In defence of Winston Churchill
Re Fake takes (Jan 31), Winston Churchill’s proposed naval attack on Gallipoli was replaced by a land attack which, far from bypassing the stalemate on the Western Front as the Easterners proposed, replicated it.
And Admiral Tom Phillips took the Prince of Wales and Repulse out in search of rumoured Japanese landings but refused proposals for air cover.
Churchill was against earlier and premature (1943) landings in France, which the Americans wanted. Probably he did not pray for the D-Day landings to fail, but had to be discouraged by Alanbrooke, his chiefof-staff, from sending British troops everywhere – the Balkans, Norway, Sumatra and even a second British Expeditionary Force in France immediately after Dunkirk.
Postwar, Clement Attlee and Mountbatten accepted Indian independence and partition, which Churchill had opposed.
John Wilson, Johnsonville
Treaty documents
Yet another alleged translation of the so-called ‘‘Treaty of Waitangi’’ (Treaty translation ‘labour of love’, Jan 28) . Nothing that any scribe today, saturated in modern supposed meanings of te reo, might write could possibly be superior to the official translation of 1869 by TE Young of the Native Department.
Even better than that is Hobson’s final draft of February 4, 1840, dubbed the ‘‘Littlewood Treaty’’ by officialdom and declared of no importance by the propagandists of the ‘‘Treaty-2-U’’ caravan because ‘‘it wasn’t signed’’.
Of course drafts are not normally signed and while it may have no importance as a legal document, it is of critical importance historically.
Because it upsets their theories and exposes the illegitimacy of much official policy, officialdom does not want to know about it.
Instead, we are required to accept James Freeman’s fake ‘‘Treaty in English’’, the second page of the document signed at Waikato Heads for an overflow of signatures. One wonders what effect this new ‘‘labour of love’’ will have on that perversion of the truth?
Wake up New Zealand. If you do not have a teaspoonful of Ma¯ ori blood, you will soon become second-class citizens. The choice is yours.
Geoff Parker, Whangarei [abridged]
Own bias on show
John Bishop (Letters, Feb 1) correctly calls out the couple who objected to the views of David Moffett being given ‘‘the oxygen of publicity’’. They were indeed being intolerant.
However, Bishop then spoils his argument and shows his own bias by accusing the political Left of not addressing the argument, but attacking the person.
In the last 50 years, by far the most intolerant leader we have suffered under was the Right-wing prime minister Robert Muldoon, infamous for consistently making personal attacks on his opponents. Remember the Colin Moyle affair?
Ian Frater, Te Aro
Worse to come
If middle-class voters feel they are getting screwed now (Struggling on $100,000, Feb 1), they need to brace for the coming hikes in power prices.
Bizarrely, with mining largely forbidden here, Huntly is now importing coal from Indonesia to keep the lights on for this hydro dry year.
The Government’s recent brilliant oil and gas exploration ban means that very expensive liquefied natural gas imports from Australia will be required soon, when our own gas fields run out. Not to mention the horrific costs to taxpayers of various light rail experiments and out-of-control rates increases, for example, 50 per cent for Christchurch.
Henry McLean, Newlands
Good healthcare for all
The Cancer Society has put a strong focus on services that need real improvements (Clark vows to improve cancer treatment, Feb 1). But it is important to see a bigger picture in health planning and delivery.
Many services need improvement. Lack of central co-ordination and huge under-investment by the last government are major impediments to overcome.
As a cancer survivor myself, with many family and friends who have died, survived, or are in palliative care because of cancer, I certainly want the improvements the society and the minister talk about.
But I also want a well-balanced distribution of healthcare across all health needs, so those without powerful advocacy groups also get high quality and equitable healthcare.
The minister’s commitment to improvements, and his Government’s substantial new investments in health, are most welcome. The chance of real health gains for all in the community now look much more positive. But they must be fairly distributed.
My biggest frustration with healthcare in New Zealand is the very limited expert analysis of our biggest industry. Our media are crammed daily with expert analysis of finance, business, primary industries, sport and politics. But there is little about health beyond complaints and disputes, and very few journalists with a detailed understanding of how the system works.
John Forman, Petone