EUROPE'S NEED OF ARMS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21729, 11 March 1936, Page 11

EUROPE'S NEED OF ARMS

; —• . Mr Baldwin's "Terrible Conclusion" HOPE FOR PEACE LABOUR CRITICISM OF DEFENCE PLANS (UNITED PRISS ASSOCIATION—COPYKIGHT.) (Received March 10, 7.5 p.m.) LONDON, March 9. , "It would be wrong to assume that our striving for peace is an indication of weakness," said the Prime Minister (Mr Stanley Baldwin) in the House of Commons, moving the approval of the White Paper on defence. He added: "Neither the Government nor the people of Britain will ever be intimidated by threats, from whatever quarter. Much as we regret the necessity for the White Paper proposals, they show that we are seriously in earnest in our determination to make a full effort to deter any would-be aggressor. We, as a nation, can go on longer than others; and if driven to it we shall not hesitate." Mr Baldwin reminded the House that Britain was still the greatest naval power. Hence it was inevitable that the heavy burden should fall on the British Navy in working out collective security—whether it meant only sanctions or whether it meant war.

The new programme represented a minimum in present circumstances. There could never be permanent peace in Europe as long as suspicion continued between France and Germany. The only hope lay in the achievement of a tripartite friendship by France, Germany and Britain. "Defence depends on the foreign policy of all countries," said Mr Baldwin. "One nation may make war, but it takes 50 to! secure peace. Europe has learned much since July. , Dealing With Aggression "Collective security was unable to prevent war between Italy and Abyssinia. lam convinced that you will be unable to prevent an aggressor going to war unless that aggressor knows that his advent into war will be met at once"—Mr Baldwin emphasised—"at once"—"by armed opposition; Europe is a long way from ability to enforce that. "Europe will have to , consider, when the present troubles are over, what collective security involves, and make up her mind whether she will make herself ready to use the necessary measures. I hope that she will. It will not be done in a day. "This is a horrible thing to have to say—but if the countries of Europe want to make an aggressor realise that his action will bring all the other members of the league upon him, they will have to be more ready for war than they are to-day. It is a terrible conclusion, but you cannot get away from it." The Government's proposals did not go beyond what was necessary to fulfil league obligations and, if collective security were not achieved, to make the country and the Empire safe against aggression.

Strong Criticism

Major C. R. Attlee (leader of the Labour Opposition), moving an amendment, said that Mr Baldwin had failed to deal with realities and had taken the short view. The Government had never tried to make collective security a reality. It regarded it as something to which it could give lip service.

While the Government talked disarmament there always seemed to bo some reservation for what was called "our particular Imperial needs." Mr Baldwin could at least have given the minimum cost of the proposals. Labour did not regard treaties as immutable, but they must be revised with the consent-of the signatories. The "White Paper contained nothing about the Empire. "We ask the Government to make anew start to deal.with the causes of war and try to recall the world to sanity," he said. Sir Archibald Sinclair (leader of the Opposition Liberals) said: "Herr Hitler has torn up a treaty which he himself had undertaken to respect; but let us give calm study to his constructive proposals."

Hitler's Action

"If we are to meet the challenge of totalitarian autocracies we must be prepared to make great changes in our system of defence, and to face heavy expenditure," said Sir Samuel Hoare. "I believe Herr Hitler's action was a blunder—l was going to say a crime, but I do not wish to use hard words. I believe it shakes the whole foundation of international agreements. Therefore J agree with Mr Eden's statement. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall do our utmost to get a good result from an unfortunate act." Mr R. A. Cary (Conservative) urged that any scheme of defence should be an Empire scheme w,ith, if the Dominions were agreeable, an Empire scheme of mobilisation. Mr J. McGovern (Labour) said: "If the Government puts arms into the hands of the working class, the working class's duty should be to overthrow capitalism—just as it is the duty of the German working class to remove Herr Hitler, General Goering, and Dr. Goebbels, who are the three greatest scoundrels the world has ever known." [The Labour Opposition amendment to the Government's motion for approval of the White Paper on defence is as follows:-r"As the safety of the country and the peace of the world* cannot be secured by reliance on armaments, but only by resolute pursuit of a policy of international understanding, adherence to the covenant of the League of Nations, disarmament, progressive improvement of international Labour standards, and economic cooperation to remove the causes of war, this House cannot agree to a policy which, in fact, seeks security in national armaments alone, and incites to a ruinous arms race between the nations, inevitably leading to war: and the House views with alarm the proposals for the reorganisation of industry on a war basis, which will enormously extend vested interests in arms manufacture, and create a serious menaceJqj>rganised labour and to

trade union standards; and the House .'.' has no confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, whose unworthy and ambiguous foreign policy has largely contributed to the present state of world unrest."]

LOAN FOR DEFENCE EXPENDITURE PLEA TO GOVERNMENT ; (Received March 10, 7.5 p.m.).LONDON, March 9. ■';.. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce has sent a letter to Mr Neville Chamberlain (Chancellor of the Exchequer),' urging that the new defence expenditure shall be covered by a loan, making., possible relief from income tax. in the next budget.