The Southland Times WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1940. Mr Hore-Belisha and the Censor

Southland Times, Issue 24056, 21 February 1940, Page 6

The Southland Times WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1940. Mr Hore-Belisha and the Censor

ACCORDING to a cable message from London, printed this morning, two members of the House of Commons are raising in Parliament the question of the censoring of a newspaper article written by Mr Leslie HoreBelisha, formerly Minister of War. Public interest in this matter is not likely to be centred on a possible revival of the controversy which briefly surrounded Mr Hore-Belisha’s resignation, for in war time the rise and fall of statesmen has to be measured against the events that are taking place in the field and on the seas. It is not easy, for instance, to recapture the mood of surprised interest which was stimulated by the Cabinet changes while the Altmarck continues to engross world attention; and tomorrow there may be new alarms, new achievements, new excitements to provide headlines on the cable pages. But if there is no revival of public interest around the person and career of Mr HoreBelisha there will certainly be public and private comment on the political implications of the new episode. For it was difficult, when the former Minister’s resignation was announced, to believe implicitly in the assurance made on both sides that there had been a complete agreement on questions of policy. One obvious point in the censoring of the newspaper article suggests the nature of the problem on which the War Minister and the rest of the Cabinet might have held opposed views. Lieut-enant-Commander Fletcher is reported to have said that the question at issue “is whether the article was censored because it contained facts valuable to the enemy or contrary to the policy of the Government.” It is at least highly improbable that a statesman of Mr Hore-Belisha’s experience and character would commit the elementary indiscretion of mentioning facts which he would know must come under the heading of military secrets. The implication is therefore that it was his opinions rather than his facts which the censor was instructed to delete. Nothing is to be gained from any detailed discussion on the possible nature of these opinions, although it is significant that they are alleged to have been expressed “at two points where an appeal is made for immediate and substantial armed support for Finland.” It would be ironic if the dissension which undoubtedly existed between Mr Hore-Belisha and the Government was a result of disagreement over a policy that events are now bringing to the forefront, perhaps to an extent that might not have seemed possible a few weeks ago. For it is increasingly plain that Finland, and her close connection with Allied interests in a rapidly developing situation, are raising questions that must vitally influence the shape and direction of the war in the next few months. It is possible, of course, that divided opinions have existed on the extent rather than the need of intervention in Finland. The censorship incident may throw only a dim light on the Government’s plans; but it can at least be included with the evidence that is now suggesting in many ways the strategic importance of the northern countries.