MILITARY TRAINING

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14110, 1 August 1911, Page 8

MILITARY TRAINING

to thb EorroK or "tub rRKss."

Sir, —One is very pleased indeed to see that the militarists havo at last made some attempt to givo a reason for the faith that is in them; one would have been still more pleased had they conic out into the open and signed their names to their letters. ]t is rather curious, is it not. that though they taunt the anti-militarists with cowardice, not one of them has had the courage to sign his name in full? It gives one to think, as the French would say. On tha other hn.nd, in both "The Press" and the "Lytte.lton Times" tho anti-militarists have given their full names. For aught I know, your correspondents arc but mere men of straw. However, personal taunts will not help us forward and had, I think, better bo left out of' the discussion.

Now. thero are several points clear from your correspondents' letters, and the most obvious is that they do not understand the anti-militarist* position. Let us, first of all, therefore, see how far we can go along tho road together. It seems to mo that thero aro throo chief dangers in the present political situation lo the peace of Europe. (1) The attitude of tho militarist party in Germany and elsewhere; (2) the impending death of tho Austrian Emperor; (3) the uncivilised condition of Kussia and Turkey. Now, the militarists assure us that tho greatest of these is the first, and the recent Jingoistic attitude of the Germans in Morocco —so far as one can judge from brief cablegrams—apparently confirms this. Howeve!. 1 believe, from all 1 can read and hear", that in another generation, or in even less time, the immediate, danger from this cause will have gone. Until such timo arrives, unfortunately, it will bo necessary for England to maintain a large navy. So far, I presumo, many of tho militarists will agree with mc. Now let us turn to Now Zealand; and here, I take it, comes the crux of tho present situation. In tho first place, I shrewdly suspect that not ono of your anonymous correspondents has read half a dozen books on tho peace sido of tho qoestion, whereas I believe I could pass as good an examination as most of them on the tenets of militarism. One cannot appeal, therofore 1 to any general knowledge of tho subject on their part, and in a short letter ono can only deal with principles, and cannot produce tho evidence on wluch they aro based. There are, however, six main objections to compulsory military training:—(l) That the training is given chiefly to children (2) That it is compulsory ; (3) That it is unnecessary and futile; (4) That the moral damage to tho community resulting from it is likely to bo greater- than any danger from outside; (5) That the development of tho military spirit is likely to bring about those very results against which it is intendod to safeguard us; (6) It is part of a gigantic system that has worked incalculable evil elsewhere.

I Now to mo tho fourth of the statements given above seems to constitute tho most important argument against compulsory military training. It is, however, tho most difficult to deal with; the moral resulte are to a large extent intangible and diffictilt of estimation. .Nevertheless, I should liko briefly to discuss it even though it leaves mc no room to deal with tho other objections to militarism. There Ji not at present in our schools t9iat! moral earnestness and that lovo of holiness that there ought to be. All ,1 think, are agreed upon this. Some put it down to lack of religious training, others to other reasons, but the caustt does not concern us. now. 'All will further agree that war is thing. Now are we not, by introducing into our schools, a belief in this evil thing, encouraging in our youth its; spirit? Let it be granted that the physical training, ana in manyr ways i the drill shed and camp are excellent for boys; but will the general effect of it all be to encourage in them .that zeal for personal • righteousness • and for the welfare of the community, that ought to mark the good citizen? I doubt it. I believe it will result in a general weakening of tho moral fibre of our manhood, and in a strength- ; ening of the immoral belief that i "plight is right." This, doubtless, will be pooh-poohed. Well, tho harm may not be appreciable at first; but that its effects will v be cumulative can scarcely be doubted. What was thp effect of the distant Boer war in England and in New Zealand upon schoolboy life? It was undoubtedly bad. It increased our national vanity, it encouraged in children ■ a belief that undei> certain conditions, it was right to glory in slaughter, to. oun: hoit-.ei, to lie and steal ana to make other children fatherless. Take ac an example of its spirit the confession ot a school inspector (Mr John AlcLeixl.' "New Age" December, 1910.) "I must conclude by telling y.u of an instance I /met with in my official work. In a school in the west of Ro&sshire. I gave to a class Paul Kruger as a subject for composition. Am.vng other things one girl of* thirteen years of ace wrote: —'Paul Kruger is a scoundrel and at the same time an earnest man of prayer, because he thinks he can deceive tho Alnjighiy aa n<* can a natural man.' (Laughter). I would have thought that >,«iis character would be obvious to all as well as to this little Highland girl; but we have cranks among us who admiro this piety and patriotism, and I am suro that these cranks will feel flattered %vhen I say that I regard Kruger and themselves as birds of a feather.'' ,' Laughter and applause.)

Now I suppose that the spirit represented by the above extnot wna r*mpant in our own schools during the Boor war; well, I believe that a similar spirit—in a less degree, perhaps— is being produced in our schools by militarism. That spirit does not make for righteousness and truth. It does not make for humility and for the vfrtuee of the Sermon on the Mount. But the militarist replies, "That is all very fine, but what about the danger of invasion?" Well, New Zealand is not likely to enter into any quarrels on her own account. If she is engaged in I war, it will be because Groat Britain i is engaged in it, and the foes of Great Britain will have no stray ships to send on marauding expeditions to the colonies—unless she is defeated. In that case we should be helpless. But what about Japan, I may be asked, frankly the recent articles on Japanese spies in New Caledonia, seem to mc to be wicked and absurd. I have had a glimpse of the Japanese-New Caledonian traffic; and can only say if tho men I saw were Japanese spies, <£Z. Hea 7 en *> eI P Japanese secret service, for it M badly in need of assistance Further, I thoroughly believe the Japanese intentions towards Australasia are perfectly honourable— quite apart from her treaty obligations. But look at the matter from the militarists' standpoint. L any ?h^2a° n th NC K 7 f must «»»'from be submarines, "torpedo boats, and mines. If every man in Now Zealand were armed to the teeth, he could not save our chief towns from being sheK from off-shore, and it would our throats and destroy our crops. r Ve r y im P ro, >ablo that either Germans or Japanese would come to New Zealand for coal or specie. Grantuig, however that the democracy (not Sir Joseph Ward) expresses its desire for an army, surely a much more efficient force might be obtained by training men from twenty-one to thirtyuve, rather than by forming army corps of boys below that age. Such men being all voters, and probably having homes and families of their own, would feel to the full the responsibility of their position. 70.000 men aro deemed sufficient to protect England, sureiy 10,000 would render Now Zealand secure. But to return to the pacificist's point of view and admitting that it is just possible that an invading

foroo might attempt a laudu» r ; l JL$i New Zealand, the question arises A5fJ this possibility justify us in KcentsSSJi the moral responsibility of inceJeMsSfi in our youth at tho most able time of their lives, a human elnughter as tho way jjuS[-i national disputes aro to bo We are at present outside the teLr." , ? 1 strom of militarism; w o have no wSb" rels with our neighbours. I lievo we would be adopting the bre** 4 nobler, and even safer cxnirso if declared to tho world at large thai Wr were in favour of arbitration for £S settling of all intcmational disjmte-1 and at the same timo cerjo to cofflS'C all our boys to go througk a counjeTS!' military training. I nm sorry tlai necessary limits to your spao* mt> from dealing with many otW«!" : pects of the question that require M discussion and havo not hsA u.-t Yours, etc.. "*"" ROUT. if. LANG ■ [Tho "limits of our space" to wlb'a 1 our correspondent refers win *m>9 tho publication of similarly 1«2 lottors an impossibility next few montlis.—Ed »tv£ Press."] *■•