NOTES AND COMMENTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23599, 7 March 1940, Page 8

NOTES AND COMMENTS

EYES ON BLACK SEA REGION Germany's position rn regard to petrol must be considered unhappy; and the sources of supply being where thjpy are, in the Black Sea region, it is "inevitable the Allies should cast their eyes in that direction, writes "Strategicus" in the Spectator. The Allies have a considerable force in the Near Mast; and Germany must at least have some anxious moments when she remembers it, particularly now that the Russian army is seen to be as poor as its severest critics held. It is not beyond the bounds of the possible that developments may take place there before the year is out. The chance of immobilising the mechanised and air forces of the enemy may prove irresistible. At present the pressure of events is playing a part in that direction and. though not to be exaggerated, it is equally not to be ignored.

KEEPING INFLATION AT BAY The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon, stressed, in a recent speerh at Glasgow, the most widely applicable of all the moral issues raised by the war, notes the London Observer. There is no citizen who cannot bear his part in keeping inflation at bay, with all its immediate illusion of wealth and all the misery of slump that must follow. Inflation comes, as the Chancellor explained, when there is soaring competition for a limited quantity of goods, l'lie war absorbs such a large share of commodities that tlu l ordinary consumer cannot get everything he would like. 11 ho persists in seeking it. his ellorts will laise prices and make the grim drama of inflation and deflation inevitable. Jf he restrains himself like a man, he will preserve what is possible of cheapness and ease the problem both of war and after-war.

MYTH OF THE RED ARMY Whatever the future course n( the northern war may lie, the Finnish fight lias altered the whole face of European politics, writes Mr. W. N. Ewer, in the Daily Herald, organ of the British Labour Party. Russia's armies may eventually break through by sheer weight of numbers and by the indifference of its leadership to expendituie of "cannon-fodder." But the 1' inns have already proved to the world that, whatever its size and whatever its ultimate resources, the Red Army is not in any sense of the term a first-class modern arm. The Soviet troops (with the exception of a few picked corps) are ill-found and ill-equipped. The Finnish evidence corroborates that of eve-witnesses who saw the Russians march into Poland. Munitions are of inferior quality. The technical skill ol the officers and the training of the rank and file seem to be of a low grade. Now all that (and the evidence seems to be pretty conclusive) is of ironic importance. For during the past six years or so European diplomacy has been largely influenced hv the belief in the tremendous strength of the Red Army and the Red Air Force. And that belief now turns out to be very largely a myth.

BRITISH WAR CABINET Commenting on recent changes in the British Cabinet. Mr J. L. Garvin argues that other and paramount needs are still to be met. Mr. Chamberlain's inner Council is too large and various. It cannot compare with the Nazi directorate as an executive engine for war. This is not simply a question of men. It is a fundamental question of system. The nation wants what it had before—a small War Cabinet composed almost entirely of Ministers free from departmental duties. They could call in any other Minister at any time. But they should be concentrated day by dav on the supreme direction of the war —in concert with, France and upon the organisation of total effort at. home. In that compact body Mr. Churchill should he Minister of Defence. There is another fundamental question ol system, Mr. Garvin continues. .Side by side with the War Cabinet there should he some new and expert organ of Government to command and adjust the whole economic life of the country. This is the hard price of victory. If we mean to face it, as we. do, these things will have to he carried out sooner or later. Then the sooner the better; or we shall pay for the lag.

UNITED STATES OF EUROPE As long as a continent is divided tip into separate monarchies or what not, there is because of the moronistic traits in mankind nothing but strife and other inordinations, but as soon as it has become united into an empire or a United States such inordinations automatically cease, writes Mr. Cyril Scott in his book. "Man is My Theme." When mankind has really grown up and shed most of its moronistic traits, when the nations have ceased to "keep apart, hugging their independence, their sovereignty, only then will they appreciate the principle of unity in diversity. The framing of a United States of Kurope which embraced that principle would solve the majority of our most dangerous problems, but as yet national pride stands in the way of such an exalted scheme. For one thing, the nations would fear to lose their individualities. In the case of the military nation whose individual vanity is expressed in might, there would be no further justification for militarism Also, the fear of losing their freedom would deter most of the nations from considering such a scheme. Although a nation like Germany permits under the present regime- no freedom to its subjects, it obviously, though illogically, expects freedom for itself. Yet this fear of losing national freedom is largely based on emotionality and not on reason. As every town lias its own town council, every nation would naturally have its own form of Government suited to its individual needs and temperament. And as for losing its individuality, Manchester, for instance, has not lost its individuality merely because it forms part of Great Britain, nor in a larger sense, of course, have Wales and Scotland. The truth is that the fear of losing one's individuality is based on vanity and on nothing higher. A person or a nation has an inherent individuality to a greater or lesser extent as the case may be. And so just as a truly individual person can no more lose his individuality than he can lose his own soul, neither can a nation. Could one possibly conceive of France ever losing its individuality even if it came to form part of a United States of Europe or even of the world? ,