The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1939. BRITISH SUCCESSES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20125, 20 December 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1939. BRITISH SUCCESSES

Whatever might be alleged against the British authorities it can hardly be said that they are extravagant in their claims of successes against the enemy. On the contrary, the navy, in particular, true to its tradition as the “silent service,” , seems to carry modesty and laconism to the extreme. Early in the war the Government was at pains to assure the public that there would be no suppression of bad news, but the uppermost suspicion now must be that it is good news that is being unnecessarily withheld. However, there is probably wisdom in this excess' of caution and it is certainly preferable to the disillusionment which must follow the German method of ignoring losses and magnifying gains. The past week’s naval successes provide a striking example of the British attitude towards war news. Officially, as much publicity was given to the fact that the liner Bremen was allowed to escape as to the fact that the same submarine which spared her had sunk a German U-boat and torpedoed a German cruiser. The exploit of another submarine that penetrated a German naval base and sunk an enemy cruiser has so far received less publicity than was accorded the sinking of the Royal Oak by a U-boat. The first information of the attack on the Graf von Spee came from Rome 24 hours before the Admiralty released anything and then when the full story was told most of it came from neutral and unofficial sources.

Now, a week after these events occurred the details are gradually leaking out and they all go to show that the British navy has been responsible for some remarkable exploits. As Mr. Churchill said yesterday, it is necessary to go a long way back’in history to find a parallel for the gallant fight of small British units against the Graf von Spee, but notwithstanding this there has been no blaring of trumpets by the Admiralty which is content to state the bare facts and leave the rest to the imagination. Bit by bit, the full story of this action is emerging. It is only to-day, for instance, that it is learned what a gruelding ordeal the Exeter survived and how, crippled though she was, she kept her station outside Montevideo waiting for the Graf von Spee until she was relieved by the Cumberland. It is now revealed, also, that there was no large British squadron waiting for the Graf von Spee, but only the same three cruisers which drove her to shelter, and that rather than face them again the German “pocket battleship" scuttled herself. Delay in the publication of the full story is understandable and there is little ground for criticism of the Admiralty, but these facts are deserving of mention as evidence of the detached manner in which Britain presents the news.

Further examples and contrasts are provided in the exploits of the submarines Ursula and Salmon. A week after the event a more detailed story was given of how the Ursula sank a U-boat, could have sunk the Bremen, and then lone-handed attacked a large German naval squadron. On the face of the official report there was substantial evidence that two large German vessels were gravely damaged by torpedoes and might have been a total loss, but the Admiralty is content to present the facts and claim only that

they were damaged. It requires no imagination to picture what Berlin would have said had the circumstances been reversed. The official report of the sinking of a German cruiser at the mouth of the Elbe devoted more space to a description of the victim than to the daring feat of the British submarine, and again there were no embellishments of the report. It is worth while recalling that when a German submarine entered Scapa Flow she was not content to report the sinking of the Royal Oak but claimed, in addition, that the Renown had been sunk also, a report which has been falsified by the known fact that the Renown has never been out of commission. The fact is that more often than not German reports have been false while Britain has been able to maintain her naval supremacy without making any exaggerated claims. Another point which Mr. Churchill has rightly emphasised is that the British navy is at a serious disadvantage in that it has very few targets to attack and that, unlike the enemy, it is not permitted to sink merchantmen without warning and making provision for the safety of their crews. Of the German ships, naval and merchant, which have risked putting to sea, a large proportion have been captured or sunk, whereas British shipping, despite occasional losses, has been maintainead without serious interruption. This, after all, is the main task of the navy and if it had done nothing else than keep British losses to 1 per cent of the total tonnage entering and leaving port there would' be no room for complaint. In addition, however, wherever the opportunity has occurred, and even where it had to be made, attacks have been launched with the result that a substantial part of the German navy Is definitely known to be out of action. So far in this war the navy has played its part to the full and has proved once again that Britain’s first line of defence is as efficient as ever in the past. The best proof, perhaps, of its disturbing effect on the enemy is contained in the fact that Germany, having been worsted in fair fight, is now constrained to vent her spleen by attacking small and defenceless fishing vessels.