THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1943 MANPOWER AND RESOURCES

New Zealand Herald, Volume 80, Issue 24536, 19 March 1943, Page 2

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1943 MANPOWER AND RESOURCES

• On a resurvey, two points in the debate on manpower overshadow in i importance all else that was told. ■ They were the official decision to maintain a combat division in the Pacific—as well as to retain one in . the Middle East—and the fact that , over 160,000 men have been with- ' drawn from civil life to serve with ' the armed forces. A starting point in considering New Zealand's commitments is that the division in the Middle East should remain there and be kept up to strength. The Prime J Minister insists that Parliament • agreed to this unanimously, and the policy has the overwhelming support of the country. It was with this fact known beyond any question of doubt that the War Cabinet accepted the responsibility of a further fighting division in the Pacific. In defending the Government, Mr. Sullivan said if New Zealand took no part in the Pacific her position would be untenable at the peace table. The implication that without a combat division New Zealand would be doing nothing is misleading and mischievous. Naval forces and airmen are playing a worthy part, as the epic story of corvettes against submarine, and other evidence show. To suggest that the country which sent into i battle the men who fought at Olymi pus, Thermopylae and Crete, who | played so great a part in hurling ; Rommel out of Libya, should be in an untenable position at the peace table might seem too ludicrous to call for comment. But it is based on the dangerous inference that this war can be divided into water-tight compartments. It cannot be. It is one and indivisible. The men in the Middle East are fighting the battles of the United Nations, the United States and New Zealand just as are the Americans who won and hold Guadalcanal*. Attempts to differentiate service in different parts of the world raise a false issue. The true one is that of New Zealand playing her part up to, but not beyond, the limit of her resources. On the testimony of Mr. Poison —a private member, be it noted—amplified by that of the Minister of Health, 103,000 men and 8000 women have already been mobilised. From such resources, according to Mr. Coates, the two divisions can be maintained for 12 months. After that, presumably, the inevitable wastage of war will demand a further levy on manpower. The 163,000 already called up represent 10 per cent of the Dominion's population. As has been pointed out before, experts set 10 per cent as the highest quota that can be taken without a deterioration of the home front, which eventually reacts upon the army in the field. Britain is already estimated to have mobilised 10 per cent. The United States has planned for 8 per cent, to give a margin of safety. Germany, with 12 per cent, is believed to have stretched the bow over-tightly. New Zealand, with two divisions in the field, with men to find for naval service and the air force, with undertakings to supply food and services for the Pacific forces, seems in dire peril of doing the same thing. A shift of the war situation, demanding heavier garrisoning of the country's own ramparts, could disrupt the whole position, because the margin is demonstrably too narrow. The need for clearer thinking and a better appraisal of the manpower situation grows more apparent the more closely the facts are analysed. The Prime Minister's contribution in winding up the debate did nothing to upset this conclusion. He showed, though less directly, Mr. Sullivan's tendency to imply that there were obligations in the Pacific making it different from other theatres. For instance —"We cannot put men in the Pacific and say they are to remain there as a garrison while their American comrades are fighting." If it could be shown that the effort of maintaining a fighting division in the Middle East, plus contributions to the Air Force and the Navy—in the Pacific and elsewhere —were straining our resources to the breaking point, there is no reason why we could not or should not, and the Americans, as reasonable people, would be the first to admit it. That, however, is not the crucial point. Mr. Eraser admitted, in answer to an interjection, that if the war lasted two or three years longer, New Zealand could not keep up the present pace. He had nothing to say about what would be done in that event, except that there could be readjustments in the light of altered circumstances. He thus confirmed the verdict on Mr. Coates' speech, that the Government was facing what it agreed might be a long-term war with a short-term manpower policy. It is not statesmanlike, it is not safe, it will not allay public anxiety about the position. The call for a well-ordered and properlyplanned policy, with resources balanced against needs, is more imperative than ever.