A Response to PADA
I vote
Nay to the AWFA PADA. I believe lifting our current restrictions on broadcasting and print is premature, and - primarily due to the constriction of the draft duration - would prove detrimental to the war effort. Once the war is over, however, I will happily join my fellow Senators in repealing these restrictions.
I also vote
Nay to the Pacific-Asia Defense Act, though I expect that the filibuster will hold. In addition to the points raised by Senators Philipps and Beckendorf, I would ask Senator Hyde to answer the following questions:
PADA said:
These United States of America Consider themselves at a colonial state of war with the Empire of Japan, and do not seek to harm the Japanese Civilian Populace, These United States do however seek to have the Military and Government of the Empire of Japan Surrender to the terms outlined in this Act
Given that Japan has struck directly at our homeland - and yes, Senator Hyde, Hawaii is as much a fundamental part of America as Wisconsin is - why, exactly, is this a "colonial war," rather than a war of survival? The Empire of Japan attacked us, and seeks our destruction; accordingly, we should seek its destruction, and then rebuild Japan so that it never threatens us again.
PADA said:
4b) The Philippines will be granted the provinces of North and South Palau, under the conditions that they be given the same rights and representation as the rest of the Philippines
5) These United States recognize Australian claim on the following territories. Satawan, Truk, Ulul, Woleai, Pulusuk, Wolelai, Ulithi, Yap and Ngulu, under the conditions that they be given the same rights and representation as the rest of Australia
Has anyone consulted our Filipino and Australian allies about their supposed claims? I know I've spent the last month or two in the isolated confines of a hospital, but this is the first
I've heard of Australia laying claim to these Pacific territories.
For that matter, has anyone asked the locals what they think about being traded and bargained about between nations? I've no problem with liberating these people from Japanese misrule, but immediately handing them over to another counter seems irresponsible to me.
PADA said:
6) These United States recognize the independence of Korea, and we will do all we can to help the region create a free and democratic nation
I support Korean independence in principle, but taking such a drastic, unilateral step without consulting our Chinese allies would be diplomatic folly. We face enough threats from our enemies; the last thing we need is dissent and rivalry among our friends.
Furthermore, how exactly would we enforce such a claim? Until we destroy the IJN, we can't land troops to liberate Korea; without those troops, our declaration of Korea's independence will be as empty as the guarantee given to Poland at the start of this war.
PADA said:
7) These United States will work with the French Government, once it is liberated, to negotiate a democratic, self governed and truly free Indo-China that will be suppoerted by both These United States and the Third French Republic.
Given how much France has suffered in recent years, I cannot support Indochinese independence at the present time; without Hanoi's rich farmland, France's armies will be even more thinly manned than they are at present. Once France has been liberated and stabilized, I'll be happy to examine limited decolonization on a case-by-case basis, but we can't just kick out the colonial overlords and expect stable democracies to just spring up like dandelions - especially when we have exactly
no men in place to ensure a transition.
Senator Hyde, though I approve of the overall sentiment behind your efforts, I cannot support such a bill in its current form. I urge you to consider the objections raised by myself and my colleagues in any future bills that you propose on this subject.
With my sincerest apologies,
Senator Stephen McCarthy (D-TX)