The Ypsilanti daily press. (Ypsilanti, Mich.) 1928-1962, 1941-01-15

Dill, now out OF the OlplOIlduC
service but representative in
France at the time OF its collapse
under German pressure, said he
was aware that this country's pub
lie opinion is strongly against any
extension Of our aid to the over
seas democracies beyond the short
of war" limit, but he vehemently
urged our extension OF as much as
possible OF II up TO that limit. Yet,
by not going beyond it, he empha-
sized. we're taking the risk. with
our eyes OPEN" OF a totalitarian
victory. And what would that
mean to US? Bill tells graphically
what he thinks il would mean Ac-
cording to his account. II would be
awful
He knows something about ex-
lstence under a dictatorship. too;
for while he was our ambassador
In Russia.
Existence In the totalitarian
states" he explained to his North
Carolina audience, lis not life as
we Americans understand it. It's
living terror" He amplified this
idea with plenty of hair-ralsing de-
scriptions of conditions he's famil-
lar with from his residence In their
midst
Suppose. then, that the totali-
tarians win. II they do. says Bill,
they'll control more than 30 per
cent Of the human race. And he's
doubtful that we could long stand
of such a preponderance against US
AS for appeasing the dictators?
There was" quotes Bill. "a
young lady Of Niger,
Who went for ride on a tiger.
They returned from the ride.
With the lady inside.
And smile on the face Of the
tiger"
A Long Chance?
In short. there's no getting away
from Bits conclusion that. while
we certainly ought to do all we can
for the democracies short Of war"
we're taking a long chance on our
own future by stopping short of
there.
I've touched on his speech only
In the high spots. Space isn't avail
able for more than that Besides, it
already has been published in full.
There's about half a newspaper
M ~ ~
by anyone who hasn't already
perused il
But some Of our lsolationists in
Washington are saying it's pecu-
liar that it got so much publicity.
Bill isn't in public life at pres
snt. There was no improperly In
his speech. as there probably would
have been II he still were an am
bassador. Nevertheless, he's of no
official consequence since he re-
signed. He made his speech at a
gathering OF no particular impor-
lance; it wouldn't have been sur
prlsing If some individual magazine
had printed an article by him.
But how did 1t happen that every
daily newspaper in the country re-
ceived an advance copy Of that
especial address?
That's what our lsolationists are
asking. And they're surmising that
Bill himself, or somebody else, who
tavors our active war participation.
attended to the job Of disseminate
ing IT,
Disturbs lsolatlonlsts
There's no criticism of the edi-
tors Bill handled his subject very
ably, from the pro-participation
standpoint. And the pros" have a
right to be heard from. All the
same, the isolationists maintain
that IT was a conspicuous piece OF
propaganda. and convincing piece
Of II also.
Furthermore. they say II was
coincidence that 1t followed right
on the heels Of President Roose-
velt's preparedness message to con-
gress. The isolationlsts. as we all
know, insist that the president
everlastingly Is edging US more
and more nearly into actual war.
but can't admit 1t Was there, they
ask, any deliberate timing OF Bill
Bullitt's ebullition
In connection with our prepared
ness and aid the denocra cieS"