The Skyland post. [volume] (West Jefferson, N.C.) 193?-1988, 1941-11-13
(By Staff Writer)

the United states destroyer hou
ben James, President Roosevelt
clarified this nations policy to-
ward Germany by stating that ne
saw no reason why the sinking
would affect Americas foreign
policy or its diplomatic relations
with Germany.
His statement was interpreted
to mean: We will continue to use
our navy as much as necessary to
protect goods and munitions be-
ing shipped to England and Rus
STA; in the performance of this du-
ty it is inevitable that some OF
our naval vessels will come in
contact with the enemy and shoot
ing will take place; there is no
advantage in breaking off diplo-
matte relations with Germany;
our immediate job is to see that
the sea lanes are kept open and
safe and we are in the war to the
extent that it is necessary to per-
form that task.
The inference by the President
that he expects some of our ships
will be shot at in carrying out the
duty which has been assigned to
them, is the first time he has ad-
mitted the inevitableness of such
attacks. There are many here who
believe his present calmer atti-
tude will tend to create the unity
of opinion which he has been
seeking.
Ever since the first American
warship was shot at the Presi-
dent has angrily declared each at
tack to be a totally unwarranted
act of piracy. But when, in each
case, it was later shown that our
ships were protecting English
ships or attacking submarines
themselves, the public has taken
a "what can you expect?" view
point.
Now, if the President, congress
and the public all accept the fact
that our ships are going to be shot
at in our undeclared sea war, we
can 60 on from there to determine
if that is a reason for backwater-
ing or for making a stronger sea
offensive to drive off the enemy.
There is little doubt that the
majority in congress now favor
an about sea war against Ger
many.
The long senate debate on the
junking of the neutrality act was
actually debate on war-and al
though the revision bill didn't call
for declaration of war, it is OBJ
vious, when viewed in the light
of the Presidents recent "shoot
on sight" and pull our own oar"
statements, that war was the is
sue.
This was admirably expressed
by Senator Vandenberg, in a
speech applauded even by his op-
ponents, when he said:
81 can understand the viewpoint
which is ready to accept, and
which even feels, with deep con-
vlction, that for the sake of our
own defense we are not hasten
ing fast enough to the 'all-out'
battle-line. I can understand how
such viewpoint will support the
pending resolution in the most be-
lligerent form into which it can
be put-and the senate committee
itself has all but sounded the bat
tie charge. Logic and consistency
and war thus fall into lock step.
But I cannot understand the view
point which. supports this pend
ing action on the old shallow,
transparent, exploded theory that
we are once more striving to keep
out of active war when we thus
drive straight ahead into the
heart VI II.
Opposition to revision of the
neutrality law, and hence to war,
came from three groups: CD the
isolationists, who think there is
no need for us to enter into this
war; (2) the anti-New Dealers,
who oppose the whole philosophy
of the President; and (3) group
who thinks we may eventually
have to 60 to war but that it
would be disastrous to get into it
until we are better prepared.
Speaking for the last group,
Senator Byrd, of Virginia, Great
ed national discussion with an ar
ticle in the current Readers Di-
gest, in which he lists our sup
plies and our production accom-
plishments to date and stresses
the fact that, except for our navy,
we haven't enough modern equip
ment to make a dent in the inter-
national picture.
Part of our failure to produce
tanks and planes in sufficient
quantities is generally blamed on
labor strikes and congress still is
talking about laws to curb stop
page in production. But when