Skip to main content

January 8, 1918 - Visit from Silver Creek friend

Don Martin diary entry for Tuesday, January 8, 1918:
Had a pleasant visit with Dan Ried, once of Silver Creek. Had dinner with him in Savoy. Talked about everyone in Silver Creek, particularly of John Knox and his family. Afterward I went to Dan’s room and met other members of the Am. comm. of which he is a member. Wrote letter to Dorothy + sent it by Dan. Dan told me some interesting things about his observations in France and I shall write a story about them. Early in the day I saw Colonel [John] Buchan, intelligence man for the Foreign Service [Director of Information].
Got lot of letters from N.Y. One from Joe Tumulty, Secretary to President Wilson [from 1911-1921].

Weather wintry. Coldest day of year. Snow.

Pres. Woodrow Wilson with private secretary Joseph Tumulty, 1915 

     Mr. Bennett followed up his letter of the day before with a short one on January 8.
January 8, 1918
Dear Mr. Martin
     The enclosed letter [not found] explains itself. You may find the sub-editors mentioned useful as sources of information or counsel when working up news features. You would do well, therefore, to get in touch with them and cultivate friendly relations with any who seem likely to be of service. It might be advisable to show one or another of them some little courtesy – an invitation to luncheon or dinner. I shall willingly refund to you reasonable outlay so incurred, as it may be productive of news results and thus prove a good investment.
Yours truly,
J. G. Bennett
- - - - -
   That day, January 8, in Washington, President Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress in a major speech laying out America’s aims for the Great War in 14 points, which became known as Wilson’s Fourteen Points. They were generally well received. Don Martin noted the event in his diary the next day.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more