MANY QUESTIONS IN LONDON

Southland Times, Issue 24115, 2 May 1940, Page 7

MANY QUESTIONS IN LONDON

MILITARY POSITION CAUSES ANXIETY ARTICLES SUGGEST EVACUATION LIBERAL LEADER SEEKS REASON (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright) (Received May 1, 6.30 p.m.) LONDON, April 30. Sir Archibald Sinclair, Leader of the Liberal Opposition, in a speech deplored the defeatist attitude of some British people and asked the reason for the apparently inspired articles suggesting evacuation. He expressed the opinion that evacuation of southern and central Norway would only be justifiable if the military situation was beyond repair. “The country is entitled to know,” he said, “whether the troops sent were highly-trained regulars with experienced officers and adequate equipment. If they were, why was the British counterstroke so slow in coming? “The British will not complain if the Government moves stealthily and strikes Germany without warning,” said Sil- Archibald. “Is it true that while Mr Chamberlain was warning Sweden and Norway of the approaching danger, he was ordering the dispersal of the force that had been ready for Finland?” he asked. “The false prophecies, ‘Hitler missed the bus; we have turned the corner; we are now 10 times more confident than six months ago’ remind me of the prophecy ‘Munich meant peace in our time.’ ” The Daily Mail, in a leading article headed “Fight or Withdraw?” says that Sir Archibald Sinclair’s speech is of the highest importance. It throws into relief the gravity of affairs in Norway, where the Allies’ position is critical. If German claims are correct, our tenure of central and southern Norway is seriously compromised. The Chiefs of Staff must decide. No question of political reputation can influence the decision. Sir Archibald Sinclair raised questions of the organization of the campaign. They are being asked elsewhere. The Times says that the serious nature of the Norwegian news is undeniable. It cannot be disguised that British communications with Andalsnes are likely to become difficult. DRAIN ON GERMAN RESOURCES CONTINUING LIABILITY IN NORWAY (Received May 1, 6.30 p.m.) (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, April 30. With the Admiralty announcement this morning that three German transport and supply ships had been sunk since April 8 the total is brought up to 28, in addition to tire Maine, which was scuttled, another set on fire and 10 more transports and supply ships set on fire and probably sunk. Besides these, 10 German transports and supply ships have been hit by torpedoes and probably sunk and the German Expeditionary Force has also suffered losses from mines. The German losses of men have been very heavy, if those lost with the transports are included. The German invasion was cleverly planned and capably executed. Nevertheless, it was based on the expectation that Norwegian resistance would not be met or would quickly collapse. In the event it has proved quite otherwise and the German military command is faced with a continuing liability, involving defending at a heavy expenditure in men and material positions far from home bases and with lines of communication threatened by the Allied command of the sea and by Allied air action.

A Press telegram from Zurich tonight underlines this aspect of the matter. The message states that it has been learned from an excellent source in Berlin that the High Command is feeling increasing anxiety that the war in Norway will develop into trench warfare and the commanders there have been ordered to do all in their power to prevent this. The message goes on to refer to the prevalent opinion among neutral observers that a protracted war in Norway would seriously upset the plans of the German military authorities. Whether this news report is well founded or not, informed opinion here is satisfied that when the final reckoning can be made on Herr Hitler’s Norwegian adventure it will be found to have been much more costly to Germany and to have brought her so little advantage that it may well prove to have subjected her limited resources to an excessive strain. USE OF AIR FORCES IN WAR ADJUNCT TO LAND AND SEA CAMPAIGNS (Received May 1, 6.30 p.m.) RUGBY, April 30. Some students of aerial warfare regard the development of the war as showing that air forces can be more usefully employed as an adjunct to the land and sea forces than as an independent arm and point out that both in the Polish campaign by the German High Command and now in Norway by the Allied Command as well as the German Command, it has shown its highest effectiveness when so used. They point out where manoeuvring is still possible—“a war of movement” — then much is gained by aerial attack on lines of communication and facilities such as air bases, which, in such circumstances, must be restricted. If, however, the war becomes one of strong defensive positions occupied by opposing forces, as on the Western Front, bombing attacks on military objectives behind the enemy lines dissociated from land attack merely represent a dissipation of effort. The Allied bombing attacks in Norway and Denmark have been confined to military objectives within the sphere of actual operation.' It is pointed out that this is so in fact as well as theory. There has been no confirmed report that any civilian has been killed as a result of the Allied raids, although they have been intense. These attacks, it is emphasized, have been an essential element of a joint land, sea and air campaign being directed towards carefully chosen objectives as part of a general tactical scheme.