ALLIED STRATEGY

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 28, 1 August 1942, Page 5

ALLIED STRATEGY

NEW YORK PAPER'S

.CRITICISM

NEW/YORK, July 30. The "New York Times," in an editorial commenting on the problem of the second front, sharply criticises the strategic leadership of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill. "It is becoming increasingly clear that Messrs. Churchill and Roosevelt have tried too much to plan and direct the war strategy themselves, which is a grave mistake for several reasons," it says. Both are primarily civilian leaders. Furthermore, they are overburdened with routine duties, while effective major strategy must be a fulltime job. At present Mr. Roosevelt must decide the,strategic questions oft which he cannot possibly liave time properly ,to- inform himself. "Admiral Leahy's appointment -has not changed this situation, because what is needed is not another adviser but rather' a commander who is entitled to make all but very crucial decisions under his own responsibility. "As the result of the'present British and American system we should expect, instead of a bold, fore : -sighted, comprehensive strategy, an ill-pre-pared, haphazard, fragmentary, .improvised strategy, and there is reason to believe that this is precisely the kind of strategy the United Nations have. "Granted, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt face formidable difficulties which are beyond their control, but the fact remains that the United Nations have failed hitherto to provide an example of the daring unorthodox strategy which resulted in the conquest.of Crete. ; Partly due to lack: of planning and preparation, we are losing the Battle of the Atlantic, which is closely connected with the chances of opening a.second front, "The problems' for establishing the second. front are immense,, but they cannot be solved satisfactorily till Britain, and America get full-time strategists directed by a unified.command —first within each nation, and then for the United Nations." ■