The Press SATURDAY, AUGUST 7, 1943. Russian Victory

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24020, 7 August 1943, Page 4

The Press SATURDAY, AUGUST 7, 1943. Russian Victory

The waning of German power could not be more strikingly illustrated than by the news of the last day or two from the Russian front. Almost simultaneously, the Russian offensive, launched as the German attack on the Kursk salient was beaten into collapse, has achieved its key object in the reconquest of Orel; on the southern side of the salient, where the Germans came nearest to success, they have now lost Byelgorod; and in the Donbas the Russians have smashed all efforts to throw them from their western bridgeheads. These are not disconnected developments, though the victory of Orel is pre-eminent among them. The Germans had assembled in this area a third of their numerical strength on the eastern front, including more than a third of their armour. It has not served them, either to develop the offensive from this strategic centre, which has long held the greatest threat to the coherence of the Russian front, or to hold it, though it is vital to their own. Behind Orel lies Bryansk; but, strongly fortified as it may be and useful as it has been to the Germans, it'is no substitute for Orel in their organisation. It supported Orel, and with Orel provided the Germans with their strongest springboard on the central front; but alone its importance is much less and its defensive posi-1 tion is insecure. The fall of Orel, in fact, endangers the whole German line and opens the prospect of rapid movement—and very extensive movement. What is true of Bryansk, without Orel, is equally true of Kharkov. A Russian drive down the Desna river is a possibility which enlarges the threat to the German armies in the south, already evident in the recapture of Byelgorod and the fighting on the Donets and the Mius. Orel, in fact, means, or can mean, that the Germans will find no standing ground I short of the Dnieper. That is the linking of Orel, Byelgorod, and the battle of the rivers. It is appropriate to recall Mr Churchill’s speech of June 8, when he spoke of the tremendous battles impending on the eastern front, where Russia was “ bearing the “ heaviest burdens and paying the “ highest price in blood and life.’’ At the same time, and not, it is certain, without intending the connexion to be understood, he said that “ amphibious operations of “ peculiar complexity and hazard on “ a large scale were approaching.” This was a promise, without use of the phrase, of the opening of the second land front in Europe by invasion. It is a question now of equal moment and obscurity whether the limits of-its fulfilment are dravtm in Sicily and on the Italian mainland, or whether they will extend to the eastern Mediterranean, or to western Europe. The weeks which can show that enterprises “on a large scale ” already are only the prelude to even mightier action are now few, but not too few for the purpose' or for hope of it. What the “ Economist ” has called the “ great triangle of “ retribution ” is being shaped, and its shape is that of “ a bid for early “ victory.” Russia, the bombers, and invasion are its three points: With massive blood-letting in Russia, with his industry and transport and his people’s endurance strained to the limit, with bombs dropping by day and by night on these stretched nerves, and with an armoured sword thrust directed at his heart—can Hitler stand off all these enemies? If it were clear that Hitler’s heart can be reached through Italy, the answer to the question would lie open to be read. “ Confidential ” The obstinate hand of the Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. J. G. Barclay) is to be seen in the insistence of the National Council of Primary Production on “ confidential ” discussion of letters from the council to the Canterbury Primary Production Council. By the simple expedient of marking its letters “ confi- “ dential ” the national council enjoins on provincial councils secrecy regarding these communications and, in effect, prevents the publication of reports of discussions on its proposals. The provincial councils, having in general refused the Minister’s proposal to exclude the press from their meetings, another way is being taken to ensure that their discussions of public questions will not be reported. Letters from the national council which came before the Canterbury Primary Production Council on Wednesday were generally agreed by members to be “harmless” if published; and the chairman (Mr R. T. McMillan) plainly said that he saw “ no reason “ whatsoever why this information “ should not be broadcast as widely “ as possible,” In general, it should be said at once that there is every reason why information coming from the national council should be broadcast as widely as possible. If the provincial councils have any function worth performing it is to inform primary producers what is expected of them and to inform them as quickly as possible, so that they may make their plans accordingly. Of first importance is the manpower that will be available to farmers to carry out their productive programmes: yet, if any inference is to be drawn from Wednesday’s diseussion, the provincial council is still in the dark about this essential requirement for increased production, and if it is not, it is prevented from giving the information through the best channel available. The farmers are entitled to know, and the public are entitled to know, what plans the Minister and the National Council of Primary Production have in mind for the grqwing season so r-Ti-aHIv armrnar’/iine: and the

longer this information is delayed the smaller the chance will be of the programme being effectively carried out. The Minister is primarily to blame for any delay that may be caused by his rigid aversion to necessary publicity.