Some of the report is simply too racy to print and so was fortunately obliterated from the page. We shudder to speculate. Such is what occurs when there is suddenly no more war to fight and a non-fraternization rule in place.

Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes informed that some six million tons of coal would be shipped from America to Europe for civilian use during the ensuing five months, in preparation for the long, cold winter ahead. That was so, despite his earlier prediction of a severe coal shortage ahead for the United States. The coal was necessary for Europe, he stated, to avert a disaster. But more coal miners were needed and the only source of them was from the Army. The Secretary therefore requested that the Army release 30,000 men skilled at mining.

The fifth installment of General Maurice-Gustave Gamelin, former supreme commander of the French Army just before the fall of France in spring, 1940, writes of his efforts to obtain armored divisions. Two, and possibly three, things had caused the public impression that he was opposed to armor: that he did not want to name the tank divisions "armored corps" for the fact that it would have meant that the tanks would have been aggregated together and thus hard to deploy; second, that he did not want "panzer divisions", the mobile divisions of the Germans, because they were not well-suited to defensive fighting but rather were conducive to maneuverable offensive formations, as in the Blitzkrieg of Poland and the preparations for the move through Belgium. They were designed for invasion but, once a breach was made, they were ill-suited for attacking an organized position or permanent fortification; and, third, that some of the generals wanted independent tank battalions and had sought to turn public opinion in their favor in the face of General Gamelin's opposition to that plan.

It is worth, parenthetically, recalling at this juncture that "panzer" is etymologically derivative of "pants".

After 1936, three armored divisions were approved for France, with capability of attacking an organized front and permanent fortifications, based on the assumption that France would have to attack between the Rhine and the Moselle against fixed fortifications, which, in 1937, became the Siegfried Line—replete with the Dragon's Teeth, no doubt inspired, as wethinks we have before mentioned, not unmentionable, by Lord Fortinbras.

Three mechanized and three more heavily armored divisions were planned for the Army to match the six German panzer divisions, only five of which were active in September, 1939. So, a fourth mechanized division was planned for the spring of 1940, but was delayed. The Germans attacked France with six panzer divisions. The British had sent up only their first division, leaving the Allies a division short.

Despite a major effort by Premier Daladier to increase armament, the process of getting the factories up and running and into production had taken time to accomplish after 1935 when rearmament began.

The French, because of being poised for counter-attacks along an extensive defensive front, had more independent battalions of tanks, in groups of twos and threes, than the Germans.

In Miami, a 19-year old Navy seaman pleaded self-defense in the death of a woman Sunday night during a "drunken beer-bottle fracas". The sailor stated that he had picked up the woman in a bar and that she had hit him with a beer bottle and then he hit her a good one right back. He woke up; she was dead.

The sailor was charged with manslaughter.

You see, we do not do that which is, or used to be, commonplace in the movies, hitting people over the head with glass bottles, not, in real life, designed to break so easily—just as we do not, in real life, gun down people. They do not get back up sometimes.

One of these days, this lunatic society will ban handguns absolutely, along with assault weapons. Until then, we suppose, we can expect more and more of the same, until we obtain the necessary leadership to stop it cold, dead in its tracks, irrespective of political fallout initially.

Dr. Bush advocated establishment of 25,000 scholarships and fellowships in science sponsored by such a foundation. The proposal was not to federalize science but to oversee the research process and provide incentives for it to take place.

It views the proposal as sounding nice, idyllic, but, when posed against the realities lived in two world wars of the previous 30 years, without practicability. The lesson learned was that preparedness was the only effective means to avoid war. The time between the wars, when the Allies were unarmed, had proved the premise.

Mr. Martin, it offers, was right in that conscription also had never prevented war. And standing armies likewise were no sure preventive measure.

But that said, it also urges that the U.N. Security Council had to have an effective means of force to carry out its decisions.

In Bulgaria, Communists had seized control of the government in an uprising, executing 30,000 quislings. But included among them had been the wife of the court chamberlain who had fed and sheltered downed American fliers after a raid on the Ploesti oilfields.

This strain in Soviet-American relations was second only to that of the mistaken killing of a Russian lieutenant general by American fliers during the convergence on Berlin, just prior to FDR's death in April.

Dr. George Dimitrov, a moderate anti-Nazi, former head of the Agrarian Peasant Party, had been sought for arrest as well, but was able to take refuge within the American Ministry at Sofia. The Russians demanded his release to them; the U.S. Minister refused, asked for military assistance and received it. The result was a disturbingly divisive confrontation outside the Ministry between American and Russian troops.

The Russians then told the Americans and British that Dimitrov's family would be tortured and killed if he were not released. The demand was ignored and a few days later, his secretary was found dead, contended by the Russians to have been from suicide. The coroner's report showed evidence of torture.

And, in latter May, U.S. military personnel were required to have Soviet passes to reach their own headquarters. All Americans were likewise required to have passes to visit the American Minister. American officers were, in consequence, provided arms and tensions were increasing.

Eventually, after the head of the U.S. military mission complained to the Allied Control Commission, the guards were withdrawn, and the Bulgarian Government assured that no attempt would be made to take Dimitrov from the Minister's residence. The Bulgarian Prime Minister admitted that Dimitrov had committed no crime, but, as head of the Agrarian Party, he stood as the only person who could successfully establish an anti-Communist government.

Mr. Childs felt the effort to make the vote unanimous for the Charter to be a mistake, implying that it was so innocuous as to be supportable by anyone of any political stripe.

As retiring Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts had recently said, a vote against it was a reminder of the need to continue working for a stronger base for internationalism. He had stated that the Charter was so watered down that it had little chance for success and that eventually a document would be needed which would truly unite the world's nations in a world state.

Senator Eugene Millikin of Colorado, for instance, was voting for the Charter, even though wanting to know whether the United States could leave the organization whenever it might so choose.

He suggests that The News writer and Mr. White emulate the late Ernie Pyle, Hal Boyle, and other such reporters who had gone to the front lines, talked to the soldiers and seen the war firsthand. "Maybe then you'll realize the comparative unimportance of toilet paper. And, perhaps, its inadequacy," he concludes.

The editorial muses, however, that the judge's apparent assumption that North Carolina's air possessed some miraculous power to eradicate the tendency to crime was misplaced.

Similarly, the war was eroding the power of the Emperor internally, as its prolongation had to be eviscerating his divine image in the minds of his subjects.

So, the war itself assured that the future Japan would be different from the pre-war Japan. Yet, there were many Americans who wished to preserve the Zaibatsu as a conservative influence on the revolutionary ardor at work in Asia generally—such as in Communist China. Yet, even these Americans understood that Japan had to be prevented from war-making capability in its industrial base after the war. But, to preserve the Zaibatsu meant preservation of some heavy industry. Thus, the riddle had to be solved, not with cornflakes or firecrackers or paper parasols.

So, the plan to strip Japan of its territorial acquisitions, leave it as an island nation, with the Zaibatsu and the Emperor still in place, was likely unrealistic, opines Mr. Grafton.

It was therefore difficult to outline terms of surrender to which the Japanese would be amenable. Unconditional surrender, at least, required the Japanese to modify their societal plan, to rid the society of the militarist-fascist mentality—born of its long feudal background in the Samurai culture of mercenary hirelings to protect the feudal lords against brigands.

Some conservative thinkers, he points out, would preserve the militarists, the Gumbatsu, and throw out the Zaibatsu. But that would be worse, he suggests, than the reverse.

The best hope for the future of Japan, he concludes, was that it would take steps on its own toward democratization after the war.

Of course, the transistor and solid state circuitry age plus the little cars going beep-beep-beep, all of which began to find their way into world imports by the mid to late 1950's, opened the door as the eventual answer to enable Japan to retain its Zaibatsu, free of the Gumbatsu grip on its base of production and means of sustenance.