The Dominion FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1940. END OF THE WAR DEBATE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 192, 10 May 1940, Page 8

The Dominion FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1940. END OF THE WAR DEBATE

It was not expected when the House of Commons debate on the British operations in Norway commenced that the proeedings would be carried to a division. Mr. Chamberlain’s prompt acceptance of the Labour Party’s challenge to a vote resulted in a majority of b for the Government - 281 for and 200 against. As the normal strength of the Commons is 615, the test was put to a comparatively thin House. Making allowance for the stated fact that a number o Conservative members were absent —some on active service the Government’s majority is considered to be proportionately the smallest it has experienced during its term of office. ~ . -. , . Whether the Commons displayed their usual clarity of judgment history alone can decide. The impartial observer, surveying the scene in a spirit of detachment, will probably conclude that the Government is able to claim a greater measure of justice than it has re’ceived. Part of its difficulties in wresting the initiative from the enemy is due to past errors of Government policy from, which Mr. Chamberlain’s Ministry can be largely absolved — errors arising mainly from a desire to promote world peace. Hitler has demonstrated by his own acts of treachery on what a slender basis these aspirations were based. While Britain and France were devoted to a peace economy, Germany was being deliberately and systematically organized for war, professing at the same time her desire for peace. In the meantime the British policy of pacification in Europe had resulted in a grave weakening of Britain’s armed strength, and a state of unpreparedness which undermined the influence and effectiveness of her diplomacy in Europe. Furthermore, it has also made expedient the adoption of a defensive strategy in the present war until such time as we are able to exert a predominant position in the air at all points. As Mr. Churchill emphasized in the debate, our delay in taking the initiative is due to “our failure to regain and maintain air parity with Germany.” Mr. Churchill here was referring of course to the comparative strengths in aircraft. So far as quality in aircraft construction and skill of personnel is concerned quite a different story can be told, the truth of which has already been impressively demonstrated. In their criticism of Mr. Chamberlain—Mr. Lloyd Georges peevish strictures especially —members entirely overlooked ,the debt of gratitude the nation owed him for gaining almost a year s respite from war, a respite which rendered it possible for a tremendous effort to be made in overtaking the arrears of preparation. Where won d Britain have been today without the advantage of the time thus gained. It might well be asked, in the light of the position disclosed in the debate, what would have happened had Mr. Chamberlain submitted to the pressure brought to bear upon him to go to war over Czechoslovakia, pressure on the part of the very people who are today most vociferous in their criticism of the Government. Those same people, too, would have involved Britain- in war. over Abyssinia when her state of preparedness was even worse than it was when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. There is also a tendency on the part of Mr. Chamberlain’s critics to twit him for his faith in the Munich agreement. It should be remembered that for his action in promoting this agree-ment-worthless as it proved to be—the Prime Minister was accorded the unstinted applause of the world, and there is evidence that even the German people were grateful. Furthermore, that agreement put Hitler’s good faith to the public test of world opinion.. . His dishonouring of it was the decisive factor in strengthening Britain’s moral case. With all this, however, the debate has served a valuable purpose. It has shown up in a strong light the stern realities of the position, and should have a galvanizing effect upon the Empire peoples. The shock to our complacency in this country is timely. Something was needed to rouse the public to a keener sense of the real nature of the conflict and the vital necessity for a greater effort on the part of the people themselves. The debate should be a rallying call, sounding its clarion note throughout the Empire. Ihe statements, made by Mr. Chamberlain and other Ministers should kindle the imagination of the British peoples and stir them to action of the kind that will inspire and stimulate their Governments to go forward in their tasks with the zeal and energy which the grim realities of the conflict demand.