“DISMAY & ANGER”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20826, 3 July 1942, Page 3

“DISMAY & ANGER”

DEBATE IN THE LORDS LABOUR PEER’S ATTACK BEVERBROOK IN REPLY (9 a.m.) ' LONDON, July 2. Lord Addison, initiating the war debate in the House of Lords, said that the events in Libya had caused widespread dismay and. anger. In addition to mistakes in the field, our equipment after three years of war was inferior to the enemy’s. This inferiority demanded explanation and correction. Lord Beaverbrook, who spoke from an Opposition bench, said we had to rely on a flow of dive-bombers from the United States. Production was still below what we required. What we wanted was more engines, which must be the limiting factor in aircraft production. “Since you cannot have everything, it is not a choice of what you want, but of what you must sacrifice.” ' As to the shortage of equipment, last year production had begun of an armour-piercing projectile in order to equip a 3.7 gun for anti-tank purposes. The gun would destroy the armour of any German tank. . If it was not used there was a necessity for an inquiry. Referring to the suggestion that the office of Prime Minister should be separate from , that of the Defence Minister, Lord Beaverbrook declared that if they did this indecision would be substituted for decision, and if they, wanted delays and disputes that was' the way to get it. On the Prime Minister must rest the final decision for the conduct of the war, and the final decision for strategy must also be his. He denied that the sending of tanks to Russia had interfered with the supply of tanks for Singapore, and said that no tanks directed to Russia could have been sent to Singapore. It was possible that all the tanks that could be despatched to Libya were sent forward, but it might be that transport stood in the way. He thought that the number of tanks in Britain had practically doubledjin the last six months of 1941. People had said that a 22 Churchill tank was not suitable for Libya, but they were being sent to Russia and the Russians themselves decided to take them. Lord Cranborne said there was no evidence that dive-bombers exercised a decisive effect upon the Libyan campaign or were responsible for the fall of Tobruk.