PLANE-CARRIER SUNK

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 107, 2 November 1942, Page 5

PLANE-CARRIER SUNK

AMERICAN NAVY'S LOSS

WASHINGTON, October 31

A Navy Department communique states: "In the South Pacific the United States aircraft-carrier which was announced in a recent communique to be severely damaged subsequently sank. "The carrier was twice attacked by bombers and torpedo planes on October 26 near the Santa Cruz Islands.

"The first attack, which occurred during the forenoon, caused heavy damage, and the ship was taken in tow in an attempt to salvage her. In &c aflSJBSen, * second attack caused

GOING HOME?

GENERAL MACARTHUR

POST IN WASHINGTON MENTIONED

(By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright.) (Special Australian Correspondent.) SYDNEY, November 1. The recall of General Mac Arthur from Australia to Washington for an important wax* conference is forecast by the "New York Herald Tribune" and the Washington "Times-Herald." Both papers hint that his return may be permanent. "It is debatable whether General Mac Arthur's abilities are being put to the best use in his present command, or whether he should be stationed, at the centre of things in ; Washington," says the "Herald Tribune." The "Christian Science Monitor," describing General Mac Arthur's recent declaration praising Australia's war effort as ■ "most unusual," says that it is almost certainly bound to provide some decisive action in the control of the war in the ,South-west Pacific. The paper also declares that the idea that the United States carries most of the war burden here is incorrect, and that the foundation of Australia's defence is still primarily her own soldiers and workers.

TRUTH LIES MIDWAY. W. E. Lucas, the "Monitor's" war correspondent in Australia, writes: "Mr. Hanson Baldwin's charge that the attitude of Australian labour has caused the major burden of the war to fall on the Americans is more ill-founded than General Mac Arthur's remark that no nation is making a more supreme war effort than Australia, but the truth lies between the two.

General Douglas Mac Arthur.

"Australia has made remarkable strides in her wartime economy, but there is still much stack, and some quarters do not realise the meaning of total war. There are still sections of employers and employees who regard the national crisis as a bargaining counter. But these things, though they are exaggerated by interested parties, play a relatively small part in war activities."

"What General Mac Arthur ought to have is not supreme command in the South-west. Pacific, but more say in what goes on down there," comments Raymond Gram Swing, the American news analyst. Mr. Swing invites those who believe that General Mac Arthur rather than Vice-Admiral Ghormley should have had command of the operations in the Solomons to admit that had the campaign been an unqualified success there wouud have been little talk of a unified command.

"General MacArthun, had he been commander, would have had to put a senior naval officer in charge of the campaign," observes Mr. Swing. "That officer probably would have been Admiral Ghormley. and so the question reduces itself not to one of unified command but of getting the right man for the particular job."