POWERFUL BLOWS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 15 September 1942, Page 3

POWERFUL BLOWS

STRUCK BY ALLIED AIRMEN IN SOUTH-WESTERN PACIFIC ENEMY SHIPS AND BASES BOMBED. PATROLS ACTIVE IN NEW GUINEA MOUNTAINS. (Special Australian Correspondent.) SYDNEY, September 14. Allied aii-men in the southwest Pacific have again struck heavily against the Japanese. As well as attacking in the New Guinea area, they have bombed enemy shipping at a point in the Aru Islands, north of Australia.

Medium bombers also dropped 17 tons of high explosives in two raids on the aerodrome at Lao yesterday. Two Japanese heavy bombers were destroyed on the ground and fires were started. The enemy base at Salamaua was also bombed. Some observers believe that the reinforcements for the Japanese ground troops driving over the Owen Stanley Ranges came overland from these bases.

In the New Britain area Flying Fortresses attacked a Japanese cruiser off the south-east coast. The. cruiser was accompanied by a destroyer. A low ceiling and scattered clouds madeobservation of the results of the bombing impossible. Heavy anti-aircraft fire was encountered, but all our planes returned. Three enemy cargo ships were attacked at two points in the island group south of Dutch New Guinea and at least one was destroyed. Two of the ships which were bombed off Tenimber Island by Australian Hudsons were officially described as small. The stern of one vessel was blown off by a direct hit and the second vessel was raked with machine-gun fire. Off Kei Island an Allied reconnaissance unit bombed a 'heavy cargo ship with unknown results. Patrol activity continued in the Owen Stanley Range, where the position is reported to be unchanged. For the third successive day it has been announced that the enemy has made no further progress following his rapid drive from Kokoda over the mountain pass. War correspondents attach no special significance to the present lull, which is regarded merely as a pause in a continuing series of operations. The weight of the recent Allied air offensive against the enemy’s bases in north New Guinea is regarded as an indication that the Allies are determined to shorten the chances of the Japanese of securing air support for their land drive against Port Moresby.

SEVERE CRITICISM

OF CONDUCT OF THE WAR IN NEW GUINEA.

IN AMERICAN AND BRITISH NEWSPAPERS.

(Special Australian Correspondent.) SYDNEY, September 13. While American war correspondents cabling from Australia, see in the present Japanese drive "a

real menace to Port Moresby only if it is connected with a seaborne movement,” some American pap-

ers editorially express different views.

The Chicago “Tribune,” in a leading article, “Crisis in New Guinea,” severely criticises the Australian forces for permitting the Japanese to cross the Owen Stanley Range. “Just when the American success in the Solomons gave promise that the turning point might have come in the war in that area, the Australian forces to whom the defence of this base was entrusted show signs of caving in,” says the paper. ■ , . “The whole deadly pattern of disaster in Malaya seems in the way of being repeated unless prompt and decisive action is taken.” The “Tribune” says the Australian withdrawals are “not in the language of victory. The Port Moresby campaign has been Australia’s own show, and they went there with every advantage. What General MacArthur may have io do is to rush'an American force over 400 miles by water to New Guinea.” The “New York Times” says the entire course of the war in the Pacific may depend on the outcome of the present New Guinea fighting, adding: "The Japanese may have withdrawn their Chinese garrisons for an attempt to win Australia, or they may have decided merely to strengthen their hold in the south-west Pacific against a possible Allied counter-attack while they strike at India or Siberia.” COMMANDS IM HARMONY. Commenting on Japan's thrusts in New Guinea, Senator Johnson, a member of the military affairs committee of the United States Senate, said the committee had full confidence in General MacArthur’s ability to meet the Japanese threat to Port Moresby, and emphasised that General MacArthur and Vice-Admiral Ghorrnley. worked in close harmony. He denied Press suggestions that there was any friction between the divided commands. The present was not the time for needless criticism or to make changes, he said. . British comment appears mainly concerned at the fresh evidence of the sorry under-estimation of Japanese power and the continued lack of appreciation of enemy tactics and determination.

“Scrutator,” in the “Sunday Times,” says that the Allies would make a poor exchange if they lost Port Moresby to win Guadalcanar. “The Japanese are an active and most embarrassing enemy who, in spite of defeats at sea, remain capable of doing critical injury,” he says. A commentator in “The Observer” says the local successes of the Allies in the south Pacific are not sufficient to alter materially the next phase of the Japanese plans. He describes the Allied strategy as “proceeding in a series of fits and jerks in response to enemy moves,” and believes a Japanese push toward Australia is pare of the enemy’s general design to uncover the heavy defences of India and Honolulu by forcing the diversion of reinforcements to the secondary front of Australia.