BRIGHT COMMENT ON INGERSOLL'S BOOK TOP SECRET

Chronicle (Levin), 5 August 1946, Page 4

BRIGHT COMMENT ON INGERSOLL'S BOOK TOP SECRET

John

Crusoe

By

in the New S tatesman and Nation, London.

That America wins all wars sne - enters is, of course, a truism, but hitherto there has heen a sportingconvention that it was her enemies who lost. This old-f ashioned ' attitude is disposed of hy Lieutenant-Colouel • Ralph Ingersoll iu his latest hook called appropriately for a bes.t'-seller -f-' ' Top Secret." ' ' ' It may come as a surprise to some to fiud (from this hook) that" the main American victory in Europe was not over the Germans hut the British. However, it seems that it was we who opposed every attempt of the United States Army to get on with the war against Germany, and we fought them with all that hrilliance and devotion with which we are credited in defeat. OUR TROJAN HORSE

Odysseus of the many wiles had nothing on us. We were either nice to the American officers (to win them to our way of thinking) or nasty (to get rid of them). We sent out Trojan horses like General Morgan, who appeared to oppose the British and agree to the American plans, hut secretly sabotaged them; or we engaged in the wicked trickery oi loyalty, all holding together and supporting our chiefs rather than eacn holding out for his own ideas. At . least Americans can hoast they never practised this latter vice in their own affairs, civil or military. At the "hattle of the Conferences" — where alone Britain really fought — we were adept and victorious. Our single aim was to delay the war, particularly to delay the Second Front, because, after all, we weren't doing too hadly out of the war, weakening the Russians hy letting them bear the brunt and getting rich ourselves oh American dollars through lend-lease. (Surely it has heen forgotten that we also wanted the Germans to give us further aid with our slum clearance problem through the heneficient activities of the Luftwaffe.) SOLE BUILDERS OF VICTORY The final British triumph was at Quebec (1942) when Mr. Churchill single-handed defeated Mr. Roosevelt, General Marshall, Admiral King, etc., and forced the British plan for delay on the reluctant Americans. He even succeeded by some' mysterious antt unexplained means in wrecking the United States industrial output of' Landing Ships to ensure that there was no Second Front! Alone, gallant, deserted hut undismayed, the sole huilders of victory, toiling single-mindedly to this end, were the planning staff of General Dqwars- (Lieutenant-ColOnel Ralph Ingersoll was on this staff) . But their betrayal was certain and when the Russians eventually forced the British into fighting the war, Dewars was exiled. The Second Front was British planned and British command-ed. The detail of an American Supreme Gommander was of no importhnce. Surprisingly enough, in view of its - duhious antecedents, the Invasion was a great success. Even Montgomery as Commander of the ground forces showed some ability in the initial stages (Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Ingersoll was attached to' his staff). However, British reluctance to fight eventually reasserted itself and we were stopped at Caen. (Ingersoll had just left the staff.) From Caen to the end of the war Monty was the villain of the piece. He failed to take Arnhem, he took Antwerp only hecause the Germans refused to fight, he refused orders to take Walcheren, he failed to cross the Rhine, he failed to get to Hamburg. r . ..Finally. he it was— now it can be„ .told^-who was responsihle for the.de"^feat in the Ardennes. Thus ^at last^ 'we know that, when Mr. Churchill publicly emphasised that this was an American victory, what he meant was that it was a British defeat. "QUEER RELATIONS" The hero, glistening white against Monty' s sulphurous black or yellow, is General Bradley. During the later part of the war "the plot was simpiy Bradley versus the Germans." Lieu-tenant-Colonel Ralph Ingersoll had, incidentally, joined his staff, who seem to have maintained rather queer relations with their chief: — When he was away from headquarters, they were almost fright-

_ened; when he came back, even v • -though they only saw him striding fY*"* * .throughi the hall, everytbing wa^ a". ,".lf night again. Father had come home. ^ The ,break-ihrough would be held 8 'and the bermans beateh. Omar would know What to do. I never * Heard him say a harsh word to anyp one; i ■ The moral, which has all the subtle inappropriateness of Belloc's cautionary tales, is . duly spelled out (in italics) so that even the stupidest can understand: — During the war, the British at- • tempted to manipulate our military >policy. so that we would fight the way they wanted it fought — which was an anti-Russian way. They did not succeed. Now, with equal determination, they are attempting to manipulate American foreign policy, to link our future irretrievably with theirs. • If they succeed, and if there is a third world war, we will surely fight it for them — - against the Russians. It is easy to laugh at this comic strip view of the war; it is diffieult not to laugh at its author — the frustrated Napoleon doomed to watch as a humble lieutenant-colonel (temp.) while generals and marshals missed their chances. Unkind critics will find poor Ingersoll as vulnerable as a beetle on its back. Military men will wonder how it was hoped to win tne war by a cross- Channel invasion m 1943 with the green troops who were routed at Kasserine Pass. Psychologists may wonder that the owner of so gro'tesque an ego should parade it so inflated. Too many people will laugh. But Top Secret is far more than a laughing matter. It is the beginning of the great debunk that inevitably follows the exhilaration of victory. So great has heen the price of war, what has been purchased? Last time as America cast away the fruits of victory it seemed that nothing had been gained. Frustration, resentment against the recent ally, and isolation followed. This time the rout is being led by the Left, not the Right. But it is along the same road. Mr. Ingersoll, the editor of the liberal paper P.M., is appealing to the deep-rooted American isolationism, and the national prejudice against collective security. He does not ask that America should lead the United Nations and Britain out of its anti-Russian rut; he warns that only divorce from Britain will make America safe. " Nor is this a lone voice in American liberal circles. Britain is the had hoy of all their Left-wingers. The criticism from the Left is partly the resuit of our failure to embrace Russia. From across the Atlantic Socialists and Communists look as alike as Hindus and Moslems — any friction must he the resuit of a deeplaid plot. But Russia is an excuse rather than a real cause. At heart * ( the American Left is jealous of the British Left, and this opens the Pan- , dora's hox of the national inferiority complex. SUESTITUTE FOR POLICY The American Left is impotent and frustrated. For six years America has moved steadily to the Right, while we have moved to the Left. While we fulfil our promises of freedom to India (tne favourite Briton-haiting ground), America fails to fulfil her promises of food to India. While the New Deal is forgotten, we have a Socialist Government. The American liberals, lacking influence at home, are making criticisms ahroad a substitute for policy. This ' will not last,- .and we must not be estranged from our .friencls- because of : a passing phase. ' SOmfe day^ Amerfcap. liberalism will be „ freed : froni the clutches of the Maiden " Aunts who have kidnapped it and will move forward again. Theri it will he hy our side. Five Journalists Resign In a Press cahle from New York it is reported that five staff members of the paper 's Washington "bureau have handed in their collective resignation, charging that Ralph Ingersoll, editor of the New York newspaper P.M., was guilty of illiberalism, in-tolera-nce, and continuous yielding to Communist pressure.