Hull's Fire

To the U. S. State Department, unprecedented developments in Europe last week presented two related but separate problems. One was exactly how to handle the factual changes caused by Reichs-fuehrer Hitler's annexation of Austria. The other was how to let the world know exactly how the U. S. felt about it. Last week, Tennessee's drawling, mild-mannered Cordell Hull solved both with characteristic common sense.

De Facto. News that Austria had ceased to exist as such was first officially presented to the State Department by Germany's Ambassador Hans Dieckhoff day after the Hitler coup. Three days later, Austria's popular Minister Edgar Prochnik called to announce that the functions of his legation--long the scene of some of Washington's nicest parties--had indeed been taken over lock, stock & barrel by the German Embassy.*

Austria owed the U. S. some $25,000,000, enjoyed most-favored-nation trade status. Since problems presented by debts, tariffs, immigration, consular service will henceforth have to be settled through Berlin, it was obviously impossible for Secretary Hull not to recognize the annexation. Two days after Mr. Prochnik's visit, Mr. Hull announced with diplomatic prolixity that "the events pertaining to the changes which have taken place in the status of the Austrian Republic will necessitate, on the part of the Government of the United States, a number of technical steps, which are now being given appropriate consideration."

In legal language, what this amounted to was de facto recognition of Hitler's coup, which was far from equivalent to de jure approval. With his official announcement, Mr. Hull gave out a curt statement: "The extent to which the Austrian incident . . . is calculated to endanger the maintenance of peace and the preservation of principles in which this Government believes is of course a matter of serious concern to the Government. . . ." And two days earlier, following Messrs. Chamberlain, Hitler and Mussolini in one of the most extraordinary series of statements of international policies on record, he had clearly if somewhat idealistically redefined U. S. foreign policy with unmistakable reference to recent events abroad as well as at home.

De Jure. Since Franklin Roosevelt, with eloquence as brash as it was vague, proposed at Chicago last October a "quarantine" for aggressor nations, Japan has intensified its war in China, Rightist Spain has launched its greatest offensive of the Spanish Civil War and Germany has occupied Austria. Meanwhile in the U. S., debate over the Big Navy Bill has italicized the problem of U. S. foreign policy in terms of dollars and cents. The Ludlow Resolution, calling for a popular referendum before declaring war, has made it clear that there is still a formidable minority which distrusts the ability of the U. S. Government, as currently organized, to observe Democratic principles in moments of crisis. Consequently a declaration of U. S. aims and principles was opportune, if not overdue. As a sounding board, Secretary Hull last week chose a luncheon of Washington's National Press Club--speeches at which are usually not even quoted--partly because the time (1:30 p. m. in Washington, 6:30 to 7:30 p. m. in Europe) was early enough so that it could be relayed to European listeners later in the day by short wave.

Co-operative Effort. Mr. Hull's first point was that the cornerstone of U. S. dealings with other nations is a desire for peace. His second was that "apart from the question of alliances . . . . each nation should be prepared to engage in co-operative effort" to keep it.

Secret Treaties. Debate over the Big Navy Bill has stressed the point that a substantial Congressional minority feels that if the U. S. has no secret alliance with England it is only because the two countries understand each other well enough not to need one. Last week Mr. Hull once more denied the existence of any "involvements," pertinently observed:

"For nations which seek peace to assume with respect to each other attitudes of complete aloofness would serve only to encourage, and virtually invite, on the part of other nations lawlessly inclined, policies and actions most likely to endanger peace." This did not mean, Mr. Hull went on to say, that the U. S. had any intention of using armed forces for "policing the world."

Ludlow Referendum is one of the few things which prompted slow-tempered Mr. Hull to approximate eloquence: "What warrant is there, in reason or in experience, for the assumption--which underlies such proposals as the plan for a popular referendum on the subject of declaring war--that the Chief Executive and the Congress will be at any time more eager and more likely to embark upon war than would the general body of citizens to whom they are directly responsible? No President and no Congress have ever carried this country into war against the will of the people."

Rampage. Secretary Hull's speech contained nothing which made quite so brave a show as the President's version of the same thoughts five months ago but, without naming names, he left no doubt how the U. S. felt about last week's happenings in Europe and what it may eventually be prepared to do:

"No policy would prove more disastrous than for an important nation to fail to arm adequately when international lawlessness is on the rampage. . . . The catastrophic developments of recent years, the startling events of the past weeks, offer a tragic demonstration of how quickly the contagious scourge of treaty-breaking and armed violence spreads from one region to another. . . . We want to live in a world which is at peace; in which the forces of militarism, of territorial aggression, and of international anarchy in general will become utterly odious, revolting and intolerable to the conscience of mankind."

Reactions. To Europeans, U. S. foreign policy often seems woefully negative --principally because it does not include getting anything which the nation has not got. But before in the U. S., world developments over the last year have produced a profound and insufficiently publicized change in attitude toward war in general. Last week the change of attitude was perhaps better indicated by several reactions to the Hull speech than by the speech itself. Wrote Pundit Walter Lippmann:

"A year ago [the American People] looked upon the actions of the aggressor states as unpleasant but as alien and remote. American opinion was still neutral in its main feeling. It is no longer neutral in anything like the same degree. . . .

"There have been two world wars since the Republic was founded, and the United States has taken part in both of them. It is not wise, it is not prudent, it is not safe to pretend to ourselves or to others that we shall not intervene again."

Little more than a year ago, Congress passed the Neutrality Bill, designed to implement U. S. neutrality by permitting the President to proclaim embargoes on shipments to belligerents. Last week, two days after the Hull speech, the House Foreign Affairs Committee was reported preparing to start hearings on bills which would repeal the present Neutrality Act and substitute "actual neutrality, based upon a policy of non-aggression and international co-operation."

*As well-liked in Washington as Minister Prochnik is his pretty wife, who designs her own clothes. One of the minor consequences of the Hitler coup was that the tactful Prochniks last week canceled all their dinner invitations for a fortnight lest Washington hostesses be embarrassed by the problem of where to seat them.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.