The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES” GISBORNE, TUESDAY, SEPT, 1, 1942. THE OFFENSIVE SPIRIT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20877, 1 September 1942, Page 2

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES” GISBORNE, TUESDAY, SEPT, 1, 1942. THE OFFENSIVE SPIRIT

The Prime. Minister is to be commended for the manner in which he has interpreted the spirit of New Zealanders to the people of the United States. Despite the Dominion’s severe losses in Libya, Crete, and elsewhere, he said, “we realise that the only way to deal with the Nazis and the Japanese is to go out and meet them rather than to wait for them to attack.” Here there is further evidence of that offensive spirit which is characteristic of the Allied nations, whose people, from time to time, express i their impatience at the seeming or relative inactvity on certain fronts. Mr. Fraser takes the view that attack is the best form of defence and would prefer that the New Zealand forces should be defending their country on remote fronts rather than on their own shores. There is logic in this view and it finds a ready echo in the United States where, in the comparatively short time since Pearl Harbour, amazing results have been achieved. The Americans, like the New Zealanders, have not been content to stand guard on th'eir own shores but have sought out the enemy in his own lairs. The Prime Minister has now revealed the presence of American troops in New Zealand and after paying a well-deserved tribute to their bearing has referred to the strong bonds; which unite them and the people of the Dominion.

The attitude of both Americans and New Zealanders found expression in another statement by Mr. Fraser when he said: “When the war was brought to our doorstep in the south Pacific, we did not think in terms merely of defending our country, but of New Zealand as a place from which the United Nations would drive forward and thrust the Japanese, not only out of the south Pacific, but right out of the war.”-’ Here there was a reproach, intended or otherwise, of the converse policy adopted across the Tasman where every step appeared to- be dominated by the thought of defending Australia, even at the expense of sacrificing other Allied territory. It says much for the vision of Mr. Fraser that even in the darkest hours he has hever allowed the threat to New Zealand—and* for a time it was a serious threat —to cloud his outlook. • It is difficult, indeed, to recall any statement of his where he has placed the Dominion’s danger before the Allied cause as a whole—an attitude which is in striking "contrast to that of the Australian leaders who, even after the brilliant victories that have been achieved, still have uppermost in their minds the possible, but increasingly remote, clanger to their own shores. In this respect, Mr. Fraser—strangely enough noted for his somewhat dolorous manner—has given a fine example of leadership. It is not sufficient, however, that the Prime Minister should thus display the offensive spirit. If it is to be effective and truly representative of the Dominion, then it must permeate every aspect of the national life. Everything that is done or proposed, both individually and collectively, politically and economically, should be governed by the one consideration

|of its prospective contribution to the war effort. Nothing else should be allowed to carry weight or influence. Nothing else should be tolerated. This inevitably means restrictions and sacrifices of many descriptions, but, in this country, unlike most others engaged in the war, it need not mean excessive hardship. So far, the people of the Dominion have had little of which to complain and a great deal for which to be truly thankful. Unfortunately and unjustifiably, complaints are more frequent than thanks. One difficulty, perhaps is that the people have never been sufficiently taken into the confidence of the Government, and, in consequence, do not know the meaning of the steps that have been taken. There have been too - many secret sessions—far more than in Great Britain itself—too many blanket orders, too much censorship, and too much unexplained restriction. In these directions there is room for improvement on the Government side. Last week Mr. Coates broke the veil of silence when he made an authoritative statement regarding the Dominion’s man-power position and future requirements. This helped immeasurably to give the public a better conception of what the future is likely to demand of them both for the armed forces and for industry and should help to stimulate them to greater effort. The following day. Mr. Jones released some information —not a great deal—regarding the air force of the Dominion. Were he to go a little further, he. could give the public a better understanding of how much is being done for their defence, and of the directioh in which then financial contributions to the war are being spent. From these disclosure; an appeal for “austerity living” and, a still greater war effort, greater sacrifices of time and money, would spring automatically and would bring an encouraging response. As it is, it was disclosed yesterday that the people of Britain have contributed nearly £35 per head in small savings. New Zealand, by contrast, hhs managed to raise just over £5 a head. To what extent the difference in results is due to the different approach to the war of the two Governments is a matter for conjecture, but it Would seem that New Zealand has something to learn. In the meantime, Mr. Fraser has given a fine example of the offensive spirit. It is, the responsibility of the Government to see that the same spirit is infused into the people as. a whole.