Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1940. AN ANTICIPATED ATTACK.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 21 May 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1940. AN ANTICIPATED ATTACK.

JN a speech nobly signalising his appointment to the. war leadership of the British nation, Mr Winston Churchill has declared his confidence that: “We can look with confidence to the stabilisation of the front in France and to the general engagement of the masses which will enable the qualities of the French and British soldiers to be matched squarely against, those of their adversaries.” In the same speech he also stated, however, that : —

We must expect that as soon as stability is reached on the Western Front the bulk of that hideous apparatus of aggression which dashed Holland into ruin and slavery in a few days will be turned upon us. I am sure I speak for all when I say we are ready to face it, endure it, and retaliate against it to any extent that the unwritten laws of war permit. . .

Saying this and saying also: “After this battle in France abates its force, then will come the battle lor our island.. For all that Britain is, and all that Britain means —that will be the struggle,” Mr Churchill no doubt is anticipating massed air attacks on Britain, accompanied perhaps by the landing of parachute troops and the development of “Fifth Column” activities, though these last, it may be hoped and believed, will accomplish little in any part of the Mother Country, whether city, town or countryside.

Some attention has been given in Britain even to the possibility of an invasion by sea or air, or by both methods of transport combined. For instance the military correspondent of the London “Daily Mail,” Lieutenant-Colonel T. A. Lowe, wrote recently on this subject:—

Possible methods of operations against Britain are the use of parachute troops; or of lightly-equipped troops which would land from large troop-carrying planes; or of troops in flat-bot-tomed boats towed in misty weather. The last is the least feasible method. The parachute method has not proved successful in Finland or-Norway, but the technique might be improved, and the method cannot be ruled out as fantastic. The possibility of an invasion by troop-carrying planes can be least ignored, especially with four first-class aerodromes in Norway within easy reach of the British coast. Hordes of troop-carrying planes, escorted by fighters and bombers might get through the defences, land on lonely beaches, and create a situation which, though not influencing the war, would have tremendous repercussions.

What has been accomplished, since these observations were made, by the landing of parachute troops in Holland, is a matter of familiar knowledge. Whether attacks of the kind discussed by Lieutenant-Colonel Lowe are or are not likely to be attempted against Britain, the Mother Country is reasonably well placed to cope with them. That she is in a high degree capable also of dealing with day-bombing attacks is indicated impressively in the fact that her fighter planes, operating over their own country and along its coasts, have brought down some sixty German raiding planes, with a loss of only one of their own number.

The greatest clanger to which Britain is exposed no doubt is that of night-bombing by German planes, developed as an indiscriminate attack on civilian lives. Against these murder tactics, which Germany has already developed to some extent in the Low Countries and in France, as well as in earlier crimes of aggression, a fully effective direct defence admittedly is impossible. It may soon become necessary for Britain to give complete effect to Mr Churchill’s promise of retaliation “to any extent that the unwritten laws of war permit.” A direct retaliatory attack on German lives evidently would be the only appropriate and effective reply to German murder raids on Britain. Supremely repugnant as such a policy must be to a nation like our own, the alternative of permitting Germany to enjoy virtual immunity in murdering British citizens most certainly is not entitled to consideration. It would be no more right or reasonable to allow Germany to break with impunity, the recognised laws of war than it would be to attempt to subdue wild beasts in the wilderness by methods of moral suasion.