OFFICIAL CONFLICT

Although more stress has been laid on the disastrous consequences of Ambassador Bullitt's address in Paris than it merited, the speech was highly suggestive. Unquestionably the stand of the present Administration is wholly in opposition to any aggressive intervention in a European struggle. Increases in armaments have been purely for the maintenance of peace and armed neutrality in any future war. Nevertheless, Bullitt, as the personal representative of the President, has apparently encouraged France to hope for aid from the United States.

Possibly, Bullitt's address was a direct hint that President Roosevelt plans intervention in foreign conflicts. More likely, however, it is, at best, merely an indication that the United States and the Roosevelt administration approve, but will not necessarily act in the France-British campaign was a formal statement that American sympathizes for an end to the armament race. That the address are with European democracies in general cannot well be doubted in view of the wording of the speech. Stating that the people of America are "not indifferent to" the plight of those nations who are striving to maintain the "tradition of western civilization", the Ambassador clearly hints at assistance from the United States in a war. Americans and French alike cannot overlook the significance of such a statement. Regardless whether or not the address had received the official stamp of approval, it can only be regarded here as unfortunate.

The two conflicting official viewpoints present a definite problem. From Washington circles, the President's firm intention to remain neutral in any European embroilment has up to yesterday remained unquestioned. As an official envoy from the President, Ambassador Bullitt has in part, at least, shattered this stand. Until the position held by the Administration is restated or qualified, the foreign policy must remain dubious.