PART OF WAR PLAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24632, 13 June 1941, Page 4

PART OF WAR PLAN

GREECE AND CRETE CAMPAIGNS JUSTIFIED STATEMENT BY MR NASH (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 12. Speaking in the Imprest Supply debate in the House of Representatives this afternoon, the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Nash, claimed that the Greek campaign had succeeded because its strategy had had splendid results. He said he believed that the Greek and Cretan campaigns were essential to the war plan. Mr Nash said there was no bravado in the statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, that the New Zealand Government would send the New Zealand Division into the Grecian campaign again if such a course were necessary. Anyone who wanted to show that a blunder had been made should take into account all the facts. Mr Nash said he did not suggest there should be no criticism, and, if crticism were going to help to win the war, they should have it to the full. But if it were going to tell against the war effort, it should not be allowed. He believed the Greek and Cretan campaigns were essential to the British Commonwealth’s war plan, Mr Nash added, and he alsp believed that if the men were asked to go again they would go, and want to go.— (“Hear, hear.”) Splendid Results New Zealanders had grumbled about being kept out of the Egyptian campaign, Mr Nash said, and they knew they were going into difficulties and dangers in Greece, but they had gone and performed magnificent feats. Their task might have been successful if the Jugoslavs and Greeks had been better armed and able to hold on. If the British troops could have held the enemy, who would have said they should not have been there? There was the possibility that they could have held on and, if they had done so, they would have held the Dardanelles and so would have cut off Black Sea oil from Italy. Who would have criticised this strategy had that been done? Mr Nash claimed that the Greek campaign had succeeded because its strategy had had splendid results. Those results were not as good as they could have been, but they had justified the sacrifice. The New Zealanders had not gone into Greece to fight for traditions alone. Everything had been weighed up and they had gone with a possible objective, which, if it had been gained under happier circumstances. might have shortened the war by a year or two. Importance of Overseas Defence The importance of overseas defence rather than home defence was stressed by Sir Apirana Ngata (Opposition, Eastern Maori), who stated that since the outbreak of war he as a layman had been studying the declarations from two returned soldier members of the House, Mr J. G. Coates and Mr J. A. Lee, because he was prepared at all times to accept the opinions of returned soldiers on military matters. He had often wondered if New Zealand could take a lead from Mr Lee as to his attitude towards the conduct of the war. and had come to the conclusion that Mr Lee was attempting to lead a school of thought that magnified the home defence of New Zealand against that of defence overseas. He was sorry to have to place Mr Coates in the same category. Personally, he thought the defence'of New Zealand was best carried out. not on these shores, but outside. At this stage Sir Apirana was cut off the air. *,.i Later Sir Apirana said the minds of voung people should not be muddled and hampered in respect to home defence when the struggle was overseas.