NEUTRAL OPINION

Wairarapa Times-Age, 4 May 1940, Page 5

NEUTRAL OPINION

CRITICISM OF BRITAIN

FAVOURABLE VIEW TAKEN IN AMERICA.

MORE GERMAN BOASTING.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. LONDON, May 3.

A Swedish Foreign Office spokesman predicted that the withdrawal would have a terrific psychological effect on Swedish opinion. A message from Zurich (Switzerland) says that Mr Chamberlain’s speech has again strengthened the mistrust of the British capacity for decisive military and diplomatic action. This mistrust has diminished after the recent British naval successes. “You British are always too slow,” is the typical comment.

In New York the “Times” and “Herald-Tribune” show a very real appreciation of the difficulties of the Allies. The “New York Times” says that the withdrawal is a blow to Allied prestige and a serious setback to Allied strategy, but it points out that the Allied forces were confronted with an almost impossible obstacle, and the decision to rush forces to Norway at all was to their lasting credit. The “Tribune" says: "A good deal remains to the Allies. They have succeeded in holding the Germans, who have gained only a partial victory. The Germans’ hold over the countries will be an uneasy one, and they still have to expend energy that may be more useful to them elsewhere.” Authorised Berlin commentators declared: “Mr Chamberlain has not told the full story. We only laugh when he declares that the British withdrew without loss.” One spokesman asserted. "We expect that the Allies will complete their abandonment of Norway soon.” RIGHT PERSPECTIVE NORWAY CAMPAIGN ONLY BEGINNING. BRITISH COMMENTATOR’S VIEW. LONDON, May 2. The withdrawal of the British from the Andalsnes area is the only topic of conversation since Mr Chamberlain said that we had abandoned the. idea of capturing Trondheim from the south, but intended to fight the Norwegian affair through to the end. In a commentary on the withdrawal, Mr Cyril Larkin, assistant editor of the “Sunday Times,” said that some disappointment was bound to be felt over the withdrawal, even in neutral countries, but it was important to look at* the facts objectively and get the whole thing in its right perspective. This was really only the beginning of the campaign. Opinion in London was unanimous that the British had done a good thing when they went into parts of Norway south of' Trondheim. There was a chance that they might have got Trondheim itself. That, would have been a great triumph, particularly with such a small force at their disposal. German air superiority could only have been met by the establishment of air bases. The landing ground they had—a frozen lake—was subject to terrific bombing raids.

Analysing the operations, he said that Norway and the Government had been saved from almost immediate collapse, and heavy losses had been inflicted on the German forces, one estimate of which was 100,000 men. If Germany were to hold southern Norway it would mean a large dispersal of her forces and large concentrations of troops, material, and aircraft would be detached from her main effort. She also had to hold a long coastline which would be open to attack by the Allied navies and air force. The withdrawal was only the beginning of a new phase of the campaign. Britain had gone in south of Trondheim in response to the Norwegian SOS, and having inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and delayed the plan of campaign, it was now time for a withdrawal from that particular sector. If Hitler had thought to draw Britain i into a trap in southern Norway, he had failed. Now Britain would start again on a plan carefully and deliberately prepared, and, what was more, to her own timetable.