BOLD LEADERSHIP

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 136, 9 May 1940, Page 10

BOLD LEADERSHIP

PEOPLE’S DEMAND. READY FOR SACRIFICES. (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official \Vireless.) RUGBY, May 7. Mr A. Greenwood (Labour), m the debate in the House of Commons on the Norwegian expedition, said the people of the country would face all the sacrifices they were called upon to bear, but would not tolerate lack of bold and effective leadership. Should there be confused counsels, inefficiency, and wavering other men must be called to take the place of the leaders who had failed the country. Increasing numbers were becoming more and more disturbed at the direction of the war. Mr Greenwood said: Is it not the caso that this Norwegian episode—inadequately and unconvincingly explained by Mr Chamberlain —has profoundly shocked the people in every constituency in Britain because of the lack of direction by the Government? The Press led the public to believe we were winning magnificent victories. Mr Greenwood said he feared the effect on other neutral countries. Britain’s pride had been humbled, not through the defects of the fighting men, but through the defects of those responsible lor the supreme direction of the war. Hitler might strike again. Were the plans ready to deal with that, or were they to be as defective or disastrous and humiliating as in the Norwegian episode? Wars were not won by masterly evacuations. HITLER’S BLUNDER.

At the same time, Mr Greenwood expressed his personal view that, from the military viewpoint, the adventure might be Hitler’s downfall, and might be regarded as a capital blunder. He believed Hitler had broken his fleet and had lost more men than Britain. “Criticism, however, in this House,” Mr Greenwood added, “in war time, and in this particular, is one weapon the people must maintain to prevent the Government going wrong. If this House feels that the prosecution of the war is not effective and does not say so, it is playing into the hands of the enemy far more effectively than any disturbance in this House. Wc are not seeking a narrow party advantage out of this. The fact is, there is a deep, bitter, and growing dissatisfaction with the major direction of the war. The responsibility lies with Mr Chamberlain and his colleagues, and the responsibility for any change lies not with the minority, but with the majority who have an even greater responsibility now. ADMIRAL’S AGREEMENT. Admiral Sir Roger Keyes said everything Mr Chamberlain had said had strengthened his own contention that the capture of Trondheim was essential, imperative, and vital. The naval hazards would have been trifling compared with those in other operations Which he himself had organised. Immediately the Norwegian campaigii opened he had suggested to the Admiralty action on his own experience in amphibious warfare in the Dardanelles and on the Belgian coast. His (information was that there was no difficulty in* going into Troncilieim Fiord, but that was not considered necessary, as the Army was making good progress and the situation in the Mediterranean made it undesirable to risk skips. Mr L. C. M. S. Amery said a war was not run by shirking risks. Trondheim held by the British would have made Norway for Hitler what Spain was for Napoleon. Urging that the time had come when the Opposition Party must take a share of the national responsibility, Mr Amery said the organisation and power and influence of the trade unions could not be left outside. There must now be a real national Government.