Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1940. A DOUBTFUL VICTORY.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 May 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1940. A DOUBTFUL VICTORY.

ALTHOUGH the division which followed the debate on Norway in the House of Commons went in favour of the Government by 281 votes to 200 this was by no means a decisive victory. Another view of the matter is possible than that of a British Parliamentary correspondent who staled in a 8.8. C. broadcast that: “It was perfectly clear that Mr Chamberlain still had an adequate majority, and he might well take his time before proposing any changes in the Cabinet.” It was emphasised that this was only a provisional opinion, advanced a few hours after the vote had been taken and already there is much to suggest that the effect of the debate and division will be rather more sweeping than the correspondent

suggested

As to the adequacy of the majority, it is fairly obvious that the vote represents a considerable reduction in the support available to the Government. Making every allowancefor the absence of members on service, and for other details, it is plain that if his party had been solidly behind him Mr Chamberlain would have mustered a much greater majority. In the circumstances, today’s news that Mr Chamberlain is waiting on his Alajesty the' King “to discuss the position of his Government” is not surprising.

On the news in hand at present the Press of the United Kingdom appears to be almost unanimous in demanding a. drastic reconstruction of the Government, with an introduction of new blood and a possible change in the Prime Ministership. It is reported that even the “Daily Telegraph,” while supporting the Government, has joined in the plea for the strengthening of the Cabinet by the introduction of new blood.

In their total effect, the demands for reconstruction are the more impressive since no question of party division or personal animosity is involved. In Parliament and in the country, those who criticise and those who defend the conduct of the'operations in. Norway are of one mind in desiring to arrive at the best method of fighting and winning the war. As an American newspaper observed in commenting on the debate in the House of Commons, the discussion was on ways alone and not ends. One of the most practical and purposeful comments on the situation is that of the London “Times”:

We shall not win the war with less than the whole capacity for leadership possessed by all parties together. Nothing' is more likely to ensure an effective concentration of the national energies on. the prosecution of the Avar than a reconstitution of the British Government bringing together the best men available from all parties. Although, too, Mr Chamberlain declares himself not convinced that a case has been made out for the constitution of a small War Cabinet, the weight of informed opinion appears to be in that matter decidedly against him. The position reached in Britain may be summed up as one in which an emphatic national demand is made for the establishment of the highest possible standards of leadership. It is manifest, too, that none niay venture lightly to oppose or to disregard that demand. RELATIVE AIR STRENGTH. NOTHING was more impressive, or perhaps more disconcerting, in the speech with which Mr Winston Churchill concluded a momentous debate in the House of Commons than his declaration that the Allies were debarred meantime from taking the initiative in the war because of their failure to regain and maintain air parity with Germany. Our numerical deficiency in the air (he said) has condemned and will condemn us for some time to much difficulty, suffering and danger, which must endure until more favourable conditions are established. All the more since il directly contradicts some less authoritative statements on the same subject, this grim and outspoken pronouncement is well calculated to spur our own nation and France to an unsparing war effort.

It may well be asked whether, in face of this pronouncement any part of the Empire can afford to be content with the present scale of its Avar preparations and activities. An admirable response has been made in Canada, in the declaration that one effect of the debate in the British Parliament will be to intensify the Canadian Avar effort, in an expansion of the air scheme and in. oilier particulars. A lead is thus given which our own country and other Dominions should be very willing to follow.

Mr Churchill’s statement at Hie same time has other implications, some of which are rather surprising. It is well known, for example, that for a good many months before the outbreak of war in September last, Britain and Erance were expediting the production of fighting aircraft, and the training of airmen, and that since the outbreak' of war this expansion has been accelerated enormously and has been supplemented by large purchases of aircraft from the United States and by the establishment of the Empire air scheme, though this last is still at the stage of development.

It is clear that if the Allies are still handicapped by a failure, as yet, to achieve air parity with Germany, they must have been, handicapped much more seriously in that respect at the outbreak of war. Whatever the relative figures of air strength may be, I he- Allied deficiency presumably has been reduced to a substantial extent since the Avar began. It appears to follow that Germany missed an opportunity of using her air force with maximum advantage in the opening phase of the Avar, and that whatever may now happen she can never again hope to use her air squadrons in. circumstances as advantageous as if the most had been made of that initial opportunity. In this there is nothing to suggest or warrant any slackening of Allied effort. There is rather an overwhelming incentive to strain every nerve in building up a decisive Allied preponderance in the air. in quantity as well as in quality. There is also, however, something in the facts as they stand to encourage a belief that the objective of an absolute preponderance in the air may be achieved by resolute effort.