THE “JAPANESE MENACE”

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22429, 16 June 1938, Page 9

THE “JAPANESE MENACE”

TO TBS BDITOB OS TBS PBBSB. Sir, —One can sympathise with Mr Savage’s impatience at Lord Rothermere’s “warning” to New Zealand, but, of course, it should be understood that as the proprietor of a penny paper of the sensational type. Lord Rothermere’s business is not to mind his own business. It has always been the policy of Lord Rothermere and his brother, the late Lord Northcliffe, to mind other, people’s. It is time; however.' that this Japanese bogy was laid. Mr George Lawn, the noted economist, whose knowledge of the problems of Pacific countries is probably as great, if not greater, than any other man in New Zealand, holds a very different opinion. He said: “This idea about the Japanese invading New Zealand has to be knocked on the head. It is utterly fantastic—the feverish nightmare of a fear-ridden military mind. The fact is that the name ‘New Zealand’ conveys no more even to the educated Japanese than the name ‘Heilungkiang’ does to the average New Zealander. The trouble is that the people who are spreading the rumours are either appallingly ignorant or else have an ulterior motive in attempting to create a ‘warmindedness’ in New Zealand. The problem of Japan is not a question of finding more land for the people to walk about on, but purely and simply a question of finding supplies of raw materials and foodstuffs, and. as a natural corollary, markets in which to sell the goods manufactured from the raw materials. If Japan made any move towards New Zealand she would instantly antagonise both the British Empire and the United States of America. The British Empire and America together provide more than half )f Japan’s total foreign trade—exports and imports—on which her whole economy depends. New Zealand buys from Japan less than two-tenths of 1 per cent. of Japan’s total exports and she sends to Janan just about the same infinitesimal fraction of Japan’? total imports. New Zealand’s policy with regard to Japan should be quite clear. The question of defence aeainsl Japanese aggression of our shores should be forgotten—completely. We should do everything in our power to cultivate the friendliest relations with Japan and make everv endeavour to build un our trade with her.” Lord Rothermere comes to the "terrible” conclusion that democracies cannot arm, and. therefore, have no future. If the British Empire is, dependent for its future on such an extremely costly and still uncertain policy, it might be argued that its continuance would be unjustified in any case.— Yours, etc., V. K. THOMPSON. Press Correspondent. Peace Pledge Union. P.O. Box 944. June 14, 1938. TO TH'B BOTTOB OT PRRBft Sir,—lt,is not difficult to recognise in the Rothermere lexicon of shibboleths the particular catchword responsible ’ for his recent attack on parliamentary . democracy, any more than it was difficult for a colonial to appreciate the interests behind his paper’s coverage of the Lord de Clifford trial. It ill becomes the worthy lord to criticise our defence programme when Europe is a hotbed crawling with the bacilli of war, and when London, the heart of the Empire, still presents such attractiveness as a target for air bombardment. Our defence is as much there as here; that is why we endeavour to take a live interest in the intrigue of British foreign policy. We realise that Spain’s Loyalists are indirectly fighting for our Mediterranean route, that China is indirectly fighting for India, and know that one of our greatest allies in our Pacific problems is an agreement with Russia. How far has diplomacy progressed in this direction? how much have the Cliveden Set helped Sir Robert Vansittart, knowing the strategical importance of Czechoslovakia as an air link between France and Soviet Russia, and the strong position of the- Soviet Air Force in the Far East? Taking Air Commodore Charlton as an authority, may I quote him as follows: “If Australia were to adopt a programme of naval construction, in the mistaken notion that by such means she could secure her shores, it would not be hard for Japan to do the same and maintain predominance. But if. on the other hand. Australia and New Zealand, both, were to equip their defences with an equivalent in air force. Japan could not, to any purpose, follow suit. For they would then be the Powers on 4he spot, operating against a sea-borne air force accommodated in carriers. While both Dominions are alive to the significance

of air power, Australia lags behind her sister. New Zealand is irreproachably modern in her estimate of air power. It is true that her problem of defence, more so than with Australia is simplified by her utter loneliness in the Southern Ocean, and the consequent ease with which she is therefore enabled to mark an invader’s approach; and it is true as well that Australia" is very likely to reqeive the impact of a blow before New. Zealand does, an attempt against Singapore being a sine qua non before the major enterprise can be pursued. Yet even so New Zealand is a most air-minded country. She has cast aside the theory of local defence of cities as leading to a wasted effort. Instead, she will depend on early information of the direction of an enemy approach, largely by means of sea patrol of light surface craft, and long range flying-boats... Acting on such intelligence, her shore-based bombers will be directed accordingly, the intention being that they, should intercept and, if possible, destroy the hostile fleet, and particularly its air-craft-carriers. while it is yet many hundred miles away. This is surely a commonsense proceeding and New Zealand is ideally situated to put it into practice.” The above extract should refute Lord Rothermere’s valued opinion, and the last sentence is apt and could easily be applied to activities other than defence.—Yours, etc., G.B.S. June 14, 1938.

»0 THE EDITOR OE THE PRESS. Sir, —I read Lord Rothermere’s defence warning with mild disgust and the letter in “The Press” yesterday by your correspondent, “26752,” with amazement. The former prophesied Japanese invasion on the sole grounds that the soil and climate are suitable, while the latter dispensed with grounds altogether and merely gave his feelings on the subject, which he seemed to think sufficient. I think that a look into the facts of the case will be well worth while. First, Japan is a small country, although larger than our own. and as she has a population of 60,000,000 people, cannot exist on home-grown food supplies. Therefore, she has to give the world manufactured articles in exchange for foodstuffs and raw materials. Now, the world has a number of countries exporting manufacfactured goods already, and so, if Japan cannot find a. large and suitable market, she must starve. Right at her doorstep is a vast country populated with 400,000.000 of people whose pursuits are mainly agricultural—an ideal market in an ideal place. But it is hard to be a successful salesman at a door where there are, already, a British and an American salesman, both offering very attractive lines, bo the Japanese salesman decided to take over the control of China to have the market all to himself. China is very near to Japan—New Zealand is remote; China is huge, densely populated, and badly governed—New Zealand is tiny, thinlypopulated, and not only has a stable government but is part of a fairly powerful Commonwealth of Nations. Is there, therefore, any reason to suppose that New Zealand will suffer the same fate as China? It is well known that the Japanese are the world’s worst colonisers. They are too homo-loving and conservative for that. In the past half-century fewer than 750,000 Japanese have migrated, in spite of generous Government subsidies and offers of land on the South American Pacific coast and in Manchuria. Again, in Micronesia they control but do not colonise. The fantastic cost ot colonisation has also to be considered. Even if 1.000,000 Japanese stepped into the lives which we are now living in New Zealand, it would cost at least £100,000,000 to bring them here and 10 times that number would have to come with their baggage in order to relieve the population pressure to fivesixths of what it is at present. But as I pointed out before, population pressure is not the problem before Japan, but food supply. Tourists assure us that there is still standing room there, and it is obvious that Japan could hold a hundred times the population if the food supply was reliable. On top of this, it must be remembered that although 1,000,000 babies are born there every year, the birth rate is dropping rapidly, as birth rates are inclined to do these days. I have studied the subject a good deal, and I think my facts will bear scrutiny. When I hear people saying that a Japanese invasion is likely. I assume that they have either an ulterior motive or a dangerous amount of ignorance.—Yours, etc., COME DOWN TO EARTH. June 15, 1938.