Chicago Hi,story, Fall 1989 men contended that existing U.S. naval strength and the anticipated increase in her air power would enable a modestly sized, mechanized army of the type envisioned by McCormick to defeat any invader. The colonel broadcast his own case over the Mutual radio network on June 9, assuring listeners that a prepared America would be thoroughly safe. He was anything but sanguine about the state of American defenses, as the Tribune's support for increased defense spending proved , yet McCormick's analysis of the shortcomings of the German armed forces holds up rather well in light of modern knowledge. On the national scene, Colonel Charles Lindbergh was saying much the same thing. But June of 1940 was not a time to voice restraint. The thunder of Nazi successes drowned out both colonels. Hitler had designed his war machine to overawe as well as to conquer, and it did both. Evidence indicating McCormick's views about Hitler's long-term intentions is sparse. An August editorial contended that the Fuhrer desired those parts of Europe that had at any time been German, but it made no mention of whether he might reach beyond Europe. Opponents like Adlai Stevenson, Chicago leader of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies [CDAAA], challenged the Tribune in public on this issue. The paper responded by claiming ignorance concerning Berlin's ultimate designs, but insisted that America could defeat the Nazis if the necessity arose. The especially tinging abuse leveled at the CDAAA in this editorial perhaps indicated how defensive the Tribune felt on this subject. Latin America appeared to be a likely arena for Nazi aggression. The frequency and diversity of warnings about clanger there reflected an anxiety widespread across the nation. Even the Tribune's panel of nameless military experts worried about the safety of Brazil and her neighbors. In order to deter efforts to send American military equipment to Britain, McCormick at first attempted to arouse fears that Mexico might invade the southwest. This argument proved unavailing, and by August the Tribune was issuing earnest warnings of azi "fifth column" activity in Mexico and other nations. The Daily News carried similar reports. These fears were endemic in 1940. Citizens of the region bordering on Mexico seemed 18
especially concerned. San Antonio mayor Maury Maverick declared that the clanger of subversive activity in Mexico was so serious that the southwest lay under the threat of invasion. In an effort to protect the Alamo City, Maverick issued submachine guns to city policemen. Residents of nearby Del Rio came close to rioting when they mistook three Jehovah's Witnesses for Nazis. The trio had been passing out pamphlets on which swastika symbols appeared, and only vigorous efforts by the town sheriff and members of the American Legion prevented violence. A second fear common to both Chicago dailies, as well as the Roosevelt administration and other Americans, was of German economic penetration of Latin America. In mid-August a Daily News editorial contended that Hitler desired a major air base in Dakar, West Africa, for use as a commercial springboard to South America. Tribune correspondent Wayne Thomas described vigorous German activity aimed at undercutting U.S.-Latin American trade and cornering the market on several strategic commodities. These dual themes of trade war coupled with covert influence recurred throughout 1940 and 1941. Toward Germany's remaining foe, Great Britain, the Chicago papers remained ambivalent, though there were clear differences in the nature of Lheir positions. As we have seen, the Defender held the British to account for their imperialism, segregationist poli cies , and their record of appeasement. The pa per applauded signs of racial progress, such as the decision to drop the color bar in the Royal Air Force. Later in the year it cheered British forces as they helped restore Emperor Haile Selassie to his throne in Ethiopia. But overall the Defender remained wary of Britain's war aim . Knox was far friendlier, but he took care to insist that aid to Britain served American vital interests and deserved support primarily on that basis. In fact, the Daily News tended to phrase its appeals in terms of help for Hitler's foes rather than as aid for America's friends. Even during the depths of the blitz, the British received little outright praise. The News seemed determined to insure itself against charges of anglophilia. Other papers were less circumspect. Even the Tribune was far more outspoken in its praise for Britain's courage and perseverance , though also in its scorn for her alleged pretensions to democracy.