PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21190, 13 August 1940, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

WAGES INCREASE

(To the Editor) Sir, —The new imposition upon industry will not be very helpful to those who supply the sinews for production. An increase of five per cent all round in wages means that the consumers are going to pay once more and that the employers will really bear the burden of the wages tax. Can anyone observe that this increase is going to benefit the worker? Under this present system all costs must be recovered from the consumer, and if the worker’s net wages are increased by Is 2d a week we may be sure that certain items of necessity will rise in cost to swallow up the small benefit.—l am, etc., OCTOPUS, Hamilton, August 12.

DOUBLE INCOME TAX

(To the Editor) Sir. —I see that Mr Moody is again pushing himself to the front in praise of our “wonderful” Government, with the usual abuse of the Opposition. Well, perhaps he can give me a satisfactory answer to a fair question. Would he Think it perfectly fair if, say, the carpenters were asked to pay double income tax on last year’s income? If it is not fair to ask one class of workers only to pay double tax, can it be fair for his wonderful Government to ask the small working farmers only to pay double on last year’s income, as I am asked, or rather told, to do. But surely Nash and Co. wouldn’t do anything that was not just?—l am, etc., SMALL FARMER, August 10.

GREATER PRODUCTION

(To the Editor) Sir, —As a large grower of hay I find that the restriction on petrol and the use of the King’s highway is seriously hampering my efforts at increased production. Recently I required to send two tons of hay a distance of about 100 miles and managed to get a licensed carrier to take it along with a load of furniture. The extra benzine used would not amount to more than three or four gallons. However, the carrier was prosecuted and fined the sum of £5 and costs, and this for assisting to increase the country’s war effort. The hay mentioned would not have gone by rail and would have been wasted. I might mention that I have a considerable quantity of hay wasting, solely because of restrictions in transport. The position is so serious that I am compelled to limit my hay crop unless I can dispose of what I now hold.—l am, etc., DEEPLY PERPLEXED, Hamilton, August 12.

CARRIER’S DIFFICULTIES

(To the Editor) Sir, —Two years ago I purchased a carrying business at a cost of over £4OO. I have run this business conscientiously and, I believe, given every satisfaction to my clients. I have been up against regulations almost impossible to observe in every detail, such as going beyond certain boundaries, keeping strictly within loading regulations, etc. —and what carrier has not done so I would like to ask. After several warnings, the licensing authority has revoked my license, and so far without compensation. I am now left with all the liabilities and my assets are destroyed. Practically my property has been confiscated. I am one of the last to think of seeking the protection of the bankruptcy court, but if I did so it would be because I have been forced into it. —I am, etc., VICTIM, Hamilton, August 12.

HUMILIATION OF FRANCE

(To the Editor) Sir,—A correspondent signing himself “A Frenchman Myself” claims that the downfall of France is attributable to lack of population, and not, as I claimed in a prior contribution to your columns, to the intriguing machinations of the Nazis and the infiltraton of Communist ideology. The lack of moral force in high places, political instability and the alleged susceptability of some Frenchmen to Nazi money, all had a devastating effect on France. And the tragedy of it is that the enervating process had been going on for years. If I remember rightly, France has had 100 Cabinets since 1870, and there are living today 26 ex-Premiers of France against Britain’s three. Is such political mutation conducive to progress? In a military country -as France, is not there bound to be some detrimental reaction? Most certainly. France has paid the penalty, but what a heresy it is to say, at least think, that the country of Zola, Rousseau and Pasteur would submit to Nazi rule. A German, Kurt Von Stutterheim, writing in the Berliner Tageblatt, of June 6, 1938, had this to say about the French birth-rate: “. . . Even the much-discussed French birthrate figures are not bad, and would be still better if France were to reduce infant mortality by improving national hygiene. If signs of decadence are to be observed anywhere in France it is in the upper levels.” General Pilho (Vice-President of the Academy of Colonial Science), writing in Le Monde Colonial lllustre, of December 1, 1938 (reprinted in World Review, February, 1939), said: “. . . Too many Frenchmen ignore the fact that opposite a greater Germany of 80,000,000 there

is a greater France of 111,000,000.” Will it still be insisted that lack of population and not decadence in high places, and failure to mechanise and thoroughly equip the armed forces brought about the downfall of France? Let Dr. Charles Beard, American historian, enlighten us with some figures which show conclusively that France lagged behind the Reich in mechanical equipment:—

These figures are taken from World Review, of December, 1939. In naval construction Germany is (or was) only 274,506 tons behind France, and taking into consideration the fact that the Nazis started off from scratch (?) it is a fair demonstration of energy. The air force statistics speak for themselves. Major Al. Williams, a well-known American test pilot, interviewed by the St. Louis Post Despatch after returning from a tour of Europe in 1938, gave high praise to the German aircraft designers. Among his interesting conclusions, states this paper, are: The Russian Air Force is far behind its great reputation, Great Britain is muddling along (not now), and France just can’t get its training programme started. A contributor to the magazine section of an Auckland journal stated recently: “. . .In the air, too, France was badly outnumbered . . . there was such a time-lag between l the inU'udueUun of a prototype ami

its mass-production that these slow machines were still being produced in 1937.” A Press correspondent writing in the Daily Express said that in his opinion the reason for France’s defeat was the Maginot Line. It coloured the thinking processes of the French General Staff. And further on the same writer says: “The French considered this war in terms of fixed fronts. They planned a war like the last war. Worst of all, because there was a Maginot Line, the French Army had a tendency not to plan at all.” The Petainists say that France fell through lack of population, yet since October last the High Command claimed 5,000,000 available men. Gamelin and 15 other French generals were summarily dismissed when the Germans broke through. Did they betray or were they betrayed? The Nazi agents had their counterpart in the Communist fifth column strategists too. An article from The Southern Cross (Adelaide; and reprinted in the Zealandia for July 11, 1940, gives a good idea how the Communist rot riddled France. I would advise “A Frenchman Myself” to read it. It is interesting. It will help to dispel the puerile notion that lack of population humiliated France.—l am, etc., A.E.1., Hamilton, August 12.

Population— Great Britain French Empire Germany 47,000,000 110,000,000 88,000,000 Army Active— 700,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 Reserves available In 2 to 6 months— 800,000 2,500,000 1,500,000 Maximum military strength— 5,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 Navy Great Britain France Germany Tons and Building-—■ 2,07 9,860 815,531 541,023 Battleships 15 7 Aircraft 7 Carriers 9 2 2 Cruisers 63 18 Destroyers 178 71 44 Submarines 7 3 7G 50 Air Force First Lino Planes . 3,500 2,000 4,000 Reserve Planes .• 2,500 1,000 Wartime 4,000 Production (per month) 1,200 750 1,500