The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JAN. 31, 1942. CHURCHILL’S VICTORY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20678, 31 January 1942, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, SATURDAY, JAN. 31, 1942. CHURCHILL’S VICTORY

As had been expected, Mr. Churchill secured his vote of confidence from the House of Commons —not only by an overwhelming majority but virtually unanimously. Foregone though this conclusion was, its effect cannot fail to be noticed both at home and abroad. Indeed, it can well be said that the critics of Mr. Churchill, unintentionally no doubt, have done both him and the Allied cause an outstanding service. They have forced the issue and it has been decided. The elected representatives of the people of Great Britain have recorded their confidence not only in Mr. Churchill, but also, be it noted, in the British Government and, by implication at least, in the broad strategy that has been adopted by the Government in the prosecution of the war. This is the outcome of a searching examination into the alleged shortcomings of British policy, of a'free, full, frank debate on every question that the critics desired to raise. It has been demonstrated beyond all possibility of doubt that the British nation stands solid and united behind the Government in its war effort and in its method of conducting the war. The carping critics at home have been revealed as a noisy, non-representative minority, and the propaganda from abroad has been proved to be as false as it invariably is. In his reply to the debate, Mr. Churchill made some further points which deserve to be underlined. Primarily, there was his comment that in no other country in the world would such freedom of debate and criticism and such a free transmission of news be tolerated. This was emphasised only to-day when Herr Hitler to secure plaudits and expressions of confidence was compelled to speak to a specially selected audience of his own followers. He dare not even allow his people to be freely represented, he dare not permit criticism of his policy, and, above all, he dare not allow his position to be challenged by a free vote on an issue of confidence. This contrast serves to emphasise the difference, not only between democratic and dictatorship procedure, but also between the war aims of the respective sides. On the one hand there is freedom for the people and on the other submission to force. In Britain, Mr. ‘Churchill holds his position only at the discretion of the House of Commons, elected by the people, and can be removed by the House. In Germany, Hitler retains his position only by his application of the doctrine of fear and force. These facts cannot be lost upon Hitler himself, and this week’s vote in the House of Commons must make him realise the unity and the determination of the people opposing him. As to the actual war situation, there were some new factors which were revealed by the Prime Minister and which serve to place the present position in a clearer perspective. This applies particularly to the fresh problems which have been created in the Pacific. The time to have stopped Japanese aggression, as he implied, was when that aggression started. This is sound theory, but Mr. Churchill has shown that it was not practical politics. ‘‘lf we had gone to war with Japan to prevent the Japanese . . .

establishing themselves within striking distance of Malaya and Singapore,” he said, "we would have had to fight alone.” That fact should be borne in mind. The point is that until the United States was actually attacked by Japan there could be no definite assurance that America would enter the war. It was for this reason, therefore, that it was left' to the United States to take the initiative in applying sanctions against Japan. Here there was probably more astute manoeuvring than is generally understood, for it resulted in allying the United States with Britain and confronting Japan with two great Powers instead of being allowed to pursue Hitler’s policy of dealing with opponents one by one. It was essentially and vitally a case of playing for time.

The next point is the Allied weakness in the Pacific. This, too, was explained by the need, fully justified by Mr. Churchill’s comment, of assisting Russia, both directly and by opening up a second front in Libya. Even part of the aid given to Russia would, he said, have left Britain far better prepared in Burma and Malaya, but obviously that aid could not have been withheld. Even now, with the

situation so much improved, Russia is insisting that not all the urgent demands of the Far East must be allowed to interfere with the supply of British tanks to Russia. As to Libya, it is all too clear that there has been no unnecessary diversion of force to that front; indeed, before long the critics may be complaining that it has been unduly neglected. It all comes down to the one thing—that the man-power and the resources of the Allies, and of Britain in particular, since she has had to bear the brunt of the Axis attack, so far have not been sufficient to provide the strength that is needed in so many different theatres of war. For this, the present Government is not to blame, and the only ground upon which it could be criticised was that there had not been the wisest disposition of the forces available. That charge has now been effectively answered, and it remains only for the country to get behind the Government in its admittedly difficult task.