RESTIVE MOOD IN BRITAIN

Southland Times, Issue 24754, 27 May 1942, Page 5

RESTIVE MOOD IN BRITAIN

Demand For Action

LONDON, May 25.

The restive mood in Britain continues unabated> The people are demanding not only affiion, but successful action. The Economist says: “The strongest of all currents behind the eddies in the recent debate in the House of Commons is the demand of the ordinary people for action. They are asking for some further sign that the job is positively in hand. They ask not for assurances but for proof. “(1) They call for evidence that weapons made in the factories will be used with success in the field. “(2) They demand that no vested or sectional interest or service, industrial or labour, shall stand in the way of action. “Ever since England was saved in 1940 from what seemed certain defeat the demand for action has stood first. It has been multiplied by the sufferings and success of the Russian people, fanned by the disasters in the Far East, exacerbated by the escape of the German warships from Brest, and stepped up by the controversy over the fuel rationing.” “In a recent survey of production problems mass observation recorded a two-fold sentiment as the leading cause of dissatisfaction with the war effort.

First, weapons and men were mobilized but not employed effectively. Second, the interests of a certain section of the community still stood in the way of full efficiency. The task now is to solve the problems of command and industrial organization.” The Economist says that to say Illis is not to share in the intrigues against Mr Churchill and his Ministers. INTRIGUES IN PARLIAMENT

“It is the right and the duty of every responsible citizen and every worthwhile member of Parliament to demand the best policy from the Government,’ it says. “There are intrigues. On the Tory back-bench there is surely resentment against the Prime Minister and his non-Tory advisers. On the Labour back-bench there is petulance and impatience with the Conservative connection. They shoot here, there and everywhere, but they mean to hit Mr Churchill. But these are only the petty plaints of little men afraid of the darkness that may fall on them. It is England that is at stake, not this flotsam and jetsam. The Government is not challenged by these factitious people but by facts? Mr Harold Nicholson, in The Spectator, comments on the demand for a second front as follows: “I have been both touched and disconcerted lately by realizing with what deep emotion the men and women of this country centre their hopes on the Russian Front. I do not find in addressing audiences whether in London or the provinces that they respond with more than perfunctory approval to commendation of prowess on sea, on land, or in the air, nor are they vitally mindful of the stark dangers through which we have' passed or even the gratitude we owe to those who, under the inspiration of our heroic leader, saved Britain when she was crippled, battered and alone. I do not find that they recognize the fact that the selfless, almost reckless, help given in our hour of trial by the Dominions, colonies and dependencies is proof that our Imperial mission has not been ill fulfilled. The refusal of Occupied Europe to surrender either to blandishments, starvation or police terrorism is taken (unwittingly, ignorantly and selfishly) almost for granted.

ENTHUSIASM FOR RUSSIA “Reference to the struggle in which our Chinese Allies have so long been engaged provokes but a ripple of condolence, while a statement of the vast power which the United States is so rapidly accumulating for final victory arouses among English audiences but a few nods of perfunctory acquiescence. Yet one has only to mention Russia and the whole meeting flames as suddenly as a whisp of hay drenched with paraffin. One feels upon one’s cheek the wind of the wings of passion.” Mr Nicolson praises the Russian glory and continues: “The clamour for a second front is inevitable and in some ways salutary, but it does not proceed from any acute understanding of the strategic or transport position as it exists today. First, we are already fighting on three fronts—the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Middle East. Second, the assistance given Russia by the presence of our armies in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran is both useful and contiguous. Third, the public underestimates the substantial sacrifices made in providing Russia with streams of British war material.

“It is necessary also to bear in mind that if Hitler fails to crush the Russian resistance in the next three months he may well hesitate to commit his people to a second winter campaign. It is more probable that if he fails this summer to achieve a decisive victory over Russia he will strive desperately to extricate himself from his difficulties by offering very lavish terms. We must remember that Hitler is in a position, if necessary, to offer rich rewards to Russia in return for an eastern peace. He could promise to give her, if he wins, not the Straits only, but the Persian Gulf and the whole Empire of India. What counter-offers could the United Nations oppose to such extreme generosity? “I will be accused, I suppose, of displaying an anti-communist bias. I have no such bias. All I regret is that so many of my countrymen should put all their eggs in their warm-minded-ness into the Russian basket. It is a splendid and sturdy basket which may well bring all the eggs out to market, but it is not the only basket. There is our own little basket which has proved taut and tough, of which we ought to be more proud. Then there is the American basket—strong, expansive and capacious.”