NAVY IN PEACE AND WAR

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20983, 11 October 1933, Page 8

NAVY IN PEACE AND WAR

i $- — i | REAR-ADMIRAL BURGES I WATSON'S VIEWS i i DOUBTS ABOUT DISARMAMENT (MESS ASSOCIATION' TELEGKAJI.) INVERCARGILL, October 10.

Invercargill Rotarians were privileged at to-day's luncheon to hear an outspoken address on the world situation by Rear-Admiral F. Burges Watson, who deplored the excessive amount of talk which, he said, led nowhere. He pleaded for an increase in Britain's naval strength as the surest means of security for the Empire.

"A strong navy never has been and never will be, an instrument of aggression," he said. "The navy in command of the sea can bring economic pressure on to an enemy, but alone it cannot produce a decisive result. The navy is the shield; the army is the spearhead. If we had a strong navy and a large army our intentions would be definitely aggressive, but our army is only a small professional army to help to keep what we have. In our long history of peace and war our navy has acted as a shield to protect us from invasion, and to hold the sea free for our trade. Even in war the navy's role is one of protection and preservation rather than destruction."

Admiral Burges Watson referred to Mr Baldwin's speech at the Conservative Conference at Birmingham. He said the important part of Mr Baldwin's utterance lay in the following sentence. "The nation that breaks the disarmament convention will have no friend in this civilised world, and the same is true of any nation which deliberately prevents such agreement from being reached." "Well, supposing," said Admiral Burges Watson, "some great nation refuses to sign? What of it? How far are the rest going to show their 'unfriendship'? 1 must not say hostility. That is far too strong. Cut them when we meet them in the street? Send them a very strong note? Put economic pressure on them? 'Yes, that's it—put economic pressure on them,' says the pacifist, but I say it is just that very thing that makes wars. The nation that has already refused to sign will know on which side its bread is buttered before it takes that step. When economic pressure is applied ■it will pick out a nation on which it feels it can register a good, sound kick. Are ail the other prigs going to join in and help the assaulted one? lam surprised at Mr Baldwin talking such balderdash, particularly in the face of what happened lately in the League of Nations over | iust such a case. He talks of the awful consequences if the nations rearm. Which nation has not re- ' armed? Germany is complaining be- ! cause by treaty she is not allowed Uo. So much for that fallacy!"