BRITAIN & U.S.A.

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 85, 7 October 1943, Page 5

BRITAIN & U.S.A.

RELATIONSHIP IN WAR

MR. MORRISON GIVES FACTS LONDON, October 6. The British Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, today gave a straight talk to an Anglo-American audience in London. He said he would tell them some important facts which he thought would contribute to a better understanding between the two countries. Mr. Morrison's first point was that the British Empire intended to carryon the fight with its full force until Japan had been finally defeated. There were several reasons why Britain had no wish to abandon the war after the defeat of Germany. One of them was that the British people would never rest at ease if this country was not doing the maximum for Australia and New Zealand, who had sent their men flocking to defend this island. But more important than that was the fact that we had given our pledge. > BRITAIN AND PACIFIC. He emphasised in the clearest terms that Britain regarded the fight against the Axis as all one war, no matter where it was fought. He did not share the. doubts of some Americans who thought that although the attitude of the British Government was clear in this matter, the point of view of the average British citizen was less so. Ifae pledges had been given in the name of the people. Moreover, there were two British self-governing Dominions in the Pacific; "To them, the defeat and destruction of the Japanese menace is a matter of life and death," he said. Mr. Morrison reminded his listeners that the Empire's effort in the Far East was already enormous. If British, Australian, and Indian troops were taken into account, the Empire's manpower contribution was comparable with America's own. Australia's output of munitions was out of all proportion to the size of her population. In New Guinea, the most active Pacific front, most of ,the weapons, as well as most of the men, were Australian. The Home Secretary next spoke of British war production, which he felt some Americans were inclined to under-rate. He said Britain's contribution to her allies and partners was little less than what America had given Britain. By far the greater proportion of the equipment for the Empire fighting forces came, from, the Empire' itself. BRITISH AID FOR UNITED STATES. At the same time, he acknowledged the vital importance of what Britain owed to America in particular classes of weapons, and what he described as the accumulating reserve of American fighting equipment which would weigh tremendously in'the ultimate balance. Dealing with lend-lease, the Minister said that by far the greater part of the expense of maintaining the American army in Britain was borne on British accounts under lend-lease. He gave some figures of war production, and said that 65 per cent, of British men and women of working age were directly engaged in war activity. By the end of last June, we had provided equip.ment for the American army in Britain to a total value of over £150,000,000, and during 1943 would supply up to 250,000 tons of food for our ally. Besides this, we had provided all the technical material asked for by the American air force in Britain and had provisioned American ships in British ports. He said he did not share the belief of some Americans that the British Empire was something for which to apologise. That depended on what one might mean by "empire." He understood the psychology of general American critics on the subject of the British Empire. They believed that their political ideas were in advance of the British Empire. by 30 or 40 years, but he thought their political information was 30 or 40 years behind. GOVERNMENT OF EMPIRE. He thought the facts warranted the statement that every community in the Empire which was capable of assuming self-government had it. He agreed there were factors in the Colonial EmEire today about which he would feel appier when they were considerably different. The Empire, he said, stood for cohesion, and not domination. In other years, perhaps, the word had had a ring of domination; but not now. The (Empire was advancing towards selfi government, and if there were some ! parts which were not yet self-govern-ing, it must be remembered that for a country to rule itself it must be sufficiently advanced and sufficiently united internally. . , "A closely integrated, rapidly developing world," said Mr. Morrison, is no place for multiplying the numbers of half-grown self-governing States. What we want is, surely, to hold fast to every fragment of cohesion and unity in the world, to build it up, and to give it a fuller meaning and fit it into a wider pattern. That is the real meaning of the British Empire today.