Monday, July 17, 2006
General Franco declares Spain in a "state of war"
Rebels made considerable headway in Spain itself today. Fighting erupted in Spain and Pamplona, Zaragoza, Oviedo, Salamanca, Segovia, Ávila and Cadiz rest in rebel hands tonight.
General Francisco Franco, from the Canary Islands, made a pronouncement over the radio, that Spain was in a "state of war". His pronunciamiento came within hours of the uprising in Morocco which only strengthens the belief that he is leading this revolt despite his geographic misplacement.
What set it off was the brutal murder early last week of the leader of the Spanish monarchists, able, eloquent Deputy José Calvo Sotelo, onetime Minister of Finance under the late Dictator Primo de Rivera. Calvo had just notified the Government that he planned to interpellate it next day on the riots. Assault Guardsmen called on Calvo with a warrant, took him off in their police car, dumped his body, shot, mangled and bashed, at Madrid's Municipal Cemetery.
Premier Santiago Casares Quiroga promptly suspended Parliament for eight days, and all the Monarchist Deputies swore never to return. Unwisely the Government refused to allow Calvo's body to lie in state anywhere, barred a mob of 30,000 Rightists from the cemetery where he was being buried. When the crowd gave the Fascist shout, "Up Spain!" Assault Guardsmen fired, killed five, wounded three. Forehanded, President Manuel Azaña ordered the Army and Civil Guards mobilized in quarters, ordered a roundup of Rightist leaders, jammed them into jails. Talkative Rightists had begun telling about a great Army revolt that was due any day and that was to have set up José Calvo Sotelo as President of Spain.
Violence erupts in Morocco
General Fancisco Franco, whom some believe is involved in the Army uprising in Spanish Morocco is in the Canary Islands.
Spain itself has been having deep political and economic problems.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Friday, March 24, 2006
Great Britain unconcerned with Rhineland
Thus far there have been no rallies or protests by the public against the German action. Also, it appears the House of Commons is pro-German. However, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin noted that the House is really just afraid of war. With the worldwide depression, Great Britain lacks the resources to engage in a war with Germany.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
France is Bankrupt
France has been struggling financially since the end of last year. The franc has slid so much in the past few months that the government is nearly depleted. The country is in dire need as so many other countries in the world today, of a line of credit to stay afloat.
This development rules out and action France might take against Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland and its repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles.
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
Hitler moves troops into the Rhineland
Just as much of the German violations of the Treaty of Versailles, it has met little in the way of opposition. In fact, the Western Powers have done nothing.
Poland has proposed putting the Franco-Polish Military Alliance into action but nothing has come of it.
Early this morning, nineteen German infantry battalions and a handful of planes entered the Rhineland and made the River Rhine by 11 AM local time.
French troops have congregated on the Franco-German border but none have crossed the border itself.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Police order to arrest Anti-Semitic Instigators
Friday, February 17, 2006
House passes Neutrality Extension
In the Senate, the act has been delayed. Chairman Pittman of the Foreign Relations Committee attempted to obtain consideration of the resolution today, but finally agreed to put it off until 11 AM tomorrow. Senators McNary and Vandenberg asked for postponement due to the absence of Neautrality Act opponents Clark and Nye.
Memebers of both Houses have explained that haste is necessary because of the arms embargo provisions of the existing law expire on February 29th.
During the twenty minutes allotted, seven Representatives shared the time to debate against the resolution. Representative Maas of Minnesota called the measure a "dangerous bill".
Representative Robison of Kentucky "as a sincere advocate of peace" protested against the passage of the resolution. He said that it would delegate the war-making power to the President, and urged that it be kept in the hands of Congress "where it belongs".
After this, the House will allow ten days to consideration of the Navy and Army Appropriation Bills.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Neutrality Act Extension to go back to Congress
Representative Kloeb of Ohio introduced a parallel measure in the House, and said he would ask the Foreign Affairs Committee to report it favorably as soon as possible. It is apparent the administration is working to push the extension through congress before the February 29th expiration.
Secretary Hull also noted that the administration would not oppose the dropping of its own neutrality proposal.
Senator Clark opposes the plan of putting consideration of a permanent neutrality policy over to the next session of Congress. He plans to amend the Pittman continuing resolution so that the present temporary plan would extended for only a matter of 60 days.
He noted that just because its an election year and members are involved in their respective campaigns, for action to be deferred.
Senator Johnson also has commented that many people are mistaken about the virtue of the neutrality act. He believes that the act would likely involved the nation in another war rather than keep us out.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
War could cost $10 Billion a year, War Department estimates
Colonel Harris predicted that if war should erupt, the plans which have been prepared by the War Department would enable the mobilization of industry much more efficiently and rapidly, and with far less profiteering than was case in the World War.
Of course he did say that it would be necessary to gurantee the industry "a modest, fair profit" in undertaking tasks the costs of shich could not be accurately estimated in advance.
Among the necessary industrial controls he listed the powers of price fixing, of assigning priorities, the power of the commander, the power to requisition, the power to license industries, and the power to conserve necessary materials and avoid waste. Of the last power he said "It is necessary to cut the cuff a man's trousers to save materials, we'll do so."
Colonel Harris estimated that approximately half of the War Department's expenditure would be primarily commercial purposes such as food and clothing and half for munitions and explosives. He said that the department's experts had already surveyed 20,000 manufacturers and allocated war tasks to 12,000.
Although the United States is unquestionably the most favored nation in the world in the amount and variety of its raw materials, it would be seriously lacking in many strategic materials, such as manganese, tin, nickel, chromium, quinine and hemp, he said.
"In these days, when there's talk of embargoes, sanctions, neutrality acts, that's worth thinking about," he remarked.
Captain W.S. Bruberg of the Ordinance Department said that since the World War the US has assumed "the practically undisputed leadership in ordinance design throughout the world," although it was forced to rely on its allies for most of the ordinance designs in the World War.
Monday, October 3, 2005
Italian forces have crossed the Mareb River
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Abyssinia mobilizes
Abyssinia does have military weaponry but these are antiquated. They have 200 pieces of artillery mounted on rigid gun carriages. They also posses 50 anti-aircraft guns ranging from 20mm Oerlikons, 75mm Schneiders and Vickers. For tanks, they have some Fiat models and Ford Trucks with armor. For air support, they have three Potez-25 biplanes.
There are 400,000 rifles of many types in all conditions for the men to use.
The Bottom Line: Abyssinia is very ill-equipped for war with Italy.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Abyssinia pleads again
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Germany's Newest Laws
Recently, the Nazi Party had its annual rally at Nuremberg. During this rally, new laws were approved on 15th of this month, some 3 days ago. These laws will mostly effect Jews living in Germany. The laws, translated into English:The first law is the "Law for Protection of German Blood and German Honor".
"Entirely convinced that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:"Section 1
1) Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.2) Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.
Section 2
Sexual relations outside marriage between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood are forbidden.Section 3
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens of German or kindred blood as domestic servants.Section 4
1) Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or national colors.2) On the other hand they are permitted to display the Jewish colors. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.
Section 5
1) A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.2) A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
3) A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Section 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.
Section 6
The Reich minister of the Interior in agreement with the Deputy Führer and the Reich Minister of Justice will issue legal and administrative regulations required for the enforcement and supplementing of this law.Section 7
The law will become effective on the day of its promulgation; Section 3 however, not until 1 January 1936.
The second of the laws is called "The Reich Citizenship Law"
Article 1
1) A subject of the State is a person who belongs to the protective union of the German Reich, and who therfore has particular obligations towards the Reich.2) The status of subject is acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Reich and State Law of Citizenship.
Article 2
1) A citizen of the Reich is that subject only who is of German or kindred blood and who, through his conduct, shows that he is desirous and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully.2) The right to citizenship is acquired by the granting of Reich citizenship papers.
3) Only the citizen of the Reich enjoys full political rights in accordance with the provision of the laws.
Article 3
The Reich Minister of the Interior in conjunction with the Deputy Führer will issue the necessary legal and administrative decrees for carrying out and supplementing this law.
Saturday, September 3, 2005
League exonerates both beligerents
What this actually does remains to be seen.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
President signs Neutrality Act
The act would prohibit sales of arms and materials to any party if war should break out in Europe. It also stipulates that American citizen travelling does so at his or her own risk.
President Roosevelt said that the new law would require American vessels to obtain a license to carry arms, would restrict Americans from sailing on ships from hostile nations and would impose an embargo on the sale of arms to "belligerent" nations.
It provides the strongest language yet warning other countries that the U.S. would increase its patrol of foreign submarines lurking in American waters. This stated neutrality is mostly a response to Germany's insistence on rebuilding her forces despite the Treaty of Versailles prohibiting such.
The President lobbied congress for the Executive ability to impose economic sanctions on nations at the Presidential discretion. Congress did not take this option and has chosen a complete neutrality.
The act will expire in six months on February 29th.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Debate over Neutrality Act
Today was an exciting day on Capital Hill. Senate Joint Resolution No. 173 was debated by both chambers of Congress and later voted on. This controversial legislature was finally passed.
There of course was criticism of Roosevelt and this course of action. Senator Tom Connally, Democrat from Texas went on Congressional record on the saying
Is it an expression of neutrality to say to two warring nations, one of which has ambitions for territorial conquest, the other unprepared, the other weak, the other trying to pursue its own destiny—is it neutral to say to those nations, "We shall give arms to neither of you," thereby insuring the triumph of the prepared nation, the covetous nation, the ambitious nation, the nation which seeks by force of arms to impose its will on a weaker and defenseless nation?
Mr. President, that is not neutrality; that is a form of unneutrality. That is a form of declaration which announces that the United States will take the side of the strong and powerful against the weak, the unprepared, and the defenseless. Why not leave that determination to the President of the United States when and if, in his conduct of our foreign relations, it becomes a sound American policy for him to take a position in a crisis of that kind?
We cannot now put the United States into an international strait jacket and thereby keep out of war. We cannot by an act of Congress put the United States into a concrete cast internationally which will fit all future occasions and solve all future problems
Across the Atlantic Ocean in Great Britain there has also been critics. Liberal member David Marshall Mason remarked that the Neutrality Act was pre-emptive. He said "No act of war so far has been committed by Italy against Ethiopia, therefore the resolution is premature."
Later, he seemed to go back on this statement when he said "...it is a direct encouragement to Italy to proceed with her war of aggression against Ethiopia by proclaiming to the world that in such an event the United States intends to remain neutral. I trust the powers composing the League will carry out the resolutions of the League and that powers outside the League, such as Germany and Japan, will act sympathetically."
Mister Mason continued his statement with a conditional: "Should the powers stand up to the their covenant, I pray and trust peace will be preserved, and such a decision does not rule out the possibility of still meeting the just aspirations of Italy for an honorable settlement."
It's a provocative statement on the times but the fate of a sovereign nation is still within the hands of those duly elected to serve it. The League has not the power to force a nation to create war when it wishes not to.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Update on Abyssinian Crisis
Abyssinia has pled for a lifting on the arms embargo and officially did so today. They, unlike Italy, are poorly equipped for war with a European power.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Great Britain steps in
However, Mussolini is bent only on conquest of Abyssinia. Eden returned to Britain with nothing accomplished.
The response from Great Britain is that the Royal Navy will be clearing all of its ships from the Mediterranean Sea in the event war breaks out.
The League of Nations has also imposed a ban on armaments to both nations.