◆ SpookStack

DEFENSIVE WAR. g—-> | indbergh thesis can be reduced to very simple terms. The “Lone Eagle” pro- fesses to believe we are stronger alone than! din any possible combination of friends or allies. He assures us we can make ourselves “invincible,” simply by arming at home and ignoring what happens abroad. This is the theory of the “defensive,”| made popular after the last war, and now| completely discredited by Hitler's campaigns.| Those who promulgated this theory, mainly in connection with the illusory dis- armament debates at the League of Nations,| not only were unfamiliar with military his- tory, but also did not understand even the! last war. In that war, the Central Powers! knocked out Serbia, Belgium end Russia, and took # third of France, by attacking. They very nearly destepyed the French and . British armies in 191% by a series of vast and violent attacks. ey were themselves), defeated, from July 18, 1918, on, by a series of equally vast and violent attacks, conduct- ed by the tired French and British, in con- junction with large fresh forces from the ‘United States. There is only one sure way to win a war. It is to defeat and destroy the enemy's armed forces, or their will to fight, by carrying the war to them with the utmost skill and vigor. It Lindbergh, Nye, Wheeler, Norman Thomas and the Chigago Tribune had their|} way, we would have eta material aid to}, Britain and China ig ago. This action|) could have had but tne result—the speedy |’ defeat of Britain and China, accompanied by the setting up of “New Order” govern- ments there, co-operating with Hitler. The. only remaining obstacle between Hitler and his dream of world domination would then be the Unitéd States, : : Gome isolationists feel confident, appar-_ ently, that in these circumstances we would be able to make a deal with Hitler ves, and thus avoid trouble. But in the fice of the Fvents of the last two years, only a fune- tic would yisk the security of our try on any such possibility. ez: Mr. Fess or The odds are at least 10 to 1, on the con-| {rury, THE we would have an enforced show- down with Hitler, ending in war. Does anyone believe we could win such a war simply by guarding our own shores, while Hitler sank our ‘ships, bombed our, coast cities, and made such inroads as he could in South or even Central America? There would be only one way for us to win such a war. We would have to carry it, sooher or later, to Asia, Africa or Europe, or perhaps all three, with the object, final- ly, of destroying our adversaries’ .main forces and breaking their will to fight With advance bases both in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and particularly with Brit- ain for a base in Europe and Africa, and China or even Siberia for a base in Asia, this would be a feasible operation, especially with China, Britain and Russia still in the ring, stil] fighting, Without such bases, and such outlying support, the task would be vastly more difficult, Knowing that only - the offensive can finally win, must we be reduced to the necessity of fighting s wholly defensive wart’ ‘We deny, therefore, the Lindbergh thesis. ‘To our mind, it is not only utterly false, but perversely misleading and extremely dan-' gerous. No embattled nation has ever been, ‘or ever will be, stronger by itself than with the co-operatio#® and help of friends and _ allies, This is itary. And ft seems more than a little Mrange that any sensible man should even contest it, - we ee CHICAGO DAILY NEWS x 65-H449-A 2P-¢