Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1940. A DEED AND A STANDARD.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 July 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1940. A DEED AND A STANDARD.

JJITTE.RLY as it is to be regretted that the lives of brave men have been sacrificed in what has been called the strangest naval battle in history, it is a matter for unmixed congratulation that the bulk of the French Fleet is now in British hands or out of action. Had it neglected any opportunity of keeping the French warships out of the hands of an unscrupulous enemy, the British Government would not merely have laid itself open to a charge of being wanting in spirit and enterprise, but would have made itself a party in some degree, if only passively, to the infamous treachery of the Bordeaux Government, whose members have vilely betrayed France to its enemies.

Responsibility' for the tragedy of Oran, as for so much besides, rests solely upon the Government which is now proposing to round off its crimes by making Frenchmen the enslaved subjects of a Fascist despotism. The distinction that is to be drawn between the present most unworthy Government of France and the French people is to be drawn as sharply between that Government and the seamen who are the latest victims of its treachery. There can be no doubt that the best and most intelligent loyalty to France has been shown by those members of the fighting forces of the Republic who have elected spontaneously to link up with Britain and to continue the war for the liberation of their country. At the same time, no seaman, rating or officer, can well be blamed for obeying the orders of what appears to be constituted authority. No doubt many officers and men of the French Navy found themselves faced by a terrible dilemma and there can be no thought of blaming those of them -who felt bound, in obedience to orders, to resist the seizure of their ships by the British Navy. The dilemma in which they found themselves was,one that should never have arisen and could not have arisen but for the treachery on the part of political leaders that has meantime wrecked and ruined France.

Much as the irony and pity of what happened at Oran must hold attention, the fact, to be emphasised is that the action of the British Navy was a stroke for France and for her liberation from a vile bondage, as well as for the vital security of Britain and the advancement of the total Allied cause. It is hardly Ibss necessary that this truth should be lifted into clear prominence than it was that the French Fleet should be kept out of the hands of Nazi Germany, by whom it most certainly would have been used in furtherance of her effort to overthrow' and destroy European liberty.

After making a statement in the House of Lords similar to that made in the House of Commons by Mr Churchill, Lord Halifax, as he is reported, said: “It is inevitable that our action, when distorted by German propagandists, will create sharp resentment in France. ” It may quite reasonably be hoped that the apprehension here expressed is in great part unwarranted and that in spite of enemy propaganda, an overwhelming proportion of the people of France 'will rejoice, that the bulk of their naval forces remain free to continue the battle for liberty.

All loyal and thinking Frenchmen, and not least those of them who have become the unprotected victims of Nazi savagery, must be fully alive to the true character of the Bordeaux Government. It is now plain to all the world that the French armies were defeated, much less by the invading enemy than by internal treachery. Even if these- armies had been faced by inevitable defeat, only a Government of traitors would have dreamed of handing over its fleet or its air force to the enemy, or of returning to Germany, as the Bordeaux Government did, four hundred German air pilots, many of them shot down and made prisoner by the Royal Air Force. It must be hoped, as Air Churchill has said, that a generation of Frenchmen will arise who will clear the national honour of al) countenance of deeds like these.

Against the tragedy of Oran there is to be set meantime the fact that Britain has given signal proof of her ability to act with instant vigour and decision in a vital emergency of war. in all free lands, the seizure of the French Fleet is acclaimed as a bold stroke, eminently justified and one that gives new and inspiring proof of Britain’s determination to prosecute the war, as her Prime Minister has said, “’with the utmost vigour, by all the means open to us, until the righteous purpose for which we have entered upon it has been in all respects fulfilled.” WORKING HOURS AND WAR EFFORT. JF Dr. McMillan, the latest addition to the Labour Cabinet, really has any knowledge of “a ramp to use the war to get rid of the forty-hour week,” he ought to expose this conspiracy in its details in order that its promoters may be subjected to appropriate penalties. As it stands, however, and though it was made presumably will) the concurrence of the Government, the new Minister’s uncompromising defence of the forty-hour week in war time does not readily commend itself to reason and justice, or even to common sense. Neither does it square ob-viously-with the declared determination of the Government to promote an all-in war effort. No fault need be found with Dr McMillan’s statement that the Government is not going to be a party to the abolition of the 40-hour week just for the sake of abolishing it. What should be known, however, is whether the Government is prepared, amongst other things, to facilitate the modification of the forty hour week, for the period of the war, where this would conduce to a more efficient war effort. This the Government might do the more reasonably since it is now appealing to some people to work considerably more than forty hours a week. Its current appeal to farmers to increase production, for example, would have little enough meaning if it carried the proviso that farmers must, not work more than forty hours a week. It is of course, a familiar fact that the normal working week of large numbers of people in this country is far enough from being limited to forty hours. An all-in war effort is an empty form of words if it does not mean that all sections of people in this country are to be asked to do everything that can reasonably be expected of them in furtherance of that effort. In view of the sacrifice asked of the members of our fighting forces, there certainly can be no just objection to asking other people to work more than forty hours a week', the more so since a reasonable extension of working hours in many cases may be made a means not only of furthering the war effort, but of easing and improving very considerably the economic conditions ruling within the Dominion and likely Io rule as the war continues. In Britain, organised labour has eo-operated readily and freely in setting aside for the duration of the war peace time working conditions. In this country the need is not yet as clearly recognised, though it ought to be, of raising our powers of useful production to a maximum. The right approach, with a war to be fought and won, is not Io insist upon this or that standard, but rather to determine what should he done and how best it may be done.