Southern Europe
Italy Enters War.—On June 10 the Italian Government declared war on Great Britain and France. The order in the first week of June requiring all Italian merchant vessels to return home or remain in neutral ports was a further indication of Italy’s imminent entry into the war against the Allies. Negotiations with Britain to ease the restrictions of the Allied blockade, which were reported to have reached the Point of “agreement in principle,” were broken off abruptly on June 1, and the passage through Italy of a Spanish military mission en route to Berlin suggested that when Italy entered the war the Spanish Nationalist government in Spain might be lied to close co-operation. There were reports, no doubt well founded, that Italy had been approached by France and Britain with offers meeting in large measure her earlier demands regarding Tunisia, Suez Canal control, and use of the port of Jibuti in French Somaliland, but these offers were condemned by the Italian press as “too little and too late.” Throughout this period the United States Government continued its efforts to keep Italy neutral. A message from President Roosevelt on May 15 was answered by Premier Mussolini three days later in terms not made public but described as “noncommittal without being alarming.” The Italian press warned the United States that her best course was to remain out of the European struggle which was none of her affair, lest otherwise she suffer certain reprisals in the Western Hemisphere.
Spain and the War.—The appointment of a veteran British diplomat, Sir Samuel Hoare, as new Ambassador to Madrid indicated that the Allies still had hopes of keeping the Spanish Nationalist Government from full co-operation with the Axis powers. General Franco’s speech, when Sir Samuel presented his credentials on June 8, suggested a continued policy of neutrality, but the Spanish Government press has repeatedly indicated that this will be an opportunist neutrality, guided by the idea of “getting something out of the war.” A summary of present conditions in Spain in Foreign Policy Reports (May 15) emphasizes the grievances against the new regime among the Monarchists, military caste, and clergy, and the fact that the status of the laboring class is worse than before the war. The Report concludes with the view that Spain “hopes to stay out of the conflict—but like the Baltic, Scandinavian, and Low Countries, may not be permitted to choose its own course.”
Balkan Jitters.—The successes of German arms in Western Europe were inevitably followed by shifts of policy in the Balkans and some slackening of resistance to Nazi pressure. In Rumania the reputedly pro-Ally Tatarescu Cabinet continued after a reorganization on May 11, but on June 1 Foreign Minister Gafenco was supplanted by Ion Gigurtu, who has favored Rumania’s entry into the Nazi economic orbit. In Hungary a shift of troops from the German and Yugoslav to the Rumanian frontiers in the first weeks of June was taken as indicating full military co-operation with Rome and Berlin. What the Reich wants from the Balkans, however, is not so much military co-operation as foodstuffs and oil. In the first three months of 1940 Rumania exported only 75,000 tons of oil to the Reich, as compared with 580,000 tons called for by the Reich-Rumanian Agreement, and 183,000 tons exported to the Reich in the same months of last year.
Low Countries Overrun
Belgian King Surrenders.—On May 27, only 17 days after the invasion of his country by the Germans, King Leopold III of Belgium surrendered to the invaders and gave orders to his army to cease resistance. Though this order was given without consulting Allied military leaders and without the approval or countersignature of any member of the Belgian Cabinet, it had the effect of practically ending Belgian military resistance and fatally weakening the Allied forces in Flanders. At a meeting in Paris next day the Belgian Cabinet disavowed the King’s “illegal and unconstitutional action” and decided to continue the struggle. This action was unanimously approved on the 31st at a meeting in Limoges of 89 Belgian deputies and 54 senators, constituting somewhat less than a majority of the two Chambers. Meantime the German government retained Leopold as a prisoner of war and on May 19 proclaimed the reincorporation into the Reich of the provinces of Eupen and Malmedy, ceded to Belgium after the World War.
Netherlands Occupied.—The invasion of the Low Countries on May 10 was defended by a lengthy pronouncement of the German Foreign Office which sought to justify the action on the grounds that it forestalled Allied plans for an attack on the Ruhr area through Holland and Belgium, and that both these nations had facilitated the Allied information service and acted in co-operation with the Allied General Staffs. A main grievance was that the defense systems of these nations were chiefly organized on the frontiers where, as the event proved, it was most needed. Difficulties of Allied co-operation with the Low Countries, even after the invasion, seemed sufficient evidence of lack of coordination before. By May 14 all but a small portion of Holland was in German hands. Queen Wilhelmina and the royal family found refuge in England and left the decision as to further resistance in the hands of General Henri Winkelman, military commander in chief. Without delay the General gave up the struggle, and the Allied forces withdrew into Belgium. Technically the Dutch Government did not make terms. Uncaptured Dutch military and naval units made common cause with the Allies, and the resources of Dutch shipping and the Great Dutch Colonial empire were put at the Allies’ disposal. Germany appointed Dr. Seyss-Inquart, former Governor of Austria, as Reich Commissioner in charge of the civil government of the occupied Netherlands, and the Gestapo quickly moved in.
American Reaction.—As a result of the invasion of the Low Countries President Roosevelt on May 11 issued a formal proclamation extending the Neutrality Act to Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. The President also, in response to a message from King Leopold, sent a note citing his speech of the night before in which he said in part:
. . . the cruel invasion by force of arms of the independent nations of Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxemburg has shocked and angered the people of the United States and, I feel sure, their neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. The people of the United States hope, as do I, that policies which seek to dominate peaceful and independent peoples through force and military aggression may be arrested, and that the government and people of Belgium may preserve their integrity and freedom.
The United States also joined with the other American republics in a declaration Published May 18 in which they condemned as “injustifiable the ruthless violation by Germany of the neutrality and sovereignty of Belgium, Holland, and Luxemburg.” There was another proposal, suggested by Foreign Minister Cantilo of Argentina, that the republics further manifest their disapproval by shifting from a position of “neutrality” to “nonbelligerency,” but this was dropped as not likely to secure general support.
Evidence of the pro-Ally trend of American sentiment was seen, however, in the fact that the United States Government made no protest when informed of the landing of French and British forces in the Dutch West Indies to guard against possible German sabotage, especially in the oil plants at Curasao and Aruba. And further evidence was seen in the government sponsored moves in early June by which Army and Navy aircraft, artillery, and other munitions were turned over for immediate shipment to the Allies, in exchange for later types still under construction.
Allied War Moves
British Coalition Ministry.—On May 10, as German troops invaded the Low Countries, and after two days of bitter attacks from the Liberal and Labor opposition on the conduct of the war, the Ministry of Neville Chamberlain resigned and was succeeded by a coalition government headed by Winston Churchill. The new ministry as finally completed included, with under-secretaries, 42 conservatives, 18 Laborites, 8 Liberals, and 7 Independents, giving the Laborites a representation rather greater than justified by their strength in Parliament. Within this huge governmental organization a War Cabinet of five men undertook the primary task of directing the war. These included the Prime Minister acting also as Minister for Co-ordination of Defense, Viscount Halifax still at the head of the Foreign Office, Clement R. Atlee as Labor leader and Lord Privy Seal, former Premier Neville Chamberlain as Lord President of the Council, and Arthur Greenwood (Labor) as Minister without Portfolio. Only the first two of these had heavy ministerial duties outside the War Cabinet. Other significant Cabinet appointees were Anthony Eden as Minister of War, A. V. Alexander (Labor) as First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Arthur Sinclair (Liberal and outspoken critic of the Chamberlain government) as Air Minister, and the newspaper magnate Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Aircraft Production. Altogether this was a united national government, with labor in a leading role.
Of equal importance to the cabinet reorganization was the War Emergency Act passed on May 22, going far beyond the similar act of last August and giving the ministry practically dictatorial powers for the duration of the war. The government secured power to control or conscript all persons and property, prescribe conditions of work, hours, and wages, take over all war industries, and impose an excess profits tax of 100 per cent. This was not totalitarianism, since the powers were granted and could be withdrawn by democratic processes, but it meant that, even after victory, England would be under a far different system from that which the Chamberlain Ministry had struggled to preserve.
French Cabinet Changes.—In view of the recent establishment of the Reynaud Ministry in France, the Cabinet reorganization there after the military reverses in the Low Countries was less radical than in London. First significant changes were the appointment of the 84-year-old Marshal Henri Petain as Vice Premier and special military adviser to the Premier, and the shift of former Premier Daladier from the War Office to the Foreign Office, in exchange with Reynaud. To the vital post of Minister of the Interior went George Man- del (born Rothchild), who was chief of staff to Clemenceau in the last war and had a record for vigorous measures against all dissenting elements within the nation. Later, on June 6, Premier Reynaud dropped Daladier altogether and took over both the War and the Foreign Ministeries, thus centering in his own hands the military as well as diplomatic direction of the war. As his chief assistant in the War Office he selected General Charles de Gaulle, a younger officer and leading advocate of mechanized warfare, whose ideas had been opposed by both Gamelin and Daladier.
Anglo-Soviet Approaches.—British efforts toward improved trade and diplomatic relations with the Soviet Republic were set forward late in May by arrangements, approved by the Soviet, for the appointment of Sir Stafford Cripps as Ambassador to Moscow with full powers. Sir Stafford, a Laborite Member of Parliament, had actually left London two days earlier on his journey to Moscow via the Balkan States, taking with him a small trade delegation whose task was to further such trade arrangements as might be possible with Russia without detriment to the blockade of Germany. Russia’s needs were chiefly for rubber and tin, and she was concerned also for the release of the two Soviet vessels and cargoes still held in French Indo-China. The British example, in yielding to the Soviet demand for a full-fledged ambassador rather than an envoy on special mission, was followed by the French Government, which named Eirik Labonne to take up duties at Moscow carried out by subordinate officials for the past several months. A further hint of Soviet middle- of-the-road policy was seen in the report from London in early June that the Soviet Government had promised at least benevolent neutrality toward Turkey in case Italy, entering the war on the side of Germany, should threaten the Dardanelles.
Norway Evacuated.—On June 10 King Haakon and his government ordered an end of hostilities in Norway and the surrender of his forces to Germany. The King and his entourage escaped to England where they announced they would continue aid for the Allies. British and French forces evacuated Narvik.
America and the War
Monroe Doctrine Reasserted.—A resolution introduced in both Houses of Congress in early June, with prospects of speedy passage, would have the effect of putting this country again definitely on record as opposed to the transfer of any territory in the Western Hemisphere to a non-American power. In a letter approving the resolution, Secretary Hull commented as follows:
The proposed resolution recites (1) that the United States would not recognize any transfer and would not acquiesce in any attempt to transfer any geographic region of the Western Hemisphere from one non-American power to another non-American power, and (2) that if such transfer or attempt to transfer should appear likely the United States would, in addition to other measures, immediately consult with the other American republics to determine upon the steps which should be taken to safeguard their common interests.
The first part of the resolution is in effect a restatement of the position which this government has consistently taken for more than a hundred years. The second part of it is a reaffirmation of the policy adopted in recent years of co-operation with other American republics in matters of common interest.
The resolution obviously has in view the future of the Dutch and Danish West Indies, as well as Greenland and other areas within the Western Hemisphere that may be affected by changes in Europe.
Latin American Fifth Columns.— Governmental campaigns against alien propaganda and plotting in the Latin- American nations, following the invasion of the Low Countries, confirmed the widespread and dangerous extent of such activities. Though no doubt heightened for the purpose of diverting American attention from Europe, they showed clearly the difficulties involved in any plan of “hemispheric defense.” Typical were the activities of Arthur Diedrich, press attache of the German legation in Mexico, who was reported as employing a large staff in spreading Nazi propaganda through newspapers, magazines, and radio broadcasts. His work was facilitated by the fact that Red and Nazi propaganda in Mexico, hitherto opposed, has found a common cause in attacking democratic ideas. In Colombia it was reported that 3,000 German “tourists” had received visas to visit the country in July. In Ecuador, United States diplomatic representatives were concerned about the German Sedta Airline, operating over 100 planes easily convertible for war purposes. In fact a system of air fields and facilities, largely German controlled, was found to extend through Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile to Argentina. In Bolivia, an exchange agreement provides for the sending of 25 young officers to the German Army each year and 60 student aviators to Italy. Press reports have also emphasized the widespread activities of Italian and Spanish as well as German nationalist organizations in certain Latin-American countries. In Argentina about 4,000,000 of the total population of 13,000,000 are of Italian stock. Of these perhaps nine-tenths are regarded as indifferent or definitely antifascist, but there is a well-financed fascist organization believed to include nearly a half million members. Concern over these obstacles to Pan-American solidarity was thought partly responsible for the dispatch of the U. S. cruisers Quincy and Wichita to South American waters in early June, to be followed by other units of the U. S. Fleet.
Far East
Problem of Dutch Indies.—Immediately upon the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany, Japan sent messages to the belligerent nations, as well as to the United States and Italy, expressing “deep concern over the possibility of extension of hostilities to the East Indies.” The immediate reply of both the Nether- land and British governments, on May 13, was that no alteration of the status quo in the Dutch Indies was contemplated, and that the defense forces in the islands were regarded as sufficient for their protection. The German reply, delayed until May 22, was to the effect that the German Government was “not interested in the Netherlands Indies problem.” In some quarters this was interpreted as giving Japan a free hand in the Orient, and was regarded as strengthening the view of those advocating co-operation with Germany and positive measures to “protect” Japanese interests in the South Sea area.
The Japanese Consul General at Batavia notified Dutch authorities that Japan expected her rubber and oil imports would not be cut down as a result of the war demands of the Allies. Japan’s concern in a possible “liquidation” of western interests in the Orient was manifested in a speech by Foreign Minister Arita on June 3, in which he declared that Japan could not disregard any developments that might alter either the political or economic status of the islands. “Our situation,” he said, “might be likened to that of the United States, which cannot remain indifferent to developments in Mexico or Venezuela.”