U.S. CONSULATES TO BE CLOSED

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23361, 21 June 1941, Page 9

U.S. CONSULATES TO BE CLOSED

ORDER BY GERMAN GOVERNMENT

ESPIONAGE ACTIVITIES ALLEGED

(Received June 20, 9 p.m.)

(U.P.A.) , LONDON, June 19. The German Government has ordered the closing of all United States consulates in Germany and the occupied countries. Rome has made a similar demand.

- The Germans say that consular staffs must leave by July 15,- which is five days after the time limit expires on the ban imposed on German consulates in the United States. The American Express Travel Company’s agencies are also to be closed.

An official Germa'n statement declares that this action has been justified by the behaviour of consular officials and the travel agency, which has led to grave complaints in matters affecting the interests of the Reich.

Germany’s order closing United States consular offices was anticipated in Washington. State Department officials said the order would cause little inconvenience, since trade was at a standstill and few Americans remained on the Continent. Twenty-five consulates are affected.

The Official German News Agency has issued a list of offences in justification of the closing of the consulates. It alleges (1) that the United States Consul in Frankfurt delivered copies of anti-German propaganda and passed on secret military Information; (2) that the Consul-General in Munich made detrimental remarks against the Reich; (3) that the Consul in Cologne carried out espionage against Germany in code, in collusion with the Belgian Consul, reporting the German march into Belgium, Holland, and Luxemburg; (4) that the Consul in Hamburg sketched railways' and military installations; (5) that an employee of the American Consulate in Oslo reported German troop movements in Norway; and (6) that the Consul in Paris is accused of sheltering a member of the staff of the British Consulate in Paris. An application has been made to exempt Portugal, Russia, Finland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland from the United States decree freezing the assets of European countries held in the United States. -

INEFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT

Mr G. Ward Price’s Criticism

STRONGER TEAM URGED FOR MR CHURCHILL

LONDON; June . Ift 1’ “There is no doubt that, "late' ail'd difficult though it is to make •• thp 1 change, we must improve the efficiency of the Government machine,” says Mr G. Ward Price, of the “Daily Mail.” "If we don’t, we shall either be conquered or forced to carry on an indecisive war for so long that we will be ruined and exhausted before the end. - • . “Muddle, incompetence, and delay in high places have increased the length and cost of all our wars, but 10-day we cannot afford to indulge in these failings, because we have never faced an enemy so ruthless and well organised. “Britain after 22 months of military' reverses is realising the need for more scientific planning. Whereas a despotic authority, ‘the great ’General Staff,’ is behind 'the enemy’s efforts, we carry on the war with a team of

practically independent, mutually jealous, and procrastinating Government departments. Overlapping, waste, indecision, and obstruction abound. A more practical programme is needed. “Mr Menzies has placed before Australians the sort of scheme we need here, namely, nothing less than mobilisation of all resources of manpower, capital, equipment, and raw materials for the sole purpose of winning the war.

“Britain should have begun to follow that aim in 1939, but it is unlikely that the Ministers without .sufficient energy to do it then will have enough energy and enterprise to follow it now. “There is no question of trying to swap horses in midstream. All that is needed is to give Mr Churchill better equipment with which to lead us, than a loosely-organised Government system, glib speech-making Ministers, and irremovable, dilatory bureaucrats.”

DIVERSION TO WAR NEEDS

GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICY

RUGBY, June 19. Moving the second reading of the Goods Services Price Control Bill, the President of the Board of Trade (Captain Oliver Lyttelton) described the Government’s economic policy as extending over the whole field of the financial, industrial, commercial, and social activities of the country with the object of diverting the total productive capacity to war purposes. Control of prices was a necessary complement to these wider measures, and the present bill was intended to apply to consumer goods. The bill differed from the existing Price of Goods Act in three ways—it gave the Board of Trade power to fix maximum prices instead of merely permitted prices. It also controlled the prices of services such as furniture storage, and it did not rely, as the original act does, so largely upon complaints from the public. It imposes much more direct responsibility on the Board of Trade. The Price of Goods Act had worked fairly well and certainly the British trader in the main was a patriotic, lawabiding, honest person once he / was satisfied that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary.