DEFENCE OF N.Z.

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22466, 29 July 1938, Page 10

DEFENCE OF N.Z.

"COUNTRY REQUIRES A LEAD" MANIFESTO OF FOUR COLONELS MOTIVES FOR THEIR ACTION (P«E3S A.SSOCIATIOX TILIORAM.) WELLINGTON, July 28. "I give the Minister for Defence (the Hon. F. Jones) full credit for his belief that the present force is sufficient for the defence of New Zealand. I say he doesn't know, as we who have studied the question for 25 years know." With these words Colonel R. F. Gambrill, of Gisborne, one of the four colonels who were posted to the retired list following the issue of a manifesto on national defence, concluded a speech' at the conference of the New Zealand Returned Soldiers' Association in Wellington to-night. After giving the reasons which actuated himself and his fellow colonels, Colonel Gambrill outlined his views on the defence pf New Zealand. Expressing the opinion that the country could be defended bloodlessly if a sufficient force were trained he advocated universal training. "As one of 'the four colonels,' I speak with a great deal of diffidence," said Colonel Gambrill. "The country requires a lead in this matter, and there is no body can give a better lead than this one. As far as the punishment of the four colonels is concerned we ask for and seek no assistance from the Returned Soldiers' Association. What we did was done with a full knowledge that we were breaking military tradition. We knew that some punishment must follow and we accept it. We do not want anybody taking up the cudgels on our behalf. "We did this with our eyes open. We did consider resigning first, which would have been the proper thing under the Army Regulations, but we thought that that would be a cowardly way. Our association with the Army is a very real thing. We knew we were throwing all that in. We had a very good reason for it. We had taken an oath to obey the commands of those above us; but we also knew we had a duty to our country. Lone Debate 'The question arose: 'Does our duty to our country as citizens and soldiers transcend our duty to his Majesty s regulations?' What happens to us does not matter very much; but what happens to our children does matter, were we justified in living a lie? In carrying on as though all were well? We debated it for four nights in succession and decided on the only course we considered in the best interests of future generations as well as our own. "We realised we had on our shoulders the responsibility of tne! country's defence. When we-know it is not sufficient, when we know we were going to be in the position of asking the volunteers under us to undertake tasks for which they are not fitted and that they will probably lose their lives what are we to do? My conscience is clear. I think we have done what we thought right. "The need for defence is upon us, declared Colonel Gambrill. "This country of ours is most easily defended if we are prepared. Our greatest safeguard is our distance from other countries. As long as the Navy is floating on the high seas we can regard danger as almost negligible. Our air defence is in Great Britain. Successful air attack on Britain would paralyse us. Our Navy would go and we would be open to the wide world. Thus our first, line of defence is cur Navy. "Warning: F>om Britain" "We defend our own country in our own country. We are called upon to do that when our Navy is gone. We have had our warning from the Prime Minister of Britain that some outlying part of the Empire may be called upon to defend itself. We have to protect ourselves against that possibility, we can do that bloodlessly. . . "In 1929, when, compulsory training was suspended we had 30,000 trained men each of whom did three years training. To get 140,000 will require 21 years. In 10 years time we shallhave fewer than 70,000. One hundred and forty thousand men, equ)pped with the most deadly weapon of war, the rifle and bayonet, with machineguns—the enemy general staff would say, 'We know what sort of fighters they are. We are not up against an easy proposition. For every one of those 140,000 we shall have to land at least two attackers. For every one of 200,000 we land we must have 10 men on our line of cummunications and the nearest base is three days away. Is New Zealand worth it?' "Thus, if we are prepared to train our youth we shall not have to worry about a raid. We shall fight and win a bloodless victory. That is the nearest approach to pacifism I can see in this benighted age." Colonel Gambrill went on to refer briefly to the benefits gained by youths who underwent compulsory training. He dealt also with the economic factor of home defence, stating that small arms, rations, and other equipment could, for the most part, be manufactured internally. "If we are called upon to defend ourselves we can do it easily," he declared. "It is only a matter of getting the public to understand and you will find that the objection to universal military training will disappear."