Evening star., 1939-09-05
Representative Thorkelson
Discusses Neutrality.
To the Editor Of The Star:

Discusses Neutrality.
To the Editor Of The Star:
Since the adjournment of Congress
much has transpired of national inter-
est. While here in Montana I have tried
to keep myself informed about problems
that may confront Congress in the next
session.
One of these is neutrality, subject
about which there seems to be con-
siderable confusion.
In your editorial, August &c. 1899, en-
titled Americas Policy" you refer to
this very subject, and your conclusions
are not predicated upon neutrality but
instead upon partiality.
I refer you to paragraph of your
editorial. In this the writer assumes
that the axis powers are better pre-
pared than "democracies' q presume
England and for that reason the arms
embargo will help axis powers. 1t should
therefore be lifted to permit England
to obtain war supplies, which is possible
because of the larger navy.
1t is not our business to neutralize or
equalize war strengths, and such attempt
on our part would be hostile act instead
of neutrality.
The unadulterated democracies of Eu-
rope are Russia, Germany and Italy,
and not, as your writer infers, autocratic
England and republican France. We are
entirely too liberal with the word de-
mocracy because it is synonymous with
socialism and communism.
The writer further infers that allow
ing England and her allies to buy war
material in the United States minimizes
the possibility of our entering the war
The contrary. however, is true, for we
will follow the nation to which we ex-
tend credit. 1t was such extension of
credit, and propaganda, that aligned us
with the Triple Entente during the
World War.
However, all the beefng and stewing
about arms embargo and neutrality is
beside the point. Arms embargo does
not apply until war is declared and all
nations now involved are conducting
operations without such declaration. It
follows, therefore, that we are at liberty
to sell, and all powers are at liberty
to buy, providing they have the money
to pay for it.
All nations rely upon international
law except the United States. We have
a neutrality lava useless piece Of legis-
lation 1t would be better for us to
conform to international law, for by
strict adherence to it we may enjoy
peace by being neutral. When you say,
ANY legislative attempt at neutrality
is certain to favor one side or the other"
you admit all neutrality legislation is
futile, which is fact. It should, there
fore, be clear that we should, like other
nations, rely entirely upon International
law instead of fooling around with stupid
neutrality legislation
The real fact is the administration
has not the courage to shoulder RESPONSE
bility for war, so in order to remain
free from blame, neutrality legislation
is requested. In case of failure, Con-
gress will be to blame because 1t enacted
the legislation. In the event of success
the administration will be glorified. To
the administration 1t is Heads I win,
tails you lose" This has been the policy
for the last seven years, but Congress
is awakening.
The Bloom Neutrality Act is q dan
gerous piece of legislation because its
purpose is not to safeguard peace, but is
in reality an act to bring about war.
Neutrality" is misnomer in this par
ticular instance.
The President cannot pick the aggres-
sor more intelligently than the rest Of
us. Inasmuch as Congress must declare
war, If there should be war, and as Con-
gress must shoulder all responsibility
and blame for such decision, It u only