it still isn't going to engender love by the locals for outfitters.

With only so much wildlife to go around, and so many places that it can be found, reserving licenses for out of state hunters, while generally supported by the locals, loses some of its appeal when the argument fails to ignore the impact of what outfitting has helped to create in the state.  

It's a classic agrarian conflict.

Indeed, it very closely replicates the agrarian conflict that took place in the 30 years following the Civil War in the South, to some extent, a conflict that came near to violence on multiple occasions.  That won't occur here, but that local hunters will back such bills if they can, and that the outfitting industry will oppose them, should be no surprise.

All of which gets back, in some ways, to my earlier arguments about creating a subsistence hunting license in the state, but that's not seemingly too likely to happen any time soon, and if it did, chances are that those with a trophy focus, and outfitters, might oppose that.  Or might not.

Friday, April 9, 2021

In Memoriam: Prince Philip of Edinburgh

 

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip at the time of her coronation.

I'll be frank that I'm not one to gush over the British Royal Family.  I'm not even in the category of fan.  I think that monarchy has outlived its day, and really ought to go, particularly because its inseparably tied in most of the European lands which it retains a toehold in the Reformation, which makes it a somewhat retrograde anachronism in addition to simply being an anachronism.

Be that as it may, Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh were probably the ideal monarchs for the the post World War Two United Kingdom.  I don't envy them the role.  During this period they saw the decline and evaporation of the English Empire, the massive diminishment of the Commonwealth, the shunning of British Dominion status and the enormous decline of the Church of England, of which the Queen is the titular head.  

And this doesn't even begin to address their greater family, which has been full of unfortunate occurrences, ranging from the drama over Prince Charles and Lady Diana, to the the most recent goings on.  Through it all, while they've taken heat from time to time, they've remained pretty dignified.  

Prince Philip was of a different age in many ways.

Born of Danish and Greek linage, and into the Greek royal family, he symbolized an era in which, while monarchy was in decline, it remained practically its own nationality.  Born at Mons Prepos on Corfu to Prince Andrew of Greece and Princess Alice of Battenberg, he was a member of the Greek and Danish royal families.

Prince Andrew.

His father was an active, and at least somewhat insubordinate, Army officer in the Greek army and was exiled along with the Greek royal family following the September 1922 coup in that country that resulted from Greece's military disasters in Turkey.  Given this, Philip, who was only one year old at the time, grew up outside of Greece and Philip was educated in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Princess Alice.

Philip was a naturalized British citizen from early in his youth, through his uncle, Louis Mountbatten.  At the start of World War Two, he joined the Royal Navy and served in it throughout the Second World War.  He met Elizabeth, his future wife and the future Queen, in 1934 and began corresponding with her during World War Two, starting in 1939, when she was 13 and he was 18.  They married following the war.  Philip was baptized in the Orthodox Church, which is not surprising given that he was part of the Greek royal family, but the easy switching of religions was a hypocritical feature of royal families.  His mother had been a Protestant who converted to Orthodoxy and became very sincere, so genuine changes in religious fealty did occur in royal families of course.  It'll be interesting to see, now that he has passed, if any lingering attachment to Orthodoxy will be evidenced in his funeral, particularly now as the British Royal Family has been departing from strict tradition.  As the husband of the Queen, he became the Prince Consort, a role which he served in for a very long time.

Prince Philip was almost 100 years old, and Queen Elizabeth is not that far behind.  They've endured the recent embarrassments brought about first by Prince Andrew and now by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan.  They seem to be a symbol of an earlier time, and in some ways, his passing emphasizes that.  The Queen of course continues on, and indeed, if there's going to be a Royal Family in the United Kingdom in the future, it practically depends on her ability to survive, carry on, and pass through the current era.

April 9, 1941. Things Atlantic and Mediterranean.

The USS North Carolina was launched on this day in 1941. She was the first battleship commissioned in the U.S. Navy since World War One.

She served throughout World War Two and was decommissioned in 1947.  It is a museum ship in Wilmington today.

On the same day in 1941 the United States entered an accord with occupied Denmark's ambassador in the US to occupy and protect Greenland, a move that was immediately renounced by the occupied Dutch government.  The agreement allowed for the US to construct bases on Greenland as well.

More on these events can be read about here:

Today in World War II History—April 9, 1941

The Germans flanked the Mextaxas Line in Greece, the beginning of the end of the Allied defense in that country.  In the process they took Salonika.  In Libya, they took Bardia.

On the same day, Winston Churchill gave a speech that looked forward in the war:

We are now able, and indeed required, to take a more general view of the war than when this resolution of thanks was first conceived.

The loss of Bengazi and the withdrawal imposed upon us by the German incursion into Cyrenaica are injurious chiefly on account of the valuable airfields around Bengazi which have now passed into enemy hands.

Apart from this important aspect we should have been content, in view of the danger which was growing in the Balkans, to have halted our original advance at Tobruk.

The rout of the Italians, however, made it possible to gain a good deal of ground easily and cheaply and it was thought worthwhile to do this, although in consequence of other obligations, already beginning to descend upon us, only comparatively light forces could be employed to hold what we had won.

The movement of German air forces and armored troops from Italy and Sicily to Tripoli had begun even before we took Bengazi and our submarines and aircraft have taken a steady toll of the transports carrying the German troops and vehicles.

But that has not prevented, and could not prevent, their building up a strong armored force on the African shore. With this force they have made a rapid attack in greater strength than our commanders expected at so early a date and we have fallen back upon stronger positions and more defensible country.

I cannot attempt to forecast what the course of the fighting in Cyrenaica will be. It is clear, however, that military considerations alone must guide our generals, and that these must not in any way be complicated by what are called prestige values or considerations for public opinion.

Now that the Germans are using their armored strength in Cyrenaica we must expect hard and severe fighting, not only for the defense of Cyrenaica but for the defense of Egypt.

It is fortunate that the Italian collapse in Eritrea, Ethiopia and British and Italian Somaliland is liberating progressively very substantial forces and masses of transport to reinforce the Army of the Nile.

This sudden darkening of the scene in Cyrenaica in no way detracts from the merits of the brilliant campaigns which have destroyed the Italian Empire in North and East Africa. Nor does it diminish our gratitude to the troops or our confidence in the commanders who led them. On the contrary, we shall show that our hearts go out to our armies even more warmly when they are in hard action than when they are sailing forward in the flowing tide of success.

A fortnight ago I warned the public that an unbroken continuance of success could not be hoped for; that reverses as well as victories must be expected; that we must be ready, indeed we always are ready, to take the rough with the smooth.

Since I used this language other notable episodes have been added to those that had gone before. Cheren was stormed after hard fighting which cost us about 4,000 casualties.

The main resistance of the Italian army in Eritrea was overcome. Foremost in all this fighting in Eritrea were our Indian troops, who at all points and on all occasions sustained the martial reputation of the sons of Hindustan.

After the fall of Cheren the army advanced. Asmara has surrendered, the port of Massawa is in our hands. The Red Sea has been virtually cleared of enemy warships, which is a matter of considerable and even far reaching convenience. Harar has fallen and our troops have entered and taken charge of Addis Ababa.

The Duke of Aosta's army has retreated into the mountains where it is being attended upon by the patriot forces of Ethiopia. The complete destruction or capture of all Italian forces in Abyssinia [Ethiopia] with corresponding immediate relief to our operations elsewhere, may be reasonably expected.

Besides these land operations the Royal Navy under Admiral Cunningham, splendidly aided by the fleet air arm and the R.A.F. have gained the important sea battle of Cape Matapan-decisively breaking Italian naval power in the Mediterranean.

When we look back upon the forlorn position in which we were left in the Middle East by the French collapse, and when we remember that not only were our forces in the Nile Valley out-numbered by four or five to one by the Italian armies, that we could not contemplate without anxiety the defense of Nairobi, of Khartum, of Cairo, Alexandria, Jerusalem and the Suez Canal, and that this situation has been marvelously transformed; that we have taken more Italian prisoners than we had troops in the country, that the British Empire has fought alone and conquered alone except for the aid of the gallant Free French and Belgian forces who, although few in number, have borne their part-when all this is recalled amid the unrelenting pressure of events, I feel confident that I can commit this resolution to the House, and that it will be most heartily and enthusiastically acclaimed.

I now turn from Cyrenaica and Abyssinia to the formidable struggle which has followed the German invasion of the Balkan Peninsula.

We have watched with growing concern the German absorption of Hungary, the occupation of Rumania and the seduction and occupation of Bulgaria.

Step by step we have seen this movement of German military power to the east and southeast of Europe. A remorseless accumulation of German armored and motorized divisions and of aircraft has been in progress in all these countries for months.

And at length we find that the Greeks and the Yugoslavs, nations and States which never wished to take part in the war, neither of which was capable of doing the slightest injury to Germany, must now fight to the death for their freedom and for the lands of their fathers.

Until Greece was suddenly and treacherously invaded at the behest of the base Italian dictator, she had observed meticulous neutrality. It may be that the sentiments of her people were on our side, but nothing could have been more correct than the behavior of her government.

We had no contacts or engagements of a military character with the Greek Government. Although there were islands like Crete of the highest naval consequence to us, and although we had given Greece our guarantee against aggression, we abstained from the slightest intrusion upon her. It was only when she appealed to us for aid against the Italians that we gave whatever support in the air and in supplies was possible.

All this time the Germans continued to give friendly assistance to Greece and to toy with the idea of a new commercial treaty. German high officials, both in Athens and Berlin, expressed disapproval of the Italian invasion.

From the beginning of December the movements of German forces through Hungary and through Rumania toward Bulgaria became apparent to all.

More than two months ago, by the traitorous connivance of the Bulgarian King and government, advance parties of the German air force in plain clothes gradually took possession of Bulgarian air fields.

Many thousands of German airmen, soldiers and political police were ensconced in key positions before the actual announcement of the accession of Bulgaria to the Axis was made.

German troops then began to pour into Bulgaria in very large numbers. One of their objectives was plainly Salonika, which I may mention they entered at 4 o'clock this morning.

It has never been our policy nor our interest to see the war carried into the Balkan Peninsula. At the end of February we sent Foreign Secretary Eden and General Sir John G. Dill to the Middle East to see if anything could be done to form a united defensive front in the Balkans. They went to Athens, and to Ankara and would have gone to Belgrade but they were refused permission by Prince Paul's government.

If these three threatened States had stood together they could have had at their disposal sixty or seventy divisions, which with a combined plan and prompt united action taken, might have confronted the Germans with a resistance which might well have deterred them altogether and must in any case have delayed them a long time, having regard to the mountainous and broken character of the country and limits of communications.

Although we were anxious to promote such a defensive front, by which alone the peace of the Balkans could be maintained, we were determined not to urge upon the Greeks, already at grips with the Italians, any course contrary to their desires.

The support which we can give to the peoples fighting for freedom in the Balkans and in Turkey, or ready to fight, is necessarily limited at present and we did not wish to take the responsibility of pressing the Greeks to engage in a conflict.

With the new and terrible foe gathering upon their borders, however, on the first occasion Eden and Dill met the Greek King and the Greek Prime Minister. The latter declared spontaneously on behalf of his government that Greece was resolved at all costs to defend her freedom and native soil against any aggressor, and that even if left wholly unsupported by Great Britain or by Turkey and Yugoslavia, they would remain faithful to their alliance with Great Britain, which came into play at the opening of the Italian invasion, and would fight to the death against both Italy and Germany.

This being so, our duty was clear. We were bound in honor to give them all the aid in our power. If they were resolved to face the might and fury of the Huns, we had no doubts but that we should share their ordeal, and that the soldiers of the British Empire must stand in the line with them.

We were apprised by our generals on the spot, Dill and Sir Archibald Wavell, and Greek Commander in Chief Alexander Papagos-both victorious commanders in chief-that a sound military plan, giving good prospects of success, could be made.

Of course in all these matters there is hazard. In this case as any one can see, without particularizing unduly, there was for us a double hazard.

It remains to be seen how well these opposing risks and duties have been judged. But of this I am sure, that there is no less likely way of winning a war than to adhere pedantically to the maxim of "safety first."

Therefore, early in March we made a military agreement with the Greeks, and the considerable movement of British and Imperial troops and supplies began. I cannot enter into details or, while this widespread battle is going on, attempt to discuss either the situation or the prospects.

I therefore turn to the story of Yugoslavia. This valiant steadfast people, whose history for centuries has been a struggle for life and who owe their survival to their mountains and to their fighting qualities, made every endeavor to placate the Nazi monster.

If they had made common cause with the Greeks when the Greeks hurled back the Italian invaders, the complete destruction of the Italian armies in Albania could have been certainly and swiftly achieved long before the German forces could have reached the theatre of war.

Even in January or February this extraordinary military opportunity was still open. But Prince Paul's government, undeterred by the fate of so many small countries, not only observed the strictest neutrality and refused even to enter into effective staff conversations with Greece or with Turkey or with us, but hugged the delusion that they could preserve their independence by patching up some sort of pact with Hitler.

Once again we see the odious German poison technique employed. In this case, however, it was to the government rather than to the nation that the dose and inoculations were administered. The process was not hurried. Why should it be? All the time the German armies and air force were entering and massing in Bulgaria. From a few handfuls of tourists admiring the beauties of the Bulgarian landscape in the wintry weather, the German forces grew to seven, twelve, twenty and finally to twenty-five divisions. Presently the weak and unfortunate Prince and afterward his Ministers were summoned, like others before them, to Hitler's footstool and a pact was signed which would have given Germany complete control not over the body but over the soul of the Yugoslav nation.

Then at last the people of Yugoslavia saw their peril, and with a universal spasm of revolt swept from power those who were leading them into a shameful tutelage, and resolved at the eleventh hour to guard their freedom and their honor with their lives.

A boa constrictor who had already covered his prey with his foul saliva and then had it suddenly wrested from his coils, would be in an amiable mood compared with Hitler, Goering, Ribbentrop and the rest of the Nazi gang.

A frightful vengeance was vowed against the Southern Slavs. Rapid, perhaps hurried, redispositions were made of German forces and German diplomacy. Hungary was offered large territorial gains to become the accomplice in the assault upon a friendly neighbor with whom she had just signed a solemn pact of friendship and non-aggression. Count Teleki, Hungarian Premier, preferred to take his own life rather than join in such a deed of shame.

A heavy forward movement of the German armies, already gathered in Austria, was set in motion through Hungary to the northern frontier of Yugoslavia. A ferocious howl of hatred from the supreme miscreant was the signal for the actual invasion. The open city of Belgrade was laid in ashes and a tremendous drive by the German armored forces in Bulgaria was launched westward into Southern Serbia.

When it was no longer deemed worth while to keep up the farce of love for Greece, other powerful forces rolled forward into Greece, where they were at once unflinchingly encountered and have already sustained more than one bloody repulse at the hands of the heroic Greek Army. The British and Imperial troops have not up to the present been engaged. Further than this, I cannot attempt to carry the tale.

I therefore turn for a few moments to the larger aspects of the war. I must first speak of France and of the French people, to whom in their sorrows we are united not only by memories but by living ties.

I welcomed cordially the declaration of Marshal Petain that France would never act against her former allies or go to war with her former allies. Such a course, so insensate, so unnatural and on lower grounds so improvident, might well-though it is not for me to speak for any government but our own-such a course might alienate from France for long years the sympathy and support of the American democracy. I am sure that the French nation would, with whatever means of expression are still open to them, repudiate such a shameful course.

We must, however, realize that the government of Vichy is in a great measure dependent and, in a great many matters, though happily not in all, in Hitler's hands, acting daily through the Armistice Commission at Wiesbaden. Two million Frenchmen are in German hands. A great part of the food supply in France has been seized by Germany. Both prisoners and food can be doled out in return for hostile propaganda or unfriendly action against Britain. Or again, the cost of the German occupation of France, for which a cruel and exorbitant toll is exacted, may be raised still further as a punishment for any manifestation of sympathy with us.

Admiral Darlan tells us that the Germans have been generous in the treatment of France. All the information which we have, both from occupied and unoccupied France, makes me very doubtful whether the mass of the French people would endorse that strange and sinister tribute.

But I must make it clear that we must maintain our blockade against Germany and rights of contraband control at sea, which have never been disputed or denied to any belligerent and which a year ago France was exercising with us.

Some time ago we were ready to open economic negotiations with the French to mitigate the hardships of their conditions, but any chance of fruitful negotiations was nipped in the bud by "the generous Germans" and imperative orders were given from Wiesbaden to Vichy to break off all contact with us.

We have allowed very considerable quantities of food to go into France out of a sincere desire to spare the French people every hardship in our power. When, however, it comes to thousands of tons of rubber and other vital war material which pass, as we know, directly to the German armies, we are bound, even at the risk of collisions with French warships at sea, to enforce our rights as recognized by international law.

There is another action into which Vichy might be led by the dictation of Germany: namely, sending powerful war vessels which are unfinished or even damaged from the French African parts to ports in metropolitan France now under German control or which may at very short notice fall under their control.

Such movements of French war vessels from Africa to France would alter the balance of naval power and would thus prejudice the interests of the United States as well as our own. I trust that such incidents will be avoided, or if they are not avoided, that the consequences which will follow from them will be understood and fairly judged by the French nation for whose cause we are contending no less than for our own.

I am glad to be able to report a continued and marked improvement in the relative strength of the R.A.F. compared with that of Germany. Also, I draw attention to the remarkable increase in its actual strength and in its bombing capacity and also a marked augmentation in the power and size of the bombs which we shall be using in even greater number.

The sorties which we are now accustomed to make upon German harbors and cities are increasing both in the number of aircraft employed and in the weight of the discharge with every month that passes.

In some cases we have already in our raids exceeded in severity anything which a single town has in a single night experienced over here. At the same time, there is a sensible improvement in our means of dealing with German raids upon this island.

A very great measure of security has been given to this country in daylight and we are glad that the days are lengthening; but now the R.A.F. looks forward to the moonlight periods as opportunities for inflicting severe losses upon raiders as well as for striking hard at the enemy in his own territory. The fact that technical advisers welcome daylight, moonlight and starlight and that we do not rely for our protection on darkness, clouds and mist, as would have been the case some time ago, is pregnant with hope and with meaning. But, of course, all these tendencies are only in their early stages.

But, after all, everything turns upon the Battle of the Atlantic which is proceeding with growing intensity on both sides. Our losses in ships and tonnage are very heavy and, vast as are the shipping resources we control, these losses could not continue indefinitely without seriously affecting our war effort and our means of subsistence.

It is no answer to say that we have inflicted upon the Germans and Italians a far higher proportion of losses, compared with the size of their merchant fleet, and that our world-wide traffic is maintained. We have in fact sunk, captured or seen scuttled over 2,300,000 tons of German and Italian shipping. We have lost nearly 4,000,000 tons of British tonnage. Against that we have brought under the British flag over 3,000,000 tons of foreign or newly constructed tonnage, not counting considerable Allied tonnage under our control. Therefore, at the moment our enormous fleets sail the seas without any serious or obvious diminution so far as numbers of ships is concerned.

But what is to happen in the future if losses continue at the present rate? Where are we to find another 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 tons to fill the gaps which are being created and to carry us on through 1942?

We are building merchant ships upon a very considerable scale and to the utmost of our ability. We are also making a most strenuous effort to repair the large number of vessels damaged by the enemy and the still larger number damaged by Winter gales. We are doing our utmost to accelerate the turnaround of our ships, remembering that even ten days' saving on turnaround of our immense fleet is equal to a reinforcement of 5,000,000 tons of imports in a single year.

All the energy and contrivance of which we are capable have been and will be devoted to these purposes and we are already conscious of substantial results.

But when all is said and done, the only way in which we can get through the year 1942 without a very sensible contraction of our war efforts is by another gigantic building of merchant ships in the United States similar to that prodigy of output accomplished by the Americans in 1918.

All this has been in train in the United States for many months past. There has now been a very large extension of the program and we have assurance that several millions of tons of American newly-built shipping will be available for the common struggle during the course of the next year.

Here, then, is the assurance upon which we may count for the staying power without which it will not be possible to save the world from the criminals who assail its future.

But the Battle of the Atlantic must be won not only in the factories and shipyards but upon the blue water. I am confident that we shall succeed in coping with the air attacks which are made upon the shipping in our western and northwestern approaches.

I hope eventually the inhabitants of the sister isle [Ireland] may realize that it is as much in their interests as it is in ours that their ports and airfields should be available for naval and air forces which must operate ever further into the Atlantic.

But while I am hopeful we shall gain mastery over the air attacks upon our shipping, the U-boats and the surface raiders range ever farther to the westward, ever nearer to the shores of the United States, and constitute a menace which must be overcome if the life of Britain is not to be endangered and if the purposes to which the Government and peoples of the United States have devoted themselves are not to be frustrated. We shall, of course, make every effort in our power.

The defeat of the U-boats and of surface raiders has been proved to be entirely a question of adequate escorts for our convoys.

It will indeed be disastrous if the great masses of weapons, munitions and instruments of war of all kinds made with the toil and skill of American hands at the cost of the United States and loans to us under the Aid to Britain Bill were to sink into the depths of the ocean and never reach the hard-pressed fighting line.

That would be lamentable to us and I cannot believe it would be found acceptable to the proud and resolute people of the United States.

Indeed, I am authorized to say that ten United States Revenue cutters, fast vessels of about 2,000 tons displacement with a fine armament and a wide range of endurance, have already been placed at our disposal by the American Government and will soon be in action. These vessels, originally designed to enforce prohibition, will now serve an even higher purpose.

It is, of course, very hazardous to try to forecast in what direction or directions Hitler will employ his military machine in the present year. He may at any time attempt the invasion of this island. That is an ordeal from which we shall not shrink.

At the present moment he is driving fast through the Balkans and at any moment he may turn upon Turkey. But there are many signs which point to an attempt to secure the granary of the Ukraine [both in Russia] and the oil-fields of the Caucasus as a German means of gaining the resources wherewith to wear down the English-speaking world.

All this is speculation, but I will say one thing more: Once we have gained the Battle of the Atlantic and are sure of the constant flow of American supplies which are being prepared for us, then, however far Hitler may go or whatever new millions and scores of millions he may lap in misery, we who are armed with the sword of retributive justice shall be on his track.



April 9, 1921. Meetings

The President and First Lady (and indeed the VP and his wife) had a busy day of meetings on this Saturday, April 9, 1921.


They met with the Salvation Army, which only lately had played a major support role for Allied troops during the Great War.

And they also met with the Mexican Chamber of Commerce, something that was done, of course, against the background of the still uncertain outcome of the recent Mexican Revolution, and the accompanying uncertainty over how far to the left the new Mexican government would take that nation and its economy.

An advertisement for Oldsmobile trucks appeared in the Country Gentleman.


This is interesting in that it featured a Western sheep rancher in an era in which sheep ranches, which were a major ranching endeavor in the West, still was mostly horse powered in every fashion.  Oldsmobile was suggesting that some of that could be taken over by trucks.


Today In Wyoming's History: Updates for April, 2021

Today In Wyoming's History: Updates for April, 2021

Updates for April, 2021



April 8:  Girls high school softball comes to Casper.