The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1942. CRITICISM AND THE WAR

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20825, 2 July 1942, Page 2

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1942. CRITICISM AND THE WAR

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Drake played bowls at Plymouth while the Spanish Armada was reported off the Lizard. The British Parliament wrangles over the conduct of the war while Egypt is in peril. At first glance, these things seem to be analagous. In each there is apparent evidence of indifference to a pressing danger. They are the sort of things that are calculated to irritate and exasperate people who are anxious for action and who deplore any conduct that seems to hinder it. Whether or not Nero really did fiddle while Rome burned, it is fair to him to remember that he made good afterwards when he rebuilt the city; and in justice to Drake it has to be botne in mind that even if he did continue his game of bowls it did not prevent him from defeating the Spaniards. In fact, they were not indifferent, as their conduct at the time might have suggested, any more than the British Parliament is indifferent to the fate Of Egypt. Certainly it does seem to be an anachronism that two days should be devoted to a spate of words by amateur strategists at a time when every ounce of the national energy is required for the prosecution of the war, yet experience may show that it is the very time devoted to this examination of the position that makes a most vital contribution to the conduct of the war. Above everything else, perhaps, the procedure in Britain typifies the tolerance of the Government of criticism. That ,is a point ’: which might well b'e borne in mind in some of the younger democracies —and in New Zealand in particular—where there is a tendency to assume that any criticism is necessarily captious and inevitably harmful to the conduct of the war. Wisely used and properly directed, however, criticism is essential to the conduct of the war and, indeed, may be the means of hastening its successful termination. This view is appreciated and accepted in Britain. Mr. Churchill, himself such a trenchant critic, has always invited, rather than resented, criticism. He encourages, rather than opposes, open debate and again this week has challenged his challengei-s—invited them to bring in public all the charges they can lay against him and his administration. Those charges are now being heard by Parliament, which, in due course, will ■pronounce its verdict. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Government pleads the excuse that criticism and debate will assist the enemy. Instead, they take the view that their conduct of the war, despite the admitted mistakes, will stand investigation and that they will emerge stronger, rather than weaker, because of the public inquiry. This, after all, is the proper approach. If any Government is not strong enough to face and survive a public debate on its conduct of the war, then it is a fair assumption that it is not strong enough to conduct the war and it should make way for another administration. If this course is not followed, it means that mistakes and inefficiency might be perpetuated and that the prosecution of the war, instead of benefiting by a “hush-hush” policy, will continue to be handicapped. It cannot be denied that criticism of the Government might be helpful to the enemy. At the very least it will encourage him by the knowledge of what appears to be discontent among his adversaries. He would be still more encouraged, however, were he to know—as we know of Germany and Italy—that the discontent were of such a character that it had to be arbitrarily suppressed. As it is, the criticism that is once again manifesting itself in Britain is nothing more than the healthy expression ot a desire to ensure that the conduct of the war is in the best hands, to prevent a repetition of past mistakes, and to make certain that the maximum eificiency is obtained. To the extent that it contributes towards any of these things, the criticism is to be welcomed, and because it might contribute it would be folly to attempt to stifle it.

It is worth recalling that in 1916, Mr. Asquith’s Government was subjected to incessant attacks by sections of the press. There were many then who complained that the criticism was unpatriotic, helpful to the enemy, and harmful to the war effort. All of these charges may have been correct, but the fact remains that the change of Government which resulted from the attacks led to an infinitely more vigorous and more efficient prosecution of the war. The criticism, since it distracted the Government from its main purpose, may have been temporarily harmful, but there is no question that its ultimate effect was to contribute largely to the winning of the war. Criticism then was a valuable check against undesirable tendencies and a spur to the Government. It can achieve the same results to-day. That does not suggest that a change of Government is again desirable — indeed, there is not the slightest indication that this is the case—but it does mean that the Government is being warned that its every action is subject to critical examination and that any weakness in the administration or the conduct of the war will be ruthlessly exposed and roundly condemned. That is as it should be, for in no other way can real efficiency in the conduct of the war be obtained. The Government which will not face criticism condemns itself.