PREPARING FOR WAR.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 96, 26 April 1933, Page 6

PREPARING FOR WAR.

GERMANY AND HER NEIGHBOURS.

(To the Editor.) If the reference to armaments expenditure in the address of Mr. Walter Nash, MJ». for Butt, are reported verbatim in Thursday's "Star," it would appear that he owes the ' community a further explanation of his exact meaning in speaking of "the same mad race for armaments as prior to 1914." Most people will applaud his deprecation of war, if he refers to aggressive warfare, but he is not so clear in his attitude towards a defensive war. Thus he bundles all the nations together with the single exception of Germany, imply' ing that all the rest are preparing for aggressive warfare, although the actual term is only applied to France, who "spent 54/9 per head of her population on war preparations." Seeing that in one century France has been three times invaded and laid waste by Prussia, it Is' very hard to blame that country for expensive "war preparations" which are clearly for defence. No evidence shows any intention of aggressive warfare, which could easily been pursued during tie occupation of. .the Ruhr, and even in defence there is no evidence x of a single franc being expended in preparing \ for an attack from Spain, Britain, Belgium or \ Switzerland.' The whole expenditure is to - \ prevent a fourth wanton attack from truculent Prussia, made still more imminent by the rise of Hitlerism, and a minor expenditure on the south-east border, on the off-chance that some temporary excitement in Italy might cause a desire to regain the former domination of Senatus Populusque Romanum, both of which defensive activities would have been unnecessary if Britain and America had granted the request of Franc© for a guarantee against invasion. It is also very hard to take exception to Britain's expenditure of 47/10 per head, for there is not the slightest intention of aggressive warfare, the Navy being merely a glorified police force and the Army a mobile police. Why Italy requires to spend 33/ per head is not quite so clear, nor the 28/ C per head spent by the United States, but strong exception must be taken to the statement that "every German had to pay 11/3 last year towards. the cost of defending his country," for this is simply contrary to fact. Not a penny had to be' paid for that purpose, for Germany has been undefended since 1918, and not a single country has menaced her, nor is likely to, the, occasional barks from Poland being very much like a "pom" chirping at an Alsatian. Evidence that Mr. Nash is correct in his interpretation of Germany's expenditure would be welcomed, for even Denmark is now beginning to entertain the impression held in France, that this expenditure cannot be for defence, but is far more likely to be for offence. FOREWARNED AND FOREARMED.