Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1940. A FRANK DEBATE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 134, 7 May 1940, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1940. A FRANK DEBATE.

Tins House of Commons, today, will be engaged in probaby the most portentous debate so far of the war. Mr Chamberlain’s statement on the 7 withdrawal of \the Allied forces from Southern Norway, following Ministerial optimism of the progress of the fighting there, has produced a,, very serious crisis threatening, in the Observer’s opinion, a most critical situation for the Government. The sharp contrast between the Democratic and Dictator countries has been well drawn by the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The Government, as he stated in his speech at Ipswich, must render an account of its actions.to the people’s representatives, and its duty is to satisfy public opinion that everything possible was done in Norway. The dictators have no need to do this: they have suppressed the free Press in their countries; right of criticism has been forbidden, and the public are only allowed to know just what their dictators say they shall be told. So this week Mr Chamberlain will. give a fuller story, and the public’s anxiety will not be lessened if it follow any previous complacent lines associated with his speeches, which his critics have now fastened upon. It would be unwise, however, to believe that the seriousness of the Norwegian affair lias not been fully appreciated by the British Government. Most criticism has come from the Premier’s political enemies. To the War Cabiifet it has been a bitter experience, but harsh criticism of its members, without taking the relevant facts into consideration, will not avail its critics much. The fact at present is that the Allies have suffered a serious setback in Norway, and the public have a good knowledge of the military reasons which caused it. Had Denmark, Norway, and Sweden chosen the sensible course, of standing together and accepting Allied aid the Danes would not to-day be under the iron heel of Hitlerism, the Norwegians would have their land undespoiled, and Sweden would not be confronted with imminent invasion. -They chose to depend upon themselves, believed in their neutrality, and thus have rendered the Allies’ job extremely difficult.

There are wider considerations emerging from the Norwegian withdrawal, particularly the conduct, of) the war. We are fightin<T an enemy who scorns international law, who believes that might is right, and that the weak should go to the wall. The territory over which the swastika flies to-day is vast compared .lyith two ’ and a quarter years ago. Austria, Czechoslovakia, a great deal of Poland, Denmark, and Southern Norway are to-day under the domination of Hitlerism. The map of Europe shows a much different Germany from the ex-Kaiser’s which the Allies, fought in the Great War. Lnor-

mous military resources : and wealth have come to Hitler from these conquests -and he is .putting them to the best use against Britain and’-Erance. What cares he that the indigenous populations of these territories must suffer the most acute hardships so long as his ambitions are fulfilled ? This i 3 the foe that has to be conquered and he can only be vanquished by conducting the war with vigour and determination. Mr Lloyd. George’s view is that its direction must be drastically reconstructed in organisation and personnel, and Mr Chamberlain must prove to the nation that its prosecution is so determined and efficient as to make this unnecessary. In this crisis the best leaders are required. ■