BITTER REPLIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25735, 5 January 1945, Page 2

BITTER REPLIES

CRITICISM OF AMERICA COMMENTATORS HIT BACK NEW YORK. Jan. 3. United States newspapers and commentators have replied bitterly to the criticism of America by the London weekly newspaper the Economist. Congress is expected to discuss British criticism when it debates the United States’s foreign policy next week. The Economist said it was time Britain ceased to appease the United States, and it criticised American “postures of superiority” in censuring British policy over Italy, Greece, and Poland. The Economist added that when criticism of the British people came from a nation whose consumption had risen through the war years, and which was still without a national service act, then it was not to be borne.

New York World Telegraph says: “The London press is giving us hell for giving England help. We should not permit debates on ideologies, boundaries, and spheres of influence to side-track us from the main job of winning this bloody and desperate war.” ■ ...

Marquis William Childs writes in the New York Post: “ Most Americans read with surprise and irritation the Economist’s statement that Mr Churchill is appeasing America. Most of us thought the appeasament was in the opposite direction. The ruling classes of Britain are deeply conscious of how tough it will be for England to maintain her world position after the war. They are suspicious of America's motives. They fear that with our wealth and power, we Americans will insist upon being number one in every field. For a great many years Britannia ruled the waves, plus a lot of land scattered around the Seven Seas, and did a very good job of it,, but the world of Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee year no longer exists.” The World Telegram columnist. William Philip Sims, says: "The bitter attitude of the Economist mav have done lasting injury to British-Amen-can relations. The British seem to be losing their balance. What makes this explosion so serious is that the Economist is one of Brendan Bracken’s papers, and Bracken (British Information Minister) is close to Mr ChurchThe New York Sun’s columnist. David Lawrence, says: “ One would think the Atlantic Charter is no longer binding and the parents of the young men who made the supreme sacrifice can be bluntly told that their cons were killed that Imperialism may live on The Economist’s outburst is the natural consequence of hush-hush diplomacy and official camouflage of the points of difference among tbo Allies.” . * . , The Herald-Tribune, in an editorial, says: “ British resentment of American eritici c ms mav awaken Americans to the rather touebv state of British opinion. The British have suffered under an unofficial, but long-standing hnn on the publication of anything that might ruffle Americans. Many of American opinion have neve’- felt, the slightest need for such 3 restraints