Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-04-19
ny HUGH $. JOHNSON

TAR be IT from this column 10
detract from the splendid
work Of the war department in
lis part In our national defense
effort or 10 criticize the man
agement of that job. under
great difficulties. by the veteran
secretary of war. Henry l..
Stlmson his assistant. Robert
Patterson, and the army'S bril-
liant chief of staff, George
Marshall.
Experience and candor. never
theless, compel some digs at Mr..
StlmSon'S prepared g en- era |
statement before the Senate
finance committee investigating
the defense program.
1t was a clever and tempered
advocates -hrief. the general i'm
preSS.on from which is that all
Is sweetness and light. that in
comparison with our 1917 and
is effort This squirt is of the
hare competing with the tor
tolSe and that we really are
building a modern army in both
training and equipment.
is THIS the kind of soothing
L syrup our people want Is
the approaching press censorship
going to be used 10 prevent
criticism Of such whitewash p If
it is, God help us.
In England , Winston Churchill
has given a precedent-making
example of the value in building
public morale. of reciting the
truth with the bark off.
Our people are of the same
blood and temper. They can
take il as well as any
An unvarniShed story will be
more acceptable 10 them than
any "whited Sepulchres which
Intieed appear beautiful outward
but are within full of dead mems
bones and of all uncleanneSs."
TIE truth is nowhere near as
Il bad as that but it is no
such source of satisfaction as
the general statement sug-
geStS.
Furthermore. as far as the
war department is concerned,
any honest appraisal of what 1t
has done. regardless of the
shortcomings in the result, will
leave little Of blame TO It,
II has had to make bricks
without straw and this kind
were never very good bricks.
or course Mr. Stimson didn't
and couldn't have composed this
comparison between the World
War efforts and those of today
TO show an enormous speedup.
They are obviously the work
Of some public-relations ghost
writer-and utterly misleading.
The comparison dates our
present armament effort from
June 80, 1910, and the World
War effort from April, 1917, and
gloats over the present "Su-
perior planning and preparation
and what IT says is far more
rapid accomplishment.
MOT TO mention that the pres
~ ent superior industrial
planning and preparation is sim
ply a blueprint, most blunder-
ingly followed, which was laid
down by the veterans of that
earlier~day. the comparison neg
lects TO say that before March
4. 1918. in our World War eff
fort. our policy was of token
troops and vast supplies and
money with no about military
effort.
The progress in the eight
months between March 4. 1918.
when the green light turned on,
and the armistice as compared
with the nine months since
June 80, 1910. OF Mr.. Stimson
general statement" makes the
latter look like the forward
march of a snail funeral.
IT is quite clear TO any in
formed observer that if the full
plan Of the war department for
industrial mobilization. Inherited
from the 1918 experience. had
been released even as late as
June 30. 1910, the task would
have been much nearer accom-
t,lichfr7anf
1t wasn't released. II isn't re-
leased yet.
THERE is much talk in the
L general statement about
the speed Of the present artil-
lery and aircraft program.
The crucial element of the
artillery program is the war
proved necessary shift from Is
nm 10 los nm. guns and How
tiers and mass production Of 81
nm guns.
or the former We have one
and arc still in the design
stage on the rest.
ON 81 nm. guns production
is terribly laecard and on the
whole congeries OF aircraft. the
later gun and fixed ammunition.
the delivery program is in hope
less doldrumS.
Distributed hy King Features synd. Inc
Repfodaetan IN whole or in part
strictly prohibited.