The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1942. CHURCHILL'S TRIUMPH

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20826, 3 July 1942, Page 2

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, FRIDAY, JULY 3, 1942. CHURCHILL'S TRIUMPH

After two days of debate in which the manifested acrimony was altogether out of proportion to its real extent, the House of Commons, by a majority of 450 votes, has passed a vote of confidence in the Government. The result is a triumph for Mr. Churchill and for commpn sense. The Parliament of the people has shown that while it is prepared to listen to criticism and even to encourage it, it will not permit its sense of balance or proportion to be distorted by unfavourable news from the battlefront. It is willing that there should be investigation ansi analysis but it is not ready to salve its conscience—and there must be a good many uneasy consciences in British public life—by seeking out undeserving scapegoats. It cannot be said that the debate has revealed any glaring sins of omission or commission on the part of the Government. On the contrary, Mr. Churchill had an answer for most of the criticism and the impression that is left after this very thorough airing of the whole ‘of the circumstances is that what has occurred can be attributed, in the main, to the lack of pre-war preparation, for which we continue to suffer, and the fortunes, or misfortunes of war. This, at least, seems to be the opinion of the House of Commons, of whom all but 5 per cent supported the Government.

Mr. Churchill made no attempt to gloss over the severe reverses that had been sustained in Libya; nor, except in general terms, did he attempt to explain it. Apparently he had gone to the United States on an urgent mission quite confident that there was no occasion for concern as to possible developments in Libya. His work there must have been handicapped by the grave news which awaited him, but, as if this were not enough, he returned to his own country to find a small coterie of his political opponents seeking his blood in the House of Commons. Then he was called upon to explain, so far as explanation was possible, the defeat in Libya—and this at the very moment when he was awaiting possibly still graver news of the Battle of Egypt. It is surprising, in the circumstances, that he was as even-tempered as he was. All that he could tell '’the House of what had occurred in Libya was, in effect, that we had entered the battle superior to the enemy in practically every respect and that, despite the seemingly favourable situation, we had been roundly beaten. What more is there to be said? Providing the lessons of the experience are well and truly learned, that there is no repetition of past mistakes, and that revealed weaknesses are remedied so far as possible, all that remains is to prepare for the next battle and to strive for better results.

The plain fact of the Libyan campaign is that the Imperial forces were beaten by a more skilled adversary-,' Mr. Churchill admits this, at least by implication. It may be that the Allied commanders made an error of judgment, but the situation that existed at the beginning of June was such that there might have been a brilliant victory instead of a shattering reverse. The unexpected and unpalatable result hiust be accepted as the fortune of war. A great deal has been made of the Allied inferiority in tanks and the lack of dive-bombers. It is significant, in fact, that these are almost the only points upon which the critics have been able to seize. There is the same answer to both of them. Having neglected its defences for years, when war came Britain had to concentrate on the production of quantity, rather than quality, of armament. It was a case of secondrate tanks for the time being or no tanks at all. It was a choice between bombing planes and dive-bombers. The choice in both instances was wisely made, for no one could foretell that there would be time to develop and ’produce new types of tanks—even if the technicians were capable of out-designing the enemy—and experience has surely shown that more has been gained by building

bombing planes than has been lost by the absence of dive-bombers. More important than what has happened in the past is what is happening now and is likely to happen in the near future. There was no glib optimism on the part of Mr. Churchill, but some of the information revealed by him does justify confidence. Of the army of 100,000 which the Allies had in Libya, approximately half has been lost. Of the tank strength, a great deal more than half has gone. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the loss in man-power has already been made good from reserves, reinforcements, and transfers from Syria and that a substantial replacement of lost equipment has already been made. In the air, Allied superiority should have been considerably increased. What of the other side? General Rommel started off with an army of 90,000, but he, too, has suffered heavy losses. With the best organisation in the world, it is to be doubted whether he can make good those losses as readily as the Allies, let alone re-establish his strength in Egypt, many hundreds of miles away from his bases. If he can, it can only be by seriously weakening the Axis on the Russian front, which would be an indirect gain. On the face of it, weakened though they undoubtedly have been, the Allies should still be a match for the force which Rommel can muster in Egypt and this being so confidence can well be sustained until it is proved to be misplaced.