Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1940. THE DEMAND FOR REPRISALS.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 September 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1940. THE DEMAND FOR REPRISALS.

DECLARING that the demand for reprisals for the hideous bombing of London’s citizens simply cannot be ignored, the London “Daily Mail’’ has said that “Britain is aiming at Germany’s military nerve centre, and Germany is aiming at Britain’s civilian nerve centre.’’ The German code, the London newspaper adds, permits the bombing' of London, so we have the right to attack similar objectives in Berlin. To say there will not be reprisals against civilians is to tell Goering: “Go ahe ad: bomb Jhe people of London, and we will not bomb the people of Berlin. Must we give an open cheque to murder? Many people far from London, as well as within, its confines, are thinking and speaking on these lines and at an immediate view their contentions are not easily answered. The German people are not absolved, on the ground of helpless subservience or on any other ground, from' complicity in the guilt of ’their war leaders, and there is something to be said for the suggestion of Captain V. A. Cazalet, a member of the House, of Commons, that Britain should declare that unless indiscriminate German bombing ceases, she will designate twelve towns in Germany and wipe out one each night. Maintaining that the reasons given by Britain for confining her bombing to military objectives and vital areas in Germany are now out of date, because the Germans have decided to bomb indiscriminately, with the definite object of shaking civilian morale, Captain Cazalet added: — Attack upon the civil population is a military weapon. Can we possibly afford to give Germany a monopoly of this weapon? After we have designated twelve towns, let each one anticipate when its turn may come. If they evacuate them all, let us choose twelve others. On the other hand, Air Marshal Sir Philip Joubert, of the Royal Air Force, in a broadcast to the United States reported yesterday, said that the British air attacks now being made on German cities were not retaliation. No good soldier, seaman, or airman (he added) believes in retaliation by itself. The only way to bring the enemy down is to hit those things which contribute to the maintenance and development of his armed forces. Our inflexible aim is to pursue this course. For the time, at least, this view of the matter appears to b'e supported by the weight of informed opinion in Britain. Sir Philip Joubert says he does not believe the Germans will be able to achieve the air superiority which would, enable them to establish a bridgehead of invasion in the south-east of England. Others in a position to speak with authority have declared that Britain is striking deadlier blows against Germany than she is receiving and that she is in a fair way to establish decisive air superiority. Even those, who believe that direct reprisals in kind for murder bombing would be morally justified may be constrained to agree, in these circumstances, that any change in Britain’s air policy would be unwise. Conditions in which heavier blows are being struck than are being received and in which superior striking force is being built up progressively are not to be changed lightly, nor unless it can be established that the change will ensure an expedited approach to the desired result. Sir Philip Joubert’s quoted contention is not of necessity the last word on the subject. It would call for review, for example, if it were shown that indiscriminate bombing was undermining civilian morale in London or elsewhere in Britain. At present, however, all the evidence appears to be to the contrary. Meantime Britain is more than holding her own and is making steady progress towards a degree of air superiority that will enable her, when it is attained, to adopt whatever policy the occasion may seem to demand.