The Southland Times WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1942. The Tragic Cost of Inefficiency

Southland Times, Issue 24684, 4 March 1942, Page 4

The Southland Times WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1942. The Tragic Cost of Inefficiency

IN A SPEECH quoted on Monday in a cable message ( from London, Captain David Margesson admitted honestly that he was not pleased by his removal from the War Office. He explained that changes had been made because public opinion demanded them, and he showed fairly clearly that he did ( not think they were necessary. “I warn you,’ he said, “that if changes are to be made every time we take a knock, then Britain’s democracy will follow in the footsteps of France.” British people found it hard to understand why a man whose major qualification was his authoritarian control of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons should have been appointed Secretary of State for War; and they are not likely to be alarmed by his forebodings about democracy. They are concerned with one thing only—getting on with the war. In this mood they will welcome every change which removes a few more unsuccessful leaders from high places. If public feeling could be tested in the camps as well as in the cities (both in New Zealand and Britain) it would probably be found that dissatisfaction with the Empire’s leadership, political and military, is profoundly deep and increasingly active. Mr Churchill remains the only leader of whom it can be said that he deserves the name of greatness. But one man cannot draw the complex administration of a total war into a smooth efficiency. He must depend to' a great extent on his departmental and service chiefs, and these are too often enjoying the fruits of privilege rather than the rewards of brilliant service. The appalling incompetence and lack of imagination in Malaya, revealed with equal force and clarity by correspondents of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Times of London, could not have been possible if the Army leaders had learned the lessons of modern warfare, or if the British Government had discovered the need for a clean sweep among senior army officers.

British and Dominion troops are still as good as any in the world, and better than most. In their dogged endurance and cheerful acceptance of danger they are unexcelled. But they are also intelligent, and they cannot be expected to remain blind or indifferent to the evidences of a palsied or obsolete leadership. When they are led by the right men there will be an end of lost battles and strategic withdrawals. There are men in New Zealand today who come straight from the battlefields of Libya, where they showed their mettle as soldiers and leaders. The Government should be eager to obtain from them the inside story of the battles in the Western Desert, and thereafter to place them where their experience can be used most quickly and effectively at the top of the defence system. Until such things are done, here and elsewhere (but not necessarily waiting upon a British example) there will persist in the public mind a sense of frustration and anger. Captain Margesson spoke of democracy. It is the essence of democracy that the general will should be free to express itself until the nation’s vigour can be directed towards a strong and victorious effort. And there is more to it than j that. A few days after entry into the war a famous journalist, Henry R. Luce, wrote an editorial. One paragraph deserves quoting: Democracies are always “inefficient,” are they? Then let’s get it said: This inefficiency cherished in times of war is another word for manslaughter, if not murder. To the extent that we coddle it hereafter in ourselves, in high places or low, we’re making our own soldiers in the field the cannon fodder of a barbarous and indecent I complacency. Democracy is strong, and worthy of survival, only while the people have the vision and the courage to demand that all incompetents and weaklings be swept into their deserved oblivion. A great awakening is needed, in New Zealand and inevery part of the Empire. And there are signs that it is coming.