Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 22 May 1943 — Page 10

—

PAGE 10

The India

ROY W. HOWARD President

® 1 napolis Times RALPH BURKHOLDER Editor, in U. 8. Service MARK FERREE WALTER LECKRONE Business Manager Editor (A SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER)

Price in Marion County, 4 cents a copy; delivered by carrier, 18 cents a week.

Owned and published daily (except Sunday) by Indianapolis Times Publishing Co, 214 W. Mary- = land st. Mail rates in Indiana, $4 a year; adjoining states, 75 cents a month; others, $1 monthly.

«EPs RILEY 5551

Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way

Member of United Press, Scripps - Howard Newspaper Alliance, NEA Service, and Audit Bureau of Circulations.

SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1943

OLD HOME WEEK HIS has been a wonderful week for the American Federation of Labor. The international vice presidents of two of its big unions—Joe Fay of the operating engineers and Jim Bove of the hod carriers—were indicted in New York on charges of extorting $703,000 from contractors on a city water project. And John L. Lewis knocked for readmission to that wing of the house of labor which, for the better part of eight years, he, did his utmost to demolish. Troubles; as William Green may be reflecting, never come singly, at least, we seem to detect a certain restraint in Brother Green's enthusiasm as he prepares to welcome home the wanderer whom, not long ago, the A. F. of L. announced it “wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole.” Brother Green, perhaps, has not entirely forgotten that among the more affectionate terms applied to him by Brother Lewis in recent years were ‘“pusillanimous ingrate” and “traitorous renegade.” There are, it is said, certain questions to be ironed out before Brother Lewis, his half-million or so coal miners, and his heterogenous array of dairy farmers, cosmeticians, chemical workers, construction workers, etc., in district 50 of the U. M. W., are absorbed into the federation. There are. indeed. And not the least of them, so far as Brother Green is concerned, may well be whether Lewis means to be absorbed or to absorb—whether his amiable intent is not to toss Brother Green out on his pious ear and install himself as supreme high ruler of the A. F. of L.

» =»

» » ¥ » HERE are other questions. The federation has just] reaffirmed its undying fidelity to the no-strike pledge made to President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. Brother Lewis has denounced the pledge and the president, and at the moment is holding over the government the threat of a paralyzing coal strike unless he is permitted to destroy the war labor board. Shrewd observers believe that he and Brother “Big Rill” Hutcheson of the carpenters—who has forgiven if not forgotten the fact that Brother Lewis punched his head at a federation convention in 1935—hope to lead the augmented A. F. of L. into the Republican party in 1944. The aims of Brother Lewis would appear to be somewhat incompatible with those of Brother Green and his associates who remain devoted to the ideal of getting all they can grab through the indulgence of Mr. Roosevelt and yelling for more. But, as Brother Green has explajned, although affiliated unions are expected to adhere to the general policies of the A. F. of L., they have “autonomous powers to deal with | their own peculiar problems.” This is the high principle | which enables the Joe Fays and the Jim Boves to enjoy all the benefits of representation by a powerful national | labor lobby, but forbids Brother Green to do more than | deplore the frequent revelations that many federation unions are rotten with racketeering and other forms of corruption. Brother Lewis, then, would rejoin the A. F. of L. with autonomous powers, and could be expected to make full | use of them, since his problems are nothing if not peculiar. And no doubt “unity of labor,” to which he is so devoted, would become a living reality—that is, if Brother Lewis stayed with the federation long enough to help whale the tar out of his other old friends and comrades in the C. I. O.

THE AIR OFFENSIVE HE record air offensive by British night bombers and

American day bombers, and reports that flood devastation from the dam raids is still spreading, point up Mr.’ Churchill's statement to congress: “Opinion, Mr. President, is divided as to whether the use of air power could by itself bring about the collapse in Germany or Italy. The experiment is well worth trying, | so long as other measures are not excluded. Well, there is certainly no harm in finding out.” Indeed there isn’t. Last July in this newspaper Thomas | L. Stokes started a prophetic series of articles on an air offensive in these words: “Bomb Germany out of the war! Give the Cologne-Essen-Emden treatment, whereby fleets of a thousand British bombers paralyzed those war production centers, to the 28 other key industrial cities of Germany. The Seripps-Howard newspapers can state authoritatively, on the basis of a careful survey of production, that a formula is at hand and that physical means are available for a joint British-American air offensive on an immense scale. . . . The war cannot be lost by such an air offensive. It might be won that way.” : = = = = = = . OBODY any longer doubts the effectiveness of this form of air war. Persons coming out of Germany and neutral correspondents there report that the widespread damage to industries and transportation, caused by the bomb destruction of her main dams, is the worst blow received by Germany since the war began. No airman in a responsible position denies that all three arms of land, sea and air, used as a team, can advance victory more certainly and quickly than any one of them alone. What the bombing advocates claim is that their weapon, if properly used, can so weaken the enemy that a much smaller invasion force at much less cost in time and blood ean coccupy a shattered Germany. The only genuine disagreement is one of degree—of how much damage is

decisive, regardless of

| |

the answer, the air offensive justifies

But

cause it softens up the enemy for the land

Fair Enough By Westbrook Pegler

LOS ANGELES, May 22— Warner Bros. and the moving picture industry in general have been rather free in their criticism of the United States congress, of the American businessman, the press, and the failures of the American system of government. As one who believes in freedom of expression I applaud all this and accordingly would offer another theme for frank exposition on the screen by these daring and forthright men, In the Warner Bros. propaganda film based on Joseph Davies’ book “Mission to Moscow,” they depicted the American businessman as a selfish and money-loving individual who wanted to keep out of the war for no decent reason but only so that he might be able to do business with Hitler afterward. There was nothing in the picture, produced since Pearl Harbor, to indicate that the American business man has sons who are now fighting on all the fronts unlike most of the young and fit but draft-exempt Communist unioneers who applaud “Mission to Moscow,” although I could lead the Warners by the hand to the home of such an American businessman near here, himself now in the service, whose wonderful young son went down to his death in a dive bomber at Guadalcanal.

Sought to Break True Story

THE PICTURE that I want to suggest to Warner Bros. is an intimate revelation of the methods and ethics of a typical moving picture company. I would want one of their typical business conferences and some scenes showing the clever subservience of the mdvie magnates to a powerful political party. For this purpose we could veraciously use a couple of instances of indirect bribes or white political graft paid to favored individuals in the form of outlandish salaries for vague duties and previously undiscovered talents. Then we ought to have some conferences between these magnates and those two distinguished guardians of labor's gains under the New Deal, Willie Bioff and George Browne. For this purpose we could use some actual movie magnates such as Joseph M. Schenck and one of the Warner Bros. \ I might be induced to play a bit in this scene myself for about four years ago I legged it wearily around Hollywood trying to break the true story of this corrupt condition to which the movie industry was a party and I have a distinct recollection, fortified by notes taken at the time of the reticent demeanor of those with whom I conferred.

"Give the Public a Flash’

ONE OF them was Schenck, himself since convicted twice on federal indictments but bargained out of jail after four months in the Danbury country club, who assured me that everything was all right and regular in the labor relations of Twentieth-Century Fox, although he had paid his racketeer $100,000 in cash and had bought him a de luxe cruise for two to South America on tHe Normandie. In the trial it was represented that this tribute was extorted by Brother Bioff but inasmuch as the Brothers Warner presume to take arbitrary attitudes in their “Mission to Moscow,” I would take the milder liberty of suggesting that there was a conspiratorial relationship between co-equal culprits Bioff and the industry. I would not forget either to give the public a flash showing the return of Mr. Schenck to TwentiethCentury Fox as a high-priced production expert, as announced a few days ago, just by way of establishing in the public mind the ethical standards of that industry which OE ‘and M such general terms disparages other ailfentS $f thé American community. I would also play a little scene with one of the Warner Bros. the short, blocky, fat one, at his ranch outside Los Angeles in which he, too, insists that labor relations in the industry are pure and peaceful although it was filthy with racketeering at the time. Mr. Warner would try to divert me by showing me his prize fowl and farm animals and in the end I would be brushed off, although only temporarily, by a man who if so minded could have blown up the whole rotten mess and freed the movies of their wicked oppressor, Mr. Bioff.

Little Family Combinations

THIS PROPAGANDA picture would reveal little family combinations and in-laws and cliques in the | business and squeezing out of individuals. It would not fail to touch upon the Communist influence in the movies and a millign-dollar income tax delinquency of a pro-Comm t alien who has been yelling for American boys to open up a second front, although in two wars he has yet to catch a glimpse of any front or even of any continent under fire. My idea is that if the movie industry is going in for political propaganda as it plainly is, largely in disparagement of the United States, it presents an incomplete picture of those things which are faulty if it utterly neglects a true presentation of the morals and political bias of a mighty instrument of political propaganda, namely, itself. I dare say that the U. S. congress, the American

| businessman, the press and our system of government

would not suffer by comparison.

We the People By Ruth Millett

ONE THING that the women who have stepped into men’s jobs for the duration will have to fight is the tendency to develop new personality traits that are less feminine than their old ones. A girl in military uniform is tempted to swagger, to curtly, to display an “I-can-look-after-myself” attitude. A girl in overalls, working side by side with men, is tempted to take their way of talking for her own, to pride herself on being as “good as a man.” A wife, left alone to run a house and manage a family, is tempted to forget she ever deferred to a man’s opinions; is often forgetful that “I” and “My” have a domineering sound when used in place of “We” and “Our.” It is natural enough for women to try to be like men when they find themselves filling men’s shoes, But it is a tendency they ought to fight.

Stay Feminine

FOR THE war won't last forever. One of these days it will be over, and peacetime ideals and patterns will rule again, In a peacetime world there isn’t much place for 3 vost, hard, swaggering woman. She just doesn% t in. The woman who develops that kind of personality in wartime will have to change in a hurry or be miserably unhappy. : It would be much easier for her to make an effort now to stay feminine—no matter what jobs or responsibilities she takes on. It isn't too difficult a thing to do—for developing masculine traits and attitudes doesn’t really help a olan 10 40 3 mang wok Sb ean 8 § Nt ak

ty. ow Sabin Fi

UT THE PEOPLE!

{ {

The Hoosier Forum

I wholly disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.—Voltaire.

Prodigal : Son 2, 194

By Fred C. Perkins

WASHINGTON, May 22.~From Luke XV, in which it is written: “But when he was a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. . . . “The father said to his sere vants, bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; “And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry; “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost and is found. .. .” ” ” »

A SIMILAR event seems impending in the house of labor? presided over by William Green, president ' of the A. F. of L. for John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers has sent a warning that he is minded to take advantage of numerous invitations that he come home.

And the Fatted Calf?

IT MUST not be expected, however, that the parable of the prodigal son will be emulated in all particulars. For if Will Green and John Lewis would». attempt to fall on each other's necks, one of them’ might come up with a fractured vertebra. And as for the fatted calf, John is likely to bring his own ration book in the form of more than half a million. dues-paying members. And there is yet another son in the A. F. of L, house of labor, one who may be jealous of the merrymaking (if any). As told in the parable, the other son “was angry, and would not go in . . . and said to his father, lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.” This other son is the Progressive Miners of Amer« jca, an organization which at one time was a district of the United Mine Workers. It split off in a bitter dispute, and remained an independent for many years until Mr. Lewis took the U. M. W. out of the A. F. of L, in 1935 and founded the C. I. O.

It May Be Embarrassing

THEN THE PROGRESSIVES became an affiliate of the A. I". of L. and now technically control jurise dictional rights among coal miners. There is much question as to whether the Progressives, with an estimated membership of 20,000 to 40,000, could pres vent the return of the prodigals. Returning to the parable, if Messrs. Bill and John should go to the unlikely extreme of attempting to exchange homecoming kisses, both would be ems barrassed, and especially Bill. For he is likely to have some recollection of the fact that on Aug. 20, 1938, Brother John called him “a traitorous ingrate” to

| | “A SOLDIER'S THANKS

FOR MOTHER'S DAY”

By Thomas A. Berling, vice Fathers of Sons in Service, dianapolis

We wish to thank the many good people who assisted us in our gift of carnations to wounded .and ill soldiers in hcspitals at Atterbury, Ft. Harrison and Stout field on Mother's day. Here are excerpts from a letter received from a soldier thanking the donor for her gift. “Just a few words of appreciation for the lovely carnation given me yesterday with your card. It was a very thoughful deed, which made me quite happy to honor my mother through your kindness. “It was quite an impressive sight, all the fellows united, as always, in honoring one dear to us cn her day. “Again let me thank you for brightening a day when far from home and the one who could have made it a very lovely day.”

» = =» “FREE ENTERPRISE

ghesidun, c., In-

(Times readers are invited to express their views in these columns, religious controversies excluded. Because of the volume receivéd, letters must be limited to 250 words. Letters must be signed.)

of life insurance assets owned by 63 million American policy holders and in the savings accounts of millions of thrifty Americans. Surely they will awaken in time,

Despite every barrier that low grade politics could put in the way, | it was American enterprise working) with a non-political army and navy that saved the world in this war. God bless the arsenal of the free. How about unionism: It is just]

in labor unions, just as in any walk of life. I would like the unions better if the wolves were not protected. Why say more—here? . » “IT ISN'T ALWAYS YOUNGSTERS" By Mrs. Harry Ferrell, 3709 W. 10th st. Mr. H: I wonder if you and I are talking about the same thing? I referred to Miss Taggart’s “punks” mainly when I wrote to the Hoosier Forum, Miss Taggart said something must be done about silly scuffling

and always jumping up and down I'm not acquainted with| | Brightwood’s territory, but was this|

in chairs.

the kind of disturbance you were referring to? I'm sure it isn’t because everyone knows that the “punks” who are bad enough to

about as controversial as religion .omplain about aren't the type to

and such matters cannot be settled | git down and read something as in the Forum. I have always con-

educational as the Hoosier Forum.

{ i

choice. Some unions have a Very, patties out of the window and dam-

tended that a man’s right to belong| agree that something should be to a union fully equalled his right! one about the “punks” who go | to belong to any church of his|iearing down the streets, throwing!

intelligent rank and file that de-|

NOT DYING IN AMERICA”

By Voice in the Crowd, Indianapolis Daacke, if you or anyone else will compare my description of Americanism to Webster's definition of it, with any fairness at all, it will be agreed that my definition was a true elaboration of Webster's definition as you have had it printed. My definition was true because my Americanism is true. I love Amerjca: Still young and full of life and opportunity, still free of the smells of the old world, and when that is disgraceful, I am ready to be buried with my country. I am more than a third as old as the Declaration of Independence and still wish to work out my own security. It is not true that “free enterprise” is dying in America, even though they who would suffer most are trying to murder it. The backbone of our heavy industries is in the more than 100 billion dollars

mand good leadership and some unions are different, if you know what I mean. I don't believe in pressure groups | that can interfere with government, | whether these groups are labor unions, farm groups, business groups or any self-seeking group. Pressure from these groups can destroy our form of government to correct abuses that can best be corrected by honest public opinion at the polls. I believe that any young man should be allowed to learn any trade of his choice. The unions don’t permif it. I believe that any man should prove his worth by his production. The unions don’t per- | mit it. | I believe that the unions should {guarantee the economic value of {their members. Aside from a very | few craft unions, they don't. There is a percentage of “wolves”

Side Glances—By Galbraith

aging property, but I see no harm in “silly scuffling” and the like. Incidentally, it isn't always the youngsters who go speeding along and causing disturbances. Adults do too, you know, ” ” ® “INDIANA NEEDS MORE INDEPENDENT VOTERS” By W. Scott Taylor, 756 Middle dr., Woodruff Place. There once was an expert named Ruml, who forgave himself quite a large sum: 850 in thousands is nifty, if Hoosiers in congress are dumbl. With apologies to Charles M. LaFollette, Republican, and Ray J. Madden, Democrat, who were the only Hoosiers in congress not dumbl. The plain people of Indiana ought to send those two men to the United States senate in one-two order.

two in favor of the principle that the bigger the war, the bigger the profits, if we can soak the poor for its cost. A non-partisan deal like that would upset the political machines, which have joined forces to make Indiana the most reactionary state in the union. What Indiana needs is more independent voters who

"| keep track of the records of their

representagives for use on election day. The save-the-rich, soak-the-poor policy of the so-called Jeffersonian Democrats and the Old Guard Republicans, impairs the buying power of the masses, intensifies the ups and downs of booms and depressions, and makes it harder for little business to survive in competition with big business. Eventually, if persisted in, it would Hindoofy America into a caste-rid-den form of society, with hereditary wealth at the top and 50 million untouchables at the bottom. The best way to nip that sort of thing in the bud is to remember such men as Republican LaFollette and Democrat Madden. Speak up or write on their behalf until the bosses, in fear of defeat, put their VanNuys and Willis off their tickets.

DAILY THOUGHTS

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.— Genesis 1:16.

FAIREST OF all the lights above, spheres, And with unwearied swiftness

Otherwise Indiana will stay nine to

Thou sun, whose beams adorn the | home

the United Mine Workers “which spawned him and | for many years fed him.” | Another time John was more Shakespearian about | Bill: “Alas, poor Green! I knew him well!” | The other A, F. of L. leaders appear slightly nervous, even a little bit jittery, when they are asked, “Who's ‘going to run the show when Lewis comes back?” Most speculations of what it means boil down to the obvious one—John Lewis is tired of playing a “lone wolf” game, sees reunion with the A. F, of L, as the best way of getting back in the saddle to ride down his foes in labor unions and also in the national political field.

Aerial Warfare

By Peter Edson

DESERT TRAINING CENTER, Cal, May 22.-—Aerial warfare to= day is still apparently in its ine - fancy. As a branch of military science, it is still grounded in its cradle, This in spite of the ap=parent high degree of “perfection” with which air battles are being fought every day over Europe, Africa and the Pacific. Planes are better mechanically, bombs are constantly being made more deadly, while aircraft machine guns. and cannon are heavier and have longer range, Yet, even before this war is over, it is inevitable that there will be still bigger, bettér and longer range planes, cannon and guns. Aerial weapons of today have limitations. Bombing today is “precision” bombing in name only, Strafing as it is known today is effective only against undefended positions, and when strafing is conducted against battle lines or supply lines which are well defended, it is extremely costly to the ate tacking aireraft. Finally, the tactics of air-ground combat--that is, the method of employing air forces to co-operate with ground troops—-is still in a decidedly embryonie state of evolution. :

Air War Poses New Problems

THESE ARE the combined views of many air ofe ficers and ground force officers who have seen service in various theaters of operation, and of officers whey are in command of a number of training centers where air and ground troops are being given their final pre-combat instruction. They represent also the experiences of the British command in their operations. All these problems are being constantly studied by responsible staff officers of every army, who shift their plans of operation and training as new doctrines are decided upon, and as newer and more poweriul weapons of all arms are developed, put in production made available to the services, What this points to is the possibility of marked changes in tactics of aerial warfare, certainly for the next war, and a decided possibility even before this war is much older, In the last war, the airplane was useful largely for observation, though acrobatics and dog fighting did come into use in combat of plane against plane, and though limited strafing of undefended ground positions was employed. The period between the wars saw the development of heavy bombing and anti-aircraft weapons with which to defend ground positions. Blitz warfare saw the development of combined, co-ordinated air-ground attack. Planes, instead of | being operated independently, were actually attached to ground force units and fought with them under orders of the ground commanders.

Scattered Force Is Weak

MANY AIR OFFICERS now believe this may have been carried too far. Further improvement of anti aircraft weapons has made air-to-ground attack less effective. Furthermore, scattering of the air forgs by assigning small units of aircraft to ground has weakened the air power that could be delivered in concentrated attack. . For a time, there was an idea that it would be nice to have aircraft flying around behind some cloud, subject to call whenever the ground commander decided he was in need of aerial help to overcome some specific enemy strong point which was holding up advance, and was out of range of his available lery. The weakness of this has been that about every time the ground commander wanted his air arms to function, they would be out of gas and have to

their definite

to go The success of Gen. Chennault’s Chinese operation: in obtaining maximum effectiveness with a mini

fi a J)

BOL