JAPANESE MENACE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 19 April 1943, Page 4

JAPANESE MENACE

POSSIBILITY OF ATTACK ON AUSTRALIA AND OTHER OBJECTIVES IN PACIFIC. DISCUSSION IN UNITED STATES. (By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright) (Received This Day, 1.0 p.m.) NEW YORK, April 18. “It is axiomatic that Japan will never rest until she has conquered both Australia and Siberia, but her recent agreement with Russia (the renewal of the Kamschatka fisheries lease) suggests that the stroke which she is now preparing will not be directed against Siberia.”—lndicating this strong implied threat to Australia,, the “New York Times” says editorially that it is unfortunate that America’s decision to reinforce the Pacific came only after repeated public appeals by General MacArthur and Australian statesmen. “These,” the newspaper adds, “have not only revealed marked differences of opinion between Australian and Pacific military leaders, and service authorities in Washington, but have also precipitated a controversy which has regrettable political overtones. The loss of Australia would mean the loss of the Pacific war. As Japanese actions depend to a large extent on the size of our Pacific forces, nobody can deny the urgent need for the reinforcements promised by Mr Stimson.” An article by Joseph Harsch, severely criticising Australia for her repeated requests for aid, which appeared in a first edition of the “Christian Science Monitor,” was withdrawn from later editions. In an article which replaced it, Mr Harsch said: “Behind the Australian alarms is the obvious and valid consideration that the Japanese have spent the winter in recuperating and reforming. We must assume that they are now in a position to attempt another major move. There are good grounds for the Australian contention that the Australian front is one of several in the Pacific which may bear the brunt of the next Japanese attack. In brief, there is a very real Japanese threat over the Pacific. But this threat is general and not specific.”