STRATEGY IN THE PACIFIC

Timaru Herald, Volume CLIII, Issue 22491, 28 January 1943, Page 6

STRATEGY IN THE PACIFIC

Australia Protests

A Holding War Favours Tht Enemy N.Z.P.A.—Special Australian Correspondent CANBERRA, January 27. A strong protest against the relegation by the United Nations strategy cf the South-west Pacific to a holding war was made by the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr J. Curtin) in a broadcast to the people of Australia and the United States.

The South-west Pacific, he said, was too crucial to be left to a force >f caretakers and a holding war policy meant that Japan was buying cheaply the time she required to exploit her new resources for an onslaught which the United Nations would find costly to fight out. Mr Curtin outlined the part winch the Australian forces had taken on Hie sea, on the land and in the air and the sacrifices that had been made by her sons.

“I would hesitate to delineate what has been done but for that fact that it is necessary to show that we are far from being helpless, inefficient moaners in the face of the enemy," he said “We have paid the price for our seal of nationhood. We paid it cheerfully as free people in a free cause and we will go on paying it, but it is also the charter of our right to share in tne common pool of Allied resources. In point of strategy the preservation of Australia is vital to the United Nations, for the earlier the attack against the heart of Japan the less costly and more decisive the result will be. Adequate Forces Needed “I put it to the American people that the men of Corregidor can be avenged only if the naval and air strengths in this theatre are adequate to the plans of the commander. "Any other conception of strategy involves the Pacific war becoming a defensive front until the United Nations have achieved victory everywhere except against Japan. "Neither Mr Churchill nor President Roosevelt has placed a time limit on the war against Hitler. Whatever that period may be and however long it may be. it will be a period during which Japan can build up to a strength that may well make her impregnable. Mr Churchill and Mr Roosevelt know the Australian viewpoint. It is no insular submission. Just as we agreed from the very moment that Hitler struck at world freedom in 1939 that we must contribute our share in the global war, we say that that global war involves the South-west Pacific theatre as an integral part of the total conflict. It cannot be left to an obscure afterwards.

“Greater air and naval strength to support the forces now fighting would have an immediate and significant impact on Japanese plans. It would enable the co-ordination of Allied fighting power to be brought to bear at places and at the point and time where their striking power could well be decisive.” A Frank Plea “Mr Curtin did not plead for special favours but for a broader conception of the danger which threatens all the Democracies. It was the Prime Minister’s frankest appeal for more help from America in the war against the Japanese.” The “Sydney Daily Telegraph” this morning offers the above editorial comment on Mr Curtin's world-wide Australia Day broadcast. Tire paper agrees that Australia is not the best base for a direct attack against Japan, but says there is no doubt that if Australia goes, the Pacific would be left “wide open” to the Japanese and that America would then have to defend her western shores.

“This is the point that Mr Curtin tried to drive home in the bluntest words he has so far talked to our ally,” adds the “Telegraph.” “Greater American assistance in ships, men and machines is therefore essential not only for the sake of Australia, but also for the sake of American people as well.” The views expressed by Mr Curtin on the conduct of the Pacific war fairly well reflect the opinions of the great bulk of Australians. Their hopes that a greater proportion of the strength of the United Nations may be allocated to this theatre have been raised by persistent reports from Washington that important announcements are to be made in the direction of global strategy, and will mean that more attention will be given to the war in the Pacific. An American Champion A great champion for closer American attention to the struggle against Japan and for increased striking power by the Allies in the South Pacific has been the military writer of the “Christian Science Monitor," Mr Joseph Harsch, author of “Pattern of Conquest,” who has had wide experience of both the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. Mr Harsch recently pointed out to Americans the inadequacies of the Pacific War Council, which he contends was “instituted by President Roosevelt as a superficial concession to Australia under extreme pressure. It was never regarded as more than a sop in official American eyas and a grudging sop at that, and it has suffered the inevitable fate of mechanism formed in such circumstances—meetings have become less frequent and the President informs members of the broad outlines of de cisions reached elsewhere.” Emphasising the desirability of China and the Democracies in the South Pacific (Australia and New Zealand' having a greater voice in the decisions of global strategy, Mr Harsch points out, for the benefit of his American readers, that the Pacific Council is no’ a deliberating or deciding body but gathers to learn decisions reached by the American and British chiefs of staffs.