Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1942. MR CHURCHILL’S MASTERY

Wairarapa Times-Age, 29 January 1942, Page 2

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1942. MR CHURCHILL’S MASTERY

JX llie speed) with which he opened a three day debate in the House of Commons on the conduct of the war, Mr Churchill gave proof once again of the commanding qualities which have enabled him Io become the trusted and respected leader of the British nation in a time of supreme trial and test. Whatever may be thought of this or that detail —some of them very imporant details —the British Prime Minister stood on firm and unassailable ground in his uncompromising defence of a war policy of concentration, as against one of an ineffective and wasteful dispersal of forces. An essential part of his reply to what has been said in criticism of British weakness in the South-Western Pacific was that if large masses of troops and equipment had been kept spread over the Far East for months, they would have failed in their engagements to Russia and lost the Battle of Cyrenaica—which they had not won yet—and might now have been fighting defensively well inside the Egyptian frontier. Having said that Singapore had been reinforced, but with priority in modern tanks, anti-aircraft guns, and artillery accorded to the Nile Valley, and that Hong Kong had been garrisoned to an extent deemed sufficient to ensure the actual island being held for a long time, Mr Churchill added, with stark realism: — Hopes, however, have been dashed by the passing of naval superiority in the Pacific to Japan. It will remain in their hands long enough for Japan to inflict many heavy and painful losses upon all the nations with possessions in the Far East. Even those to whom the present menacing outlook in the Pacific is of direct and immediate concern may feel bound to extend approval to the British Prime Minister’s declaration that he takes the fullest personal responsibility for the decision under which preference was given to the Nile Valley over Singapore in the supply of some vital classes of war equipment. Stoutly and cogently as he defended his broad conduct of the war, however, Mr Churchill was hardly as convincing when, in dealing further with criticisms, he asked:— Why should I be called upon to pick out scapegoats and throw blame on generals, airmen and sailors —drive away loyal and trusted colleagues and submit to the clamour of certain sections of the British and Australian Press? The answer no doubt is that these things assuredly should not be done for the sake of doing them, or in response to unwarranted clamour in the Press or anywhere, else. The primary duty of the leader of a nation, however, is to the nation and not to any individual, even if that individual be a loyal and trusted colleague. In the stress of a great war, now well advanced in its third year, it would bo surprising if good reasons did not appear for more or less extensive changes in the occupancy of both administrative and military posts of a responsible kind. A number of British military leaders have in fact been superseded during the war period and it is definitely a question whether this process should not be extended more freely to the field of political administration. The defence of a whole Ministry precisely as it stands implies either that each and every post is filled as well as it could be, or that national interests are being subordinated to lesser interests.