BITTER LESSON

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 May 1940, Page 5

BITTER LESSON

IN CONDUCT OF WAR

BRITISH MINISTERS UNDER FIRE.

POINTED COMMENT IN BRITAIN AND SOUTH AFRCA.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright

LONDON, May 3.

The “.Manchester Guardian” says: “The Norwegian episode is the more bitter because it follows so much shallow Ministerial optimism and even boasting complacency.

“Mr Chamberlain’s speech immediately before the German invasion was the same as his complacency about his pact of friendship with Mussolini and his innocence about the dealings of Hitler.

“His capacity for self-delusion is a national danger because it damps the country’s awareness of peril and almost certainly reflects his complacent handling of the conduct of the war.” The “Daily Mail” says: “The scales are falling (from the eyes of the British people. We would like to think that they are also falling from the eyes of our leaders. The bitter lesson in Norway will be repeated unless we find the answer to £he question, ‘ls the war as a whole being conducted efficiently?’ The public has an uneasy suspicion that it is not. “The unfortunate speeches by our leaders in recent weeks indicate that they are fooling themselves and fooling the public. We must rid ourselves of the tradition of victory and abolish the thought that we will win the last battle. This (war is to the death and we have got to fight.” The Durban correspondent of “The Times” says that the newspapers pungently criticise the British Ministry of Information, pointing out that ,the Ministry issued reports of Allied successes in the Dambas area throughout the withdrawal of the Allies. The Natal -Daily News” says: “The Ministry made fools pf news agencies, deceived the Press of the Dominions, and confounded the public. ALLEGED WEAKNESS MR. MORRISON SUGGESTS RESIGNATIONS. PREMIER AND TWO COLLEAGUES SINGLED OUT. LONDON, May 4. Mr Herbert Morrison (Labour), in a speech at Southampton said: “I have a suspicion that Mr Chamberlain, Sir John Simon and Sir Samuel Hoare, whose weak foreign policy landed us in war, are primarily responsible for the relative weakness of our war effort. 1 urge them to consider whether their best service to the country may not be by way of resignation." Mr Morrison said the recent events in Norway constituted a (setback which it would be self-deception to hide and cowardice to evade. He deprecated attempts to present these events as a British victory. “It is of ;real importance that our people should be able to take blows and at the same time keep up their morale,” he said. “I believe they are so able, but it is not enough fo be able to receive blows. We must give them. “Speed and yet more speed is what we need in Government administration and military effort of all kinds. We must not always fear to take the initiative. We must reject the silly superstition that democracy is incapable of speed. That is a dictatorship lie.’ . GOVERNMENT’S DUTY STATED BY LABOUR LEADER. methods of democracy & dictatorship. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY’, May 4. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Attlee, speaking at Ipswich, said the events of the week in Norway inevitably had caused a good deal of anxiety. It must be acknowledged that the Allies at present had been unable to prevent southern Norway passing into the hands of Herr Hitler. That was a setback. They would, in the House of Commons next week, discuss the matter fully. It would be the duty of the Government to satisfy the nation that everything possible was done. The fact that the Government must render account of their actions to representatives of the people marked the difference between democracy and dictatorship. Herr Hitler had lost the greater part of the German fleet and very many Germany lives in an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neutral country, but there was no one in Germany who could call him to account.

The fate of Denmark and Norway ought to bring home to everyone the issues at stake in this contest. The Allies were fighting to make a world in which small, peaceful peoples would be able to live their lives in security free from the menace of attack from predatory neighbours. They of the • Labour Party had always realised that this could not be achieved in an anarchic world. He claimed it had been the object of the Labour movement from its inception to build up collective security for ordinary men and women. The trade union, the friendly society and co-op-erative society were all forms of collective defence, designed to bring about greater security. The political Labour movement had sought by legislative action to protect, those unable to protect themselves. Children, the sick and aged had all received some degree of help from society. These things were good, but they were not enough. The Red Cross was a fine institution, but it did not relieve the necessity of abolishing war. The unemployment benefit was a great advance, but it did not abolish unemployment.

He declared, in conclusion, that the Labour Party, in its foreign policy, stood for getting rid of the causes of war and in its home policy for getting rid of the causes of poverty. The keynote of Labour's home policy. issued by the Labour Party as a pamphlet, is contained in the sentence •'Today we plan for the destructive tasks of war. The party insists that it is not. less urgent to plan for the creative tasks of peace.” The pamphlet declares that the Socialism of the Labour Party is built upon profound faith in the people of Britain and determination to press for necessary social changes upon the basis of democracy and justice. The

party rejects all demands for dictatorship, . whether from the Left or the Right. If the war is to be won with the least suffering and hardship Socialist priciples must be applied, it states. After the war the national effort must be turned to the building of a new Britain. Key industries and services upon which the wellbeing of the nation depends must be transferred to public ownership. ATTITUDE TO WAR SPEECHES BY BRITISH LABOUR LEADERS. EQUALITY OF WEAPONS WANTED. (British Official Wireless.) (Received This Day, 10.10 a.m.) RUGBY, May 15. The attitude of Labour leaders to the war is shown by two speeches made on Saturday. Mr Ernest Bevin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union, said: “We are tired of hearing how one small ship went out and tackled overwhelming odds, and how two fighters went into combat with ten raiding bombers. It was all very well for the country’s men to have the courage, but what we wanted was equality of weapons.” Mr W. Lawther, President of the Miners’ Federation, said: “We have no room for those dismal pessimists who see in every fresh phase of our struggle room for doubting the triumph of the cause we have undertaken.” GRAVE CRISIS FATE OF THE GOVERNMENT AT STAKE. MR LLOYD GEORGE DEMANDS REORGANISATION. LONDON, May 5. The newspaper “Observer” expresses the opinion that the Government is facing a situation more critical to itself than any since the outbreak of war. All suspicions of hesitancy smouldering during the Finnish campaign have flamed up in a way threatening the existence of the administration. Mr Lloyd George, in an article in the “Sunday Pictorial,” says it is no use keeping up the pretence that things are going well for the democracies. “We are suffering not from one blunder. but from a series of incredible botcheries,” he says. “Cabinet has failed conspicuously in its efforts to grapple with the situation, which is one of extreme gravity. “It is now for Parliament to take it in hand immediately. If they fail to do so without delay they will be guilty of high treason to the nation. The war direction must be drastically reconstructed in organisation and personnel, otherwise disaster is inevitable.”