The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1939. AUSTRALIA IN THE WAR

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20108, 30 November 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1939. AUSTRALIA IN THE WAR

To-day's announcement that Australia, too, is to send an expeditionary force to fight overseas is significant, not only in itself, but also because ot its implications. Despite the noisy opposition of a section of the Labotir Party few people could have doubted that if the need arose and circumstances justified it Australia would play just as active a part in this war as in the last. Postponement of a decision on the matter had no relation

to the attitude of the people of the Commonwealth but was dictated solely by the exigencies of the situation. A decision has now been taken and, regrettable though the necessity for it may be, it seems probable that early in the new year Australians and New Zealanders will again be fighting side by side in Europe. That they will acquit themselves with the same distinction as before and that further lustre will be added to the name of “Anzac" which unites them may be taken for granted. This aspect of the latest war development, however, is incidental to the main issue and it is more important that the Australian decision should be examined in the light of its bearing on the war situation generally. If this is done it will be found that the dispatch of Australians overseas implies something more than that Australia intends to play its part to the full—which was never doubted.

It is an open secret that it had been

decreed by agreement before the war started that troops from the Dominions should not be sent overseas until the security of the Dominions themselves seemed to be reasonably assured. It is a fair assumption, then, that since troops are to go overseas those in high quarters are convinced that there is little danger of this part of the world becoming an actual war zone. The first effect of the decision, therefore, is to carry a message of reassurance to Australia and New Zealand. It is believed that the protection afforded to the Dominions by the naval units is sufficient and that, in

consequence, part of their man-power can be released for overseas service. The protection thus given mainly by the British navy places the Dominions under a more definite obligation to the Mother Country because it would clearly not be right or fair to leave to Britain the responsibility for guarding the shores and trade of the Dominions without the Dominions themselves taking an active part in the sphere in which they can be of the greatest assistance. This war is a joint responsibility in which each unit of the Empire must play its part, and Australia and New Zealand, relieved of anxiety regarding their own immediate safety, now find that their part is in the front line.

The decision to send Dominion troops overseas and to maintain regular reinforcements is further evidence of the belief that the war will be a protracted one. The organisation of the Empire is being shaped in this belief and it is clear that with the passage of time the Dominions will be called upon to contribute an increasingly large share. That this is the case serves, also, to emphasise the necessity for unity and co-operation in the Dominions. In New Zealand, some complaint has been made, with scant justification, that there has not been full co-operation in the war effort. Lest there should be any exaggerated conception of the extent of criticism of the policy of the Government the position in Australia should be studied by way of contrast. There, the Labour Party, which is the official Opposition, has actively and publicly opposed the actual war measures, whereas in New Zealand the war measures themselves have received the united support of all sections, such differences as there have been having been confined to domestic issues. The Australian Labour Party fought the national register, it objected strongly to compulsory training for home service—although this had been the law of the land almost since the time of federation —and it has conducted a public campaign in opposition to sending troops overseas. By comparison, therefore, the New Zealand Government has little ground for complaint. The attitude of the Labour Party in Australia is singular. Its leader has declared that the movement is “inevitably, unequivocally, and inflexibly on the side of Britain in the war.” He contends, however, that Australian man-power should be reserved for the defence of the Commonwealth, but he objects to be the same man-power being conscripted for that purpose. He is prepared to allow Australia to be defended by the British navy and to permit her trade to be maintained solely through British protection, but is not prepared to take any active part in the war itself. As the Sydney Morning Herald remarked last week, “the Labour Party professes its ! readiness to continue the struggle for victory, but the struggling is to be done at a distance —on the side, but not by the side, of Britain; behind Britain, but 12,000 miles behind." This

J is a strange conception of the role of

an ally in the war, because, even though the war is being fought 12,000 miles away the future security of Australia and New Zealand will depend upon the result. Australia's first line of defence, as Mr. Menzies said yesterday, is in Europe, for it is on the battlefields there that all free countries are being protected against ! the future danger of aggression. Both | Australia and New Zealand are in this | war to the finish and are vitally con-

corned in the outcome of it and noth

ing, domestic politics least of all, should be permitted to interfere with their contribution.