AIR WAR AGAINST GERMANY

Timaru Herald, Volume CLV, Issue 22831, 2 March 1944, Page 5

AIR WAR AGAINST GERMANY

Industries Being Wiped Out Debate In House Of Commons By Telegraph—N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright LONDON, Feb. 29. The battle which the Bomber Command and United States Army Air Forces are fighting over Germany is on so different a scale that it is impossible to compare it with the German blitz on Britain, stated the Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair) to-day.

The huge centre of war industry in the Ruhr (Hamburg), Berlin and many other German cities had been obliterated said Sir Archibald. In the years under review the United States Air Force entered the battle in full strength. The recent weather had also enabled the British and American Bomber Commands to combine day and night operations and operations from Italy with those from Britain. It might be well that historians of the future would look back upon this period between the February and March moons as one of the decisive stages of the whole war. Our offensive was producing results which were visible and measurable, and photographs of the results were always taken as soon as possible after attacks. Sir Archibald Sinclair gave Instances of the results of recent bombing on German war industries. It was in the photographs of bomb damage that we could read some at least of the reasons why Germany had no longer an abundance of manpower, and materials to throw into the offensive. Far better than capturing and destroying 100 enemy tanks in the field, perhaps after they killed many of our men, was to destroy them, half-com-pleted in the shops, and at the same time the tools with which the enemy could in a month produce 200 more. Research Organisation

In the debate of the Air Estimates, Mr A. Woodburn (Labour) urged that whatever the strength of our Air Force was dissipated after the war, we should maintain our great research organisation until such time as peace could be guaranteed. It was clear that this country would have to maintain an air force capable of safe-guarding our interests.

Squadron-Leader J. R. Robinson (Unionist member for Blackpool) who is serving in the forces, referred to recent criticism of our bombing policy and said we should make it abundantly clear that Allied bombing had nothing at all to do with revenge. It was entirely governed by strategic military necessity. No crews had ever been briefed to destroy a German target which had no industrial or military significance. Any suggestion to the contrary was most unfair criticism of a body of men who were prepared to sacrifice their lives to destroy the German war machine in order to preserve the freedom of our country and effect the liberation of the peoples of Europe. German industry must be bombed until Its productive capacity fell far behind the needs of the German forces.

Not a Bargaining Point Mr Frank Bowles (Labour) moved a resolution stressing the importance of civil aviation in the post-war world. “It should not be regarded as a bargaining point between the nations, but placed on the basis of full international co-operation. The Labour Party recognises with enthusiasm the joint declaration by Australia and New Zealand in January that the Labour Governments of Australia and New Zealand, with the Labour Party of Britain will, after the war, form a large nucleus standing for the principle of internationalism in civil aviation.” Replying to questions concerning dive-bombers, the Under-Secretary for Air, Captain R. A. Balfour, said we had received deliveries of American divebombers, but that practice had shown that actually fighter-bombers proved much more successful for the function of dive-bombing than dive-bombers themselves. The Germans, too, were turning over to the production of fighter-bombers. Captain Balfour added that progress had been made in torpedo aircraft attacks on battleships, but the supply of German battleships was limited, and we had difficulty in obtaining an adequate number of targets. Britain was taking a great interest in the heliocopter, and personally he was convinced that it had an enormous future. After Germany was defeated Britain would still need a very large air force for a long time, for we had the policing of Europe to undertake and the battle against Japan to which we had pledged ourselves. Suspicion of Dominions

Mr R. M. Hughes, K.C. (Labour) speaking after Mr Bowles’ motion said that civil aviation left in private hands would lead the way. Shipping companies were asking for a share in civil aviation, but why should they be given it. Shipping companies were not likely to encourage air development if it took the cream of their traffic. Civil aviation should be separated from the Air Ministry. Captain Wright (Unionist) referring to the suggestion of suspicion on the part of the Dominions of British intentions in post-war civil aviation, asked if this were not due to the old fear that playing with the Mother Country meant once more coming under its domination. The Government should make it clear that it was our desire to work together as one great unit with everybody equal partners. Air bases al! over the world should eb open to all on a reciprocal basis. Flight Lieutenant W. Teeling (Unionist) said that if the Labour Party was going to decry future aviation as their speakers had done in the debate, they were not going to get the support of our young men and women. They would not be attracted by the kind of internationalism which Labour favoured. Our own young pilots were looking forward to the opportunity of jobs in civil aviation all over the world. Mr Quintin Hogg (Unionist) said the Labour Party now produced a restrictive policy not a policy of development. They persistently refused any development of civil aviation unless it strictly confirmed to their own doctrinal approach. It was a policy of bedlam, not a policy of idealism, but a policy of fantasy.

Mr Bowles’ motion was withdrawn and the debate was closed.