Two articles: implacable foe of new deal and shackling prisoners of war

SValentineJRM1251404v10042.jpg

Title

Two articles: implacable foe of new deal and shackling prisoners of war

Description

Article 1. Headlines: implacable foe of new deal, Republican's new chairman. Deals with appointment of Mr Harrison Spangler as the new chairman of the United States Republican party national committee. Article 2. Headlines; shackling of war prisoners, hope of ending deadlock. Mentions Swiss Governments attempts to end German reprisals and British counter-reprisals.

Date

1942-12-09

Temporal Coverage

Language

Type

Format

Two newspaper cuttings mounted on a scrapbook page

Publisher

The Times
IBCC Digital Archive

Rights

This content is available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0). It has been published ‘as is’ and may contain inaccuracies or culturally inappropriate references that do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Lincoln or the International Bomber Command Centre. For more information, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ and https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/legal.

Identifier

SValentineJRM1251404v10042

Transcription

THE TIMES WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 9 1942

IMPLACABLE FOE OF NEW DEAL

REPUBLICANS’ NEW CHAIRMAN

From Our Own Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8

Mr. Harrison Spangler, who has been chosen as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, is a Conservative from Iowa. He is in his sixties, and his friends describe him vaguely as a “moderate internationalist” notwithstanding that he opposed the League o[missing letter] Nations. He accepted office, as it carrie[missing letter] with it the committee’s mandate to help [missing word] country “to defeat the New Deal,” a[missing letters] he added that he had been “after [missing words] animal since 1932,” and hoped to be [missing words] the kill in 1944.

Obviously the committee was moved [missing words] choice by a lively sense of dissension to [missing words] if it gave the post to a confessed isolat[missing letters] like Mr. Werner Schroeder, for that a[missing letters] Wendell Willkie had said, would [missing words] “imprinted the masthead of the [italics] C[missing letters] Tribune [/italics] on the party.” Another candidat[missing letters] Frederick Baker, of Seattle, came, rig[missing letters] wrongly, to be considered as Mr. W[missing letters] man, which effectively doomed him, [missing words] after a couple of ballots, a deal was ma[missing letters] Mr. Spangler was unanimously appoin[missing letters]

“PRODDING” AT HO[missing letters]

But this was not all. Senator Taf[missing letters]red a resolution before the meeting ended, [missing letters]rming the one which was passed on Apr[missing letters] last and the declaration of the Republican [missing letters]bers of Congress which diluted it, and ad[missing letters] that the committee dedicated itself “t[missing letters]ctory over our foreign enemies, to a just pe[missing letters] when war shall end, and to the preservati[missing letters] of the Republic under our Constitution.” [missing words] what this reference to the post-war world [missing letters]ns, or will mean, it would be impossible t[missing letters]y, but it should be remembered that Sen[missing letters]r Taft has strong isolationist leanings. M[missing letter] Willkie will have to do a great deal more “p[missing letters]dding” at home before it will be safe to [missing word] much encouragement from it.

Mr. Spangler has said that his adm[missing letters]istration of the committee’s machinery will ha[missing letters] nothing to do with the Republican Preside[missing letters]al candidate for 1944 until the party has [missing letters]osen its man. Clearly he will give all his [missing word] to the New Deal not only in 1944 but [missing word] the next Congress where the Republican P[missing letter]rty is now so strongly entrenched. Where [missing letters]e line can be drawn in a conflict over domes[missing letter]ic policy to prevent it from impinging on the field of war policy is difficult to determine, and the desire – so strongly present in many bosoms – to “get Roosevelt” will not make it easy to draw.

SHACKLING OF WAR PRISONERS

HOPE OF ENDING THE DEADLOCK

FROM OUR DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT

Hopes of ending the present deadlock in the shackling of prisoners of war grew stronger yesterday. The Swiss Government, who since the early days of October have been trying to end the German reprisals and the British counter-reprisals, yesterday made a public appeal to the British, Canadian, and German Governments. The appeal was worded as follows:-

In the conviction that it was with reluctance that Germany, as with Britain and Canada, was led to shackle prisoners of war, Switzerland, the protecting Power for German interests in the British Empire and for British interests in Germany, has suggested simultaneously to the interested Governments a date on which those prisoners should be freed from their shackles.

Soon after the appeal was received it was officially stated in London that the Swiss proposals would be examined immediately, and with the utmost sympathy, by the British Government in consultation with the Canadian Government.

Earlier in the day, before the appeal was received, the Prime Minister had told the House of Commons that he hoped to make a statement on the manacling of prisoners during the next series of sittings in the House.

Asked if Canada had been consulted before the decision to manacle prisoners was taken, he replied, “On account of urgency it was not possible to consult any of the Dominion Governments upon the counter-measures to the German shacklings which were deemed necessary in October by the Government.” In reply to further questions he said that the Cabinet were of course fully consulted, and that the fullest explanations tendered to the Dominions were accepted in “that friendly spirit of cooperation which marks all our relations.”

It was on October 7 that the German High Command announced that all British prisoners taken at Dieppe would be put in chains because “British troops had tied the hands of German soldiers in the raids on Dieppe and Sark.” After the German decision was put into effect on October 8, the British Government gave notice that unless the British prisoners were freed from their bonds by October 10, an equal number of German prisoners would have their hands tied. The German High Command replied by ordering the shackling of three times the number of British prisoners and declared that the men would be kept chained until the British Government gave clear notice that never again would they allow any tying of German soldiers in raids.

Citation

“Two articles: implacable foe of new deal and shackling prisoners of war,” IBCC Digital Archive, accessed October 7, 2022, https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/collections/document/21969.

Item Relations

This item has no relations.