A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK

THE leading article on the War Cabinet in Wednesday's Times was discreet, but suggestive. Its main concrete proposal, and even that took the form of a tentative question, was that the Cabinet as a whole might apply itself directly to the control of policy and strategy, and the Defence Committee cease to exist. One advantage, or merely result, of such a change would be to dispel the fear, or merely the prospect, that Lord Beaver- brook might become Defence Minister, as it has been con- fidently rumoured that he would. The Cabinet, so far as persons outside it can judge, is an effective working body of men who understand one another and co-operate well. It is quite certain that Lord Beaverbrook's return would not improve the quality of that co-operation, nor does the advocacy by his papers of an immediate second front and a General Election sug- gest him as the most dependable of counsellers at an emergency like the present. It appears to be clearly realised in Moscow (and there are the best of reasons why it should be) that another front will be created the moment such a development is practically possible ; but on those possibilities the latest American figures of sinkings cast a sinister light. Insistence on a premature move with inadequate forces is the worst of services even to the Russians.

* * * * A document which for some reason, probably lack of space, the daily Press of this country has largely ignored—the United States Naval Department's communiqué on the Midway Island battle, issued last week—contains some passages poignant in their simplicity, which I quote verbatim as they stand. The battle, as is well known, was exclusively one of aircraft against ships. This is part of what happened: " Six Marine Corps torpedo-planes attacked enemy force in face of heavy odds ; only one of these six planes returned to its base."

" Sixteen Marine Corps dive-bombers attacked and scored three hits on carrier ; only half of attacking planes returned."

" Fifteen torpedo-planes from this group proceeded to attack at once without protection or assistance of any kind. None of these fifteen planes returned. Sole survivor of thirty officers and men of this squadron was Ensign ? (name mutilated in transmission).

There is a sublimity of heroism here that must not go unrecognised. It was like gallantry which carried the men of the Swordfish squadron to death in the attacks on the Scharnhorst ' and Gneisenau' * * * * In another and different sphere honour has at last been paid where it was justly due. In the desire to give the fullest credit to Indian and Dominion forces for their valour and their success in the earlier fighting in Libya an impression derogatory to troops from the British Isles was unintentionally created. That has been handsomely rectified this week by the official publication of the names of the British regiments, making up two-thirds of the Eighth Army, which have played their part in the recent fighting. They make a Homeric or Shakespearean catalogue—the Coldstreams and Scots Guards, the Green Howards, the Durham Light Infantry, the Worcesters and Eas: Yorkshires, the Rifle Brigade and the King's Royal Rifles, the Highland Light Infantry and the Northumberland Fusiliers, with, of course, the R.A.S.C., the R.A.O.C. and the signallers, and above all the Royal Tank Regiment. The list may be incomplete, but even as it is we are grateful for it. Mr. D. N. Pritt, whose observations on political matters are n as a rule of the first moment, has, I see, been indulging in peculiarly offensive form of innuendo. The reason for the delay opening a second front in Europe, he is reported as having sa on Monday, " was not that Mr. Churchill was unwilling, but that powerful influences in high places still hankered after the def of Russia and reconciliation with Hitler." What does this mean, ;What are " high places " in relation to the Prime Minister? The

is only one natural inference ; does Mr. Pritt desire it .to be dra or not? The strategical reasons for the delay in opening a secon

front are known to everyone—except, apparently, Mr. Pritt. Bu suspicion and division must be diligently sown at a time when con

fidence and unity were never more essential. -The harvest will reaped by—whom?

* * * * A rather remarkable mystery still surrounds the facts under

lying a despatch sent by the Cairo correspondent of The Times to his paper nearly a month ago. " It is expected," he wrote, " that Mr. Churchill's statement will contain an announcement which may be a pointer to one of the fundamental reasons for our reverse [in Libya] ; but until this is made public— as it must be some time, even if it is omitted from the Prime Minister's statement—it is not permitted to disclose what it is.' This stirs up curiosity well. The facts hinted at remain undisclosed.

* * * * So little reliable news is coming out of Germany that even straws in the wind are worth watching. A neutral now in London who

happened to be in his own capital when diplomats posted at Berlin and Paris were home on furlough learned from them that though the diplomatic service gets food tickets for two or three times the quantities to which ordinary citizens are entitled even

these increased rations have always to be supplemented by consign- ments from home. Asked how he found London for food, he replied that he always had more than he needed.

* * * * Salvage campaigns, and in particular the levy on iron railings and the like for war purposes, are all to the good, but some reason and decency in their conduct may properly be looked for. I hear of a churchyard in Hampshire where the chains on those graves so equipped have been removed by the crudest methods without

any request or notice to the owners ; the chains and the posts carrying them were apparently simply hit off with sledge-hammers,

the stones in which they were set being cracked and smashed

indiscriminately. I give the facts as I get them. If they are true it seems a particularly heartless and sacrilegious outrage on the part of some authority or other.

* * * *

When my distinguished colleague Harold Nicolson permits himself to talk about " the temple of Janus being temporarily closed for repairs " it seems time to limber up for action. What repairs? Why repairs? There is an unsavoury odour of dilapidation about the term. The Temple of Janus does not close—not this particular temple at any rate—though there may be occasional and opportune changes in the ministrant. At any rate the old firm is on the old stand again now for better or worse, quite sufficiently revivified to deal as may be called for with any comment, marginal (i.e. on the border-line) or otherwise. Who imputes repairs may soon himself