Editors' Thoughts on War

This week begins a crisis in the affairs of the U.S.--an attempt to modify the Neutrality Act in Congress, coinciding with popular fears that Russia may fall. The chart below, based on the newspaper analysis of James S. Twohey Associates, tells graphically how similar crises have affected press sentiment in recent months.

The editors of the U.S. may not be able to swing the public in their train but they are influenced by the same things that influence the public, and sometimes react more swiftly. Lukewarmly debated in the election year of 1940, the issue of isolation-intervention came into its own this year.

The Twohey figures tell the story of typical editorial reactions. The events which sent interventionist sentiment up, sent isolationist sentiment down and vice versa. Whenever the President took a firm stand or a firm step, sentiment for intervention and more aid to Britain rose sharply. Whenever there was talk of the closeness of war or of other unpleasant things such as low Army morale, isolationist sentiment rose.

The pattern is clear enough: editors, like most other Americans, want to see Hitler beaten but they don't like to think about the hardships of going to war. Curiously, from late May to early July--when the President shifted emphasis from aid-to-Britain to hemisphere defense--the press on both sides practically dropped the main issue.

Interventionist sentiment reached a record high (84%) in September after the Navy was ordered to shoot. The important questions now are 1) whether debate over the dangers of arming merchant ships and modifying the Neutrality Act will set back interventionist sentiment as debate over the Lend-Lease bill did last February; 2) whether news from Russia will aggravate or offset the decline.

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