National Defence

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 256, 25 July 1930, Page 15

National Defence

Sir, —One notes the recent activities of the so-called National Defence League, and one deplores their lack of intelligent appreciation of modern defensive requirements. From our point of view “national defence’’ means defence of these shores, and one questions that this object is best attained by spending roughly half the Defence Department vote upon a land force which must await the actual landing of enemy forces before it can be effectively used! If the league has in view the employment of military forces iu other lighting areas, that is another matter. But again one asks, are military forces the only type of force which will be effective for national defence, and also effective for employment elsewhere? To suggest that this country should require to ever use its land forces to repel attacks on our shores, is to move a vote of no confidence in the effectiveness ot tue Empire’s naval forces to protect our shores. Even though this country contributes more than half its defence tote to naval forces, one believes this want ot confidence in the effectiveness of naval defence to be justified, not. from any deterioration of men or machines, but purely from the inarch of progress relegating this arm to obsolescence. The league says this country is the most defenceless in the Empire. I agree, but we should be equally so defenceless it we spent double the much-discussed “defence cut’’ upon military forces! National defence in this country should be in keeping with these considerations: (1) It should afford the fullest measure of security. (2) It should be such that with the armed forces of the Empire engaged elsewhere, our security occasions no anxiety to those forces. (3) All, or almost all, our centres of population and our communications are close to the coast, and therefore vulnerable to raids. (4) No conceivable raiding force is likely to be unaccompanied by either aeroplanes or flying boats. (5) Arising from the reputations which the troops from the Dtiminions created for themselves during the war, 1914-18, the energies of the enemy in a future war are likely to be directed towards holding a sustained threat of raids over our heads so that our forces are immobilised within our shores, instead of being effectively used in the main fighting area. If T decry the Navy and the Army there is only one other force—the Air Force. An air force fulfils all these requirements, and furthermore, it allows of the liberty for any land forces one might create being used in any theatre of war without weakening this country’s defence. In this connection I note that the report of the late Lord Kitchener after his visit in 1911 is being quoted to support the arguments of the league. Why not support one’s ideas with a somewhat more modern report? It so happens that in the year 1928 the defence of this country was considered in the light of modern developments by one who is no less capable of advising improvements than was the late Lord Kitchener in 1911. I refer to one who- is now chief of the air staff in Britain. Air Chief Marshal Sir John Salmond. This report has been lying in the Defence Department since October. 1928, and it has not yet been considered. The National Defence League might justify its existence if it sought, for the immediate consideration of that report, and advocated, the carrying out of its recommendations. However, I doubt that, the league is sufficiently broad in its outlook to realise that national defence is something mote than ensuring the maintenance of positions for the New Zealand Staff Corps.—l am. etc., 11. S. MONTGOMERIE. Wanganui, July 21.