Posted on 08/22/2008 5:19:53 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Thus the Anglo-Italian treaty of last Spring will not come into effect until after the end of the Spanish civil war, it was indicated.
Last April, in an exchange of notes attached to its treaty with Italy, the British Government declared that it “regarded the settlement of the Spanish question as a prerequisite of the entry into force of the agreement between our two governments.” This pledge has been reaffirmed repeatedly by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and other government spokesmen in Parliament.
But the document from Burgos made public tonight was such an uncompromising rejection that there is bound to be many months of further negotiations and, perhaps, failure to reach any diplomatic “settlement” at all.
The Franco reply refused almost every important point that had been accepted by the representatives of twenty-seven nations around the table of the Non-Intervention Committee during the last year. It rejected the carefully worked out plan for the proportionate withdrawal of foreign troops and demanded instead that equal numbers should be withdrawn from each of the rival armies.
Moreover, General Franco repeated his old demand – the cause of interminable wrangles around the committee table in London – that belligerent rights must be granted before a single foreign fightingman is withdrawn. He rejected the scheme for sea control in Spanish ports and refused the plan for air control of the Spanish frontiers.
If he made concessions they were concerned only indirectly with the Non-Intervention Committee’s plan. One was his willingness to respect two safety ports for food ships in Loyalist Spain – one in Catalonia and one in the Valencia-Alicante area – provided that strict “guarantees of vigilance” could be obtained. Another was the offer of “cooperation” with the object of defining and limiting “as far as may be practicable the conception of military objectives in relation to aerial bombardments.”
Finally, the reply form Burgos repeated in somewhat more dramatic language the assurance in the Anglo-Italian agreement that Italy “has no territorial or political aims and seeks no privileged economic position” in Spain or its colonies.
“National [Rebel] Spain,” said the reply from Burgos, “solemnly reiterates its former affirmations that it is fighting for the greatness and independence of the country, and does not consent, and will never consent, to the slightest mortgage on its soil, or on its economic life, and that it will defend at all times, to the last handful, its territory, its protectorates and its colonies if any one dares make an attempt against them.”
No amount of such assurances, however, will sweeten the bitter pill that Mr. Chamberlain and his government must swallow as they read the reply from Burgos. It is unpleasant for them diplomatically and politically, and it would be more so if the House of Commons were in session now. If the British Government does not take it tragically tonight it is only because the center of European friction has shifted from Spain to a far more dangerous spot on the border of Germany and Czechoslovakia.
The Earl of Plymouth, chairman of the Non-Intervention Committee, will come to London from Wales tomorrow to “study” the document and presumably arrange for a new meeting. There will be the inevitable and, perhaps, deliberate delays; no nation except perhaps France will be in any hurry to come to grips with the Spanish problem again. But there will be a revival of the charges and counter-charges in the British, French and Italian newspapers and probably the renewed demand in France – checked as usual in London – to reopen the Pyrenees frontier and send help to Barcelona.
The British will go through the motions of trying to bridge the gap between the Franco reply and the Loyalist Government’s response of July 28, which accepted the British plan “with satisfaction” and added only a few minor criticisms. But the British will be less concerned with the Spanish aspect of the business than with the effect of a new non-intervention deadlock upon a wider European situation.
After all, the whole non-intervention device from the beginning was represented as a way of keeping the Spanish war from spreading to the great powers. The British compromise plan, which took up so many months of effort, was nothing but a desperate attempt to get the Spanish problem off the diplomatic stage and make room for Anglo-Italian and Franco-Italian reconciliation.
Last Spring the British thought they had the stage set for “appeasement” in the Mediterranean that might make Italy a friendly partner of the Western democracies instead of a potential enemy. Now, however, the British cannon help concluding that Premier Mussolini is more anxious for General Franco to win in Spain than for the Anglo-Italian treaty of friendship to become operative. For it is assumed here that the Franco reply could have been a vastly different document if Mussolini had wished it so.
Among the supporters of Anthony Eden, former Foreign Secretary, there is a natural “We told you so” attitude tonight, for Mr. Eden warned the Prime Minister six months ago of the folly of negotiating with Italy without prior proofs of Italian good faith.
But to Mr. Chamberlain and his friends the reply of General Franco does not invalidate the Anglo-Italian treaty or demonstrate its unsoundness. On the contrary, the government here feels that the ill-will between Britain and Italy has been reduced immeasurably since last Winter and need not blow up again, no matter how long it may take for the treaty to become operative.
Mr. Chamberlain as well as Premier Mussolini last Spring banked on a quick victory for General Franco’s armies. The unexpectedly stubborn resistance by the Loyalists has upset the calculations of both. There might have been a far different answer from General Franco tonight if the Loyalist armies had not fought so stubbornly.
Diplomatic observes here will watch carefully for the answers to two big questions behind the coming moves in the non-intervention committee. One is: Will France lose all patience and throw non-intervention overboard? Probably thee answer is: Not if London still has any influence in Paris – which, of course, it has. The other is: Will Britain and Italy drift apart and resume their old unfriendly attitudes? So far there is no indication that the British will let such a thing happen.
The British are anxious for Italian neutrality in another war, if not for outright help against Germany. At the moment they are in no mood to create unpleasantness with Italy over what has become relatively the minor issue of Spain.
The service, however, was not thrown open to the public for stamps were and still are unprocurable by the man in the street. Moreover, the mail has gone regularly from one zone to the other ever since the coast road was cut last April – usually by air, but also by boat and it is rarely that a consignment is lost.
Nevertheless the opportunity is too good to be missed and the government was importuned from the beginning by stamp dealers to arrange a submarine service.
A five-car I. R. T. subway train inched slowly south under the stalactites of the deep-set 181st Street station early yesterday morning on an unprecedented man-hunt.
With a pickpocket and a pursuing detective faintly visible in the gloom and another pickpocket and detective at the motorman’s side, the nearly empty local moved along like an enormous snail with green and white eyes.
Six shots were fired by the detectives before the chase ended successfully, with nobody hurt. And at about 4 A. M. they were able to book their prisoners at the Wadsworth Avenue station.
Detectives Edward Hollingsworth and John O’Brien of the Pickpocket Squad were “working” the Washington Heights and Inwood area. From the northbound platform at 181st Street, where passengers have to descend seven flights from St. Nicholas Avenue to train level, they spotted a pair of “lush workers” going over a man sleeping on a bench on the other side.
Hollingsworth leaped to the tracks and clambered toward them. O’Brien crossed via an overpass and seized one prisoner.
But the second man ran to the south end of the station and jumped to the tracks jus as Hollingsworth reached the downtown side. The fugitive fled south on the ties pursued by Hollingsworth, who fired three shots.
O’Brien, with a suspect on his hands, started to follow, but heard a train approaching. He commandeered it like an automobile, forcing his prisoner into the motorman’s compartment and getting in himself. “Let’s go,” he ordered.
The train crept forward. O’Brien saw Hollingsworth in the headlights, yelled to him to get out of the way, and told the motorman to step on it a little. Then he fired three shots from the cab. The train began to close the gap to the stumbling runaway like an avenging juggernaut – and at about 175th Street he swerved to the north-bound tracks, doubled back and ran virtually into Hollingsworth’s arms.
The story came out later in Felony Court, where Magistrate Morris Rothenberg remanded the two prisoner, who pleaded guilty, for sentence this morning. They described themselves as Harold Frazier, 34 years old, of 500 West 160th Street, and Clarence Adams, 29, of 511 West 145th Street. The police said Frazier, the man who ran down the tracks, had been convicted as a pickpocket a dozen times since 1925.
He added that the government had always favored a peaceful settlement of the Spanish problem and was ready to collaborate in the application of the British plan for the evacuation of foreign volunteers. He emphasized, however, that Italy could not stand aside while there were so many proofs of renewed French intervention in Barcelona’s favor.
British circles described the results of the meeting as “not too pessimistic,” although it is fully realized that this reply brought to a standstill London’s unilateral efforts to further the non-intervention policy owing to the fact that both Paris and Rome have now officially denied the accusations of further active intervention in Spain.
The only recourse now seems to be that of discussing the Burgos and Barcelona replies to the British plan at the next meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee.
It is admitted that the Italians are very pessimistic concerning the early ratification of the Anglo-Italian agreement. It is believed here that all efforts to this end have failed and that the agreement will go into effect only after General Francisco Franco’s final victory.
There was a guard of honor with a military band on the platform, which was decorated with the flags of the three nations of the Little Entente, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Rumania. As the train drew in, the national anthems of the three countries were played. Large crowds in national costumes gave a great ovation to the Foreign Ministers, shouting “Long live the Little Entente!”
The conferences are being held in the Golf Hotel.
At noon Regent Prince Paul received Dr. Kamil Krofta of Czechoslovakia at Bled Castle and half an hour later received Dr. Nicolas Petrescu-Comnen of Rumania. The visitors, together with M. Stoyadinovitch, lunched with the Regent.
In the afternoon Dowager Queen Marie received Dr. Comnen and Dr. Krofta in separate audiences. There was a further conference of the Entente Ministers this evening.
Submarine Mail Service Instituted by Loyalists
I.R.T. Train Used in Manhunt in Subway; 6 Shots Fired in Capture of Pickpocket
Then two from page 4.
Italy Replies on Aid
MEETINGS BEGIN AT BLED
Seems like a strange time to be heading to that part of the world. Shanghai would have already been in Japanese hands by then.
There was still a large foreign colony in Shanghai. There was tension between them but the Japanese weren’t yet interested in starting a war with the western powers. This brief article shows the lengths German Jews had to go to in order to get out.
Until about 1937, there were some ties between the Germans and the Chinese, but by 1938, the Germans had allied with the Japanese, so I would have thought Japanese held territory would have been less attractive.
Of course, as you point out, there weren’t a whole lot of better alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_ghetto
Arrival of German Jews
The refugees who managed to purchase tickets for luxurious Japanese cruise steamships departing from Genoa later described their three-week journey with plenty of food and entertainment — between persecution in Germany and squalid ghetto in Shanghai — as surreal. Some passengers attempted to make unscheduled departures in Egypt, hoping to smuggle themselves into the British Mandate of Palestine.
On August 15, 1938, first Jewish refugees from Anschluss Austria arrived by Italian ship. By June 1939, 8,200 Jewish refugees had arrived.
Much needed aid was provided by International Committee for European Immigrants (IC), established by Victor Sassoon and Paul Komor and Committee for the Assistance of European Jewish Refugees (CFA), founded by Horace Kadoorie. These organizations prepared the housing in Hongkou, a relatively cheap district compared with the International settlement or the French settlement. They were accommodated in shabby apartments and six camps in a former school. The Japanese occupiers of Shanghai regarded German Jews as "stateless persons".
Most of the refugees arrived after 1937. Further immigration restrictions were imposed in 1939; however, a numbers of Jews continued to arrive until the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan in December 1941.
Life in the ghetto
The authorities were unprepared for massive immigration and the arriving refugees faced harsh conditions in the impoverished Hongkou District: 10 per room, near-starvation, disastrous sanitation and scant employment.
The Baghdadis and later the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) provided some assistance with the housing and food problems. Faced with language barriers, extreme poverty, rampant disease and isolation, the refugees were able to make the transition from being supported by welfare agencies to establishing a functioning community. Jewish cultural life flourished: schools were established, newspapers were published, theaters produced plays, sports teams participated in training and competitions and even cabarets thrived.
Thanks for the additional info. New stuff for me, and I consider myself fairly well read on the era.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.