MORALE AND ENEMY NEWS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1942, Page 6

MORALE AND ENEMY NEWS

Several correspondents write today on letters published on Tuesday and our leading article, "The Enemy's Game," referring to the spreading of enemy statements and propaganda, and the effect of this on- public morale. The suggestion of "W.R.S." that short-wave radio sets should be destroyed is particularly criticised. We did not endorse that suggestion and do not now, and we think that the correspondent probably made it ilnpulsively after noting the effects of short-wave listening on some people. There are people who should not listen to enemy radio. Some of them realise this and sensibly do not listen. They say: "We know it's probably false, but it upsets us." Unfortunately there are others who should adopt this attitude but do not. Instead, they listen, lap up everything they hear, and then go out to pour out the threats or bad news or subtle suggestions to their neighbours, to an accompaniment of their own gloomy forebodings. St. Paul wrote, "One man believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs." Our trouble arises from those with herb-eating capacity who will insist on taking strong meat, and make others, as well as themselves, suffer for their mental dyspepsia. Part of the remedy is the contradiction of enemy lies, but this cannot always be done without falling into a trap and giving the enemy the information he is fishing for. But another, and equally effective correction, would be for nervous folk, or those who are too credulous, to refrain from listening to enemy stations; or at least not talk and distort what they hear. Our own article was not at all a plea for suppression of facts. We believe that the most news, including tlie bad news, should be given to the people in so far as this can be done without helping the enemy. The leaders must trust the people, but the people must also trust the leaders. .They must not jump to the conclusion at once that news is being suppressed, or that, when there is a contradiction between Allied and Axis versions that the Axis is right. The attitude we particularly criticised was that of the intellectually arrogant who, without real qualification for doing so, take it upon themselves lo pass judgment on the veracity of the 8.8.C, the democratic Press, and the democratic leaders. Forgetting Hitler's own advocacy of lying, and Kurusu's great lie, they foolishly assume that Tokio and Berlin now tell the truth, because Tokio and Berlin say so.

Condemnation of this does not imply that there should be no opinion and no criticism. The criticism we deplore is the misinformed and illinformed and particularly the nervous wail, "Why don't our leaders do something?" There has been more criticism of the democratic war effort in the British House of Commons than anywhere else, but it has been largely constructive in tone and scope —directed against people as well as leaders, and it las been answered. The criticism ran be taken, but the answer must also be taken. Mr. Roosevelt stated the position exactly in his broadcast to the American people—a people accustomed to the most open and forthright expression of opinion.

The people, he said, must have complete confidence that the Government was keeping nothing from them except information that would help the enemy in his attempt to destroy them. In a democracy there was always a solemn pact of truth between the Government and the people, but there must also always be full use of discretion. That word "discretion" applied to the critics and Government as well. This was war. The American people would be told the general trend of how the war was going, but they did not wish to help the enemy any more than their fighting forces did, and they would pay little attention to the rumour-mongers and the poison-pedlars in their midsts.