The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1913. ARMIES AND NATIONAL DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 155, 1 July 1913, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1913. ARMIES AND NATIONAL DEFENCE.

For ike cause ikat lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the And the good that tee can do.

j The latest move in the international j armament competition is the effort made by Germany and Prance simultaneously to strengthen their military forces. j When two great rival nations are separated only by a nominal frontier, and with a long-standing tradition of mutual antagonism lietween them, it is futile to attribute the initiative in warlike preparations either to the one or ifhe other. jßut. in justice to France, it must be admitted that it was Germany in this instance that moved first. The German amy has a considerable numerical superiority over the French army, and the knowledge of this lias kept France in a state of nervous apprehension for a long time past. But. when .1 few months ago Germany suddenly decided to augment her standing ami.i. the ominous concentration of forces 011 the Rhine frontier which bus so often agitated France during the past forty years, received a new significance, and the French

nation promptly accepted Germany's move as a deliberate challenge. At once a Bill wits introduced lengthen in-.r • the period of service for the French : troops, and generally increasing the peace strength of the regular forces, with the avowed intention of neutralising this ■ great acces-iim to Germany's fighting power. In both countries a considerable amount of opposition bus been raised to j these schemes, and the Social Democrats in Paris, as well as in Berlin, have de|nouneed the excessive expenditure on' warlike preparations. But our present object is chiefly to point out that these , two great nations, in spite of these objections, are absolutely determined to [maintain themselves at a high level of jmilitary efficiency, and that the protestheard against the excesses of the military system have no bearing en the universally accepted principle of the ncces- i ■ sit\ for adequate national defence. | In considering the attitude adopted by' ! the Social Democrats toward this great I question, we must remember that there: is iiH»>h re.oic th; !i in, rely defensive i warfare potentially involved in l!,o.-o jmilitary preparations. c.!n the one [ baud, it can hardly be contended that

Germany's foreign policy is essentially peaceful in intention or in effect. The "mailed fist" and the '-rattling sabre" *. v pify admirably the aggressive and pugnacious tendencies that Germany has displayed in recent years in the Far East, in North Africa, and in Europe. The German people, who. as a whole, arc lovers of peace, recognise this; and while most of them deplore it, they know that there is some reasonable excuse for the determination of the Kaiser to render their country impregnable, whether on land or sea. For France, on her side of the border, is still inspired by a steadfast resolve to avenge her wrongs and to wipe out the humiliation of "tbe terrible year"; and while the French

nation resents furiously the truculent and overbearing tone often adopted by German diplomats, they know as well as the Germans that at any favourable opportunity the rulers of the Republic may give the long-expected signal for the

"revanche." To put it briefly. Frenchmen and Germans all know that so far as they are mutually concerned, only a suitable occasion is needed to precipitate a terrible conflict between them. And, knowing this, the people of France and Germany all recognise the necessity for effective preparations against the risks of war. More than this, practically everyoody in France, as in Germany, admits the responsibility thrown upon hhm of fighting in defence of his country, existence, and even for his country's hon ; our: and the protests raised against the Army Bills in the two countries at the present lime bear solely on those abuses of militarism which, under such political and social conditions as prevail on the Continent, are inseparable from any atjtempt to organise a national army. What jllerr Schoiiiomann has just said in the | Reichstag about the arhitrar.v and tyrannical conduct in which the military authorities under such conditions are liable to indulge is painfully 'rue, but it applies only to the excesses of a system inadequately controlled by constitutional methods and carefully sheltered from public criticism. But neither Jaures, in France, nor Scheidcmann and Bcbel, in Germam-, nor any of their Socialist followers, have ever confused these two _is-

tinct issues, nor have they ever ed, even when denouncing the abuses of militarism, that they repudiate the principle of national defence or deciine to accept tl.eir personal responsibilities for the safety of the Fatherland.

These general comments on the growth of European armaments seem to us to have a very distinct bearing on the great question of national defence in the form in which it has been recently raised for discussion in tbie country. It ft easy to show that New Zealand is not in the game position as France or Ger-m.-ray, so far as liability to feudden attack .is concerned. But it is futile to pretend that this country must always continue to enjoy such immunity: and recent events in the Far East and the Pacific, should at lead quicken our determination to do what lies in out

power -to make those preparations against the risks o; war which have so often been described as the surest guarantee of peace. With this object in view, our Government has devised a system of national training, which, while it is incomparably easier and less oppressive -than any military system in force in Europe to-day, represents, in our opinion, the minimum of effort and sacrifice that can justly be required from the inhabitants -of a country that they may some day be called upon -to defend. And the only serious opposition to this system of compulsory military trainings— apart- from a negligible minority of •'religious objectors"—has been raised by a small but noisy body of maleontentß, who pToteist that the country is not worth defending, and that tliey do not recognise their obligation to protect it.

A typical member of this class was interrogated by the Minister for Utfcno 1 in t'hristx-hnrch the other day. "Will you make an equivalent sacrifice by providing some other service for the State?" asked Mr. Allen. "I will not oid or abet the Act." was the reply. "I was asked to get into the ambulance, but 1 declined." "Rut will you gn c equivalent service, say. to llie City ;->rporation':" "Xo." was the answp-. "Do you want other men to make a sacrifice for their country while you mak?. none?" pursued the Minister. Then the "antimilitarist" rose to the full hrigrt of the

occasion with 0. dramatic cumtcrquerr. "What country have I to defend?" Of course, with men of this t vpc argument is impossible. There is only one appropriate answer tr> sn'h a question— if they ua not think the country worth defending, they .-houll not be allowed to live here, profiting at the expense of others who arc ready to make sacrifices and bear burdens in

their country's cause. We can understand the conscientious objections felt, for example, by the Quakers to any form of military training or service. Rut we observe, in a recent issue of the

"Kriend." a- full and frank admissiun of the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. "Shall it be said that :1m Society of Friends arc only barren and negative in their Peace principles? Shall it be said that we are glad to shelter ourselves; safely behind our soldiers and sailor-. whiVt unwilling to render any national service equivalent to theirs':" The "Friend - ' answers its own question with an urgent appeal to it- readers t.> prove that they are Hilling to do oorvicc for their country in others ways -in-c the way of camps and battles ir. birred '.-. them. And it .should help to .-:rc-ngth n n the hands of the advocates of national training here to know th.it the members of tie Society nf Friends are as keenly alive to the nccerasily for performing some definite -ervi.'M <.n behalf of their country as any French or German patriot in Europe to-day.