The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1944. Demobilisation In Britain

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24371, 25 September 1944, Page 4

The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1944. Demobilisation In Britain

The broadest and most cheering significance of the British Government’s White Paper on demobilisation policy, summarised in a cablegram on Saturday, is illustrated by recalling Mr Churchill’s broadcast address of last March. “Why am I “ not going to tell you all about our “ demobilisation scheme to-night or “in the near future?” he asked. “Here is the reason. This is no “time to talk about demobilisation. “ The hour of our greatest effort and “action is approaching. . . . The “only homeward all of us “ lies through the aren of victory." Here, then, is the firmest evidence yet given that Germany has lost irretrievably, that the “ arch of “ victory ” lies behind the Allied armies. Yet, as the White Paper says, no general demobilisation can take place until Japan has been subjugated. It therefore sets out to balance justice and expediency. By comparison, 1919 was easy. Now, overriding military needs in the period between the defeat of Germany and the defeat of Japan must govern the extent of releases. No sweeping formula such as that Mr Churchill applied in 1919—“ first in, “ first out ” —can now be used. Age and length of service will be the main determinants; but men needed for reconstruqtion, among them, inevitably, key workers whose military service was deferred, will not have to wait their turn. The principle of “ first in, first out" must involve exceptions and modifications. A “ convulsion of indiscipline”, as Mr Churchill called it, shook the whole army in the winter of 1918-1919 when it learned of the Cabinet’s “foolish and inequitable” plan to bring home all the key men first; and under Mr Churchill’s persuasion the Cabinet reversed its decision. The error of the last war will not be repeated. But the exceptions and modifications may be considerable, and there will, in any event, be grievances and disappointments. They will, too, be the harder to assuage because the Minister of National Service last year promised “first in, first out" without qualification. Accordingly, the Government’s publication of a White Paper on service pay concurrently with that on demobilisation will not be thought fortuitous. Last March a heated debate developed in the House of Commons after the Secretary of State for War refused demands from all quarters of the House for a general increase in army pay and allowances. Although the Leader of the House finally promised that the Government would consider increasing the basic pay, members pressed for a division on a motion for immediate increases in pay and allowances. The motion was defeated; and though next month the Government brought down a White Paper proposing increased allowances for servicemen’s dependants, it again declared that no general increase in pay was required. Now, however, all ranks are to receive “substantial” pay increases, determined by length of service. Details of the plan as it relates to service in the Far East are not given, but the “ Daily “ Express ” * speaks of “ big ” increases for servicemen transferred from the European theatre to the Pacific. In this the Government seems to recognise that its case for limiting the “first in, first out” principle will not, by itself, be sufficiently persuasive.