PACIFIC WAR PLANS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 1 April 1942, Page 3

PACIFIC WAR PLANS

U.S.A. ABANDONMENT OF AUSTRALIA URGED BY COMMENTATOR. VIEW PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT HAS REJECTED. (By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright) NEW YORK, March 30. In an article in the “New York Times,” Mr Hanson Baldwin, its military commentator, advocates a reversal of the United Nations’ strategy and virtual abandonment of Australia. The article is regarded as of the utmost importance, not only because of Mr Baldwin’s influence but also as a pointer to the danger of the trend of opinion backfiring after the months of intensive pro-Australian phychological offensive. Here are some passages from Mr Baldwin's article: —

“Viewed in the cold, hard light of strategic reality, Australia, except to the Australians, is not strategically vital to the cause of the United Nations. Politically, it would be unthinkable to allow Australia —democracy’s child —to_ be ravaged by the totalitarianism without aid; but militarily and strategically, in this struggle for the world, Australia is an outpost and one that could be lost without losing the war. Even in the strategy of the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand do not play the principal roles.” Mr Baldwin reiterates previous remarks which he has made regarding shipping difficulties in aiding Australia, and he contends that Hawaii, China, India, Burma, Alaska, and the Aleutian Islands or the Russian bases in the Pacific offer better possibilities as offensive springboards than Australia.

It is presumed that Mr Baldwin got his lead from certain Service strategists who have been pushing such a view, especially before General MacArthur’s transfer to Australia, but it is known that President Roosevelt has rejected the concept.

It is evident that the publicity which has been given in America to the news from Europe emphasising Hitler’s impending offensive has more or less emboldened these strategists to bring their viewpoint once again before the public.