BRITAIN’S AIR INFERIORITY

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 58, 1 December 1933, Page 11

BRITAIN’S AIR INFERIORITY

Strengthening of Defence Force Imperative

AIR MINISTER’S DECLARATION

Disarmament Efforts to be Continued

(British Official Wireless.) (Received November 30, 8.30 p.m.)

Rugby. November 29.

.'“Destroy London and you destroy England, for yon destroy the heart and brain of the country. Destroy Paris and France still lives; destroy Berlin and Germany still lives. The great Continental countries do not depend on their capitals, for existence. England depends on London for her very life-blood,” said the Duke of Sutherland in a speech in the House of Lords, in the course of which he asked whether the Government proposed to increase Britain’s air strength owing to the existing international situation. “It is not desirable to rattle the sabre, but the question must be considered purely from the defensive aspect,” he said. “Other nations have not followed our disarmament example.”

The British Government’s determination to continue to pursue a policyaimed at achieving effective disarmament in the air was repeated by the Marquess of Londonderry, Air Minister, in the course of his reply to the Duke of Sutherland. The Marquess of Londonderry declared emphatically, however, that they could not permit a continuance of Britain's present inferiority. Lord Londonderry said that the policy the Government had consistently followed in connection with air disarmament was sufficient indication Hint they regarded the problem as of vital moment.

were at present engaging the attention of the Government.

Exposed to Attack. Viscount Cecil said the real case for disarmament was based on the fact that one or two liir attacks in the future would practically settle the whole course of a war. No other country was so exposed to air attack as was Britain. She could bo crippled within forty-eight hours. The people demanded that everything be done to abolish this dangerous air weapon. The Duke of Sutherland had said that an adequate defence force would stave off attackers on London. He hoped the present activities would obviate the possibility of any country delivering a knock-out blow. The debate was adjourned.

A race between nations in armaments was a policy that must bo avoided at all costs, and to this end all the efforts of the Government had been directed at Geneva.

It might be that the Disarmament Conference approached its task with an idealism which in present circumstances of the world was unattainable. That was no reason for censure, and it would be a disaster of the first magnitude, if an agreement was not reached on a definite limitation of armaments at a level which satisfied the requirements of defence and denied to a potential aggressor the means of offence.

EXTENT OF INCREASE

Deductions from Minister’s Speech BRITAIN’S HELPLESSNESS (Received November 30, 8.30 p.m.) London, November 30. Some writers deduce from Lord Londonderry’s speech that Britain will increase her air fleet ultimately by 800 machines unless France reduces her strength. Lord Londonderry gave France 1650 aeroplanes compared with Britain’s 850, and indicated that Britain would build to the- highest power. The “Daily Telegraph” says there :s an end at last to the policy of onesided aerial disarmament that reduced Britain to a state of helplessness never contemplated. The “Dally Express” says the Air Ministry has ordered fourteen fighting aeroplanes. Each will carry a torpedo weighing three-quarters of a ton. They are being constructed at the Humber and will be stationed on the coast to co-operate with the Navy. Their function will be to attack battleships, diving from a great height at speeds of over 200 miles an hour, then launching the torpedoes. They will rise again like rockets beyond the reach of antiaicraft guns when relieved of the weight of the torpedo. MOTION IN COMMONS Statement by Mr. Baldwin MANY DIFFICULTIES (Received November 30, 7.10 p.m.) London, November 29. In the House of Commons Rear-Ad-miral Murray F. Sueter (C.) moved’ that attention be drawn to “the inadequacy of the present provision for the air defence of Britain and the Empire.” He declared that Britain had reduced her. air strength, but the gesture had not been followed by the rest of the world. Wing-Commander A. W. H. James (C.) moved an amendment affirming full support of the Government’s air policy. Mr. Stanley Baldwin said Britain could not stand alone in the present position in regard to defence, whether in the air. on sea, or on land, and that ought to be perfectly clear, both in Britain and abroad. Mr. Baldwin stressed the difficulties of the position, and said if it were now announced that Britain intended quid’ 15’ to increase her air armaments, which was denied to Germany, how could the latter believe in our good faith? The Government valued the House’s support in the pursuit ef disarmament and the attempts to save the convention. He hoped the amendment would be supported. Mr. George Lansbnry (Lab.) con tended that Lord Londonderry’s statement should be made in the Mouse ot Commons. Mr. Baldwin had not told the House what the Ministry’s policy was. Labour as a protest must there fore vote against the Government

Great War fleet Dispersed.

When the war closed Britain was the first air Power in the /world, said Lord Londonderry. After the armistice, as earnest of her pacific intentions and proof of the genuine character of her propaganda for a limitation of air armaments, she dispersed the greater part of her vast air fleets until the country was to-day fifth only of the world’s air Powers in terms of first-line strength. All countries had not made public statements of their current strengths, but official figures were available for France and Britain. In Britain’s case the figure was approximately 850 aeroplanes,. In the French Air Force the corresponding figure was about 1650. According to available information the Soviet Republic figure was between 1400 and 1500, the United States between 1000 and 1100, Italy between 1000 and 1100. It was clear that Britain’s example had unhappily- elicited no response whatever in any quarter of the world.

This was therefore a path which could no longer be followed, and they must, however reluctantly, abandon the policy of unilateral disannamwit which, ill the present unfortunate state of international affairs, it, was manifestly not only useless, but even dangerous, to pursue further.

That did not mean that a new policy would guide them, for the Government had made it plain in their successive pronouncements at Geneva that they recognised the need for a one-Power standard in the air for this country. Earnestness Proved. The earnestness of their desire to achieve effective disarmament in the air had been abundantly proved by their approach to this problem, and they had offered to go to any length, if other nations would do the same. They haq, indeed, stated their willingness to consent to a complete abolition of military and naval aviation, provided only that there could be devised an effective scheme for international control of civil aviation which would prevent all possibility of a misuse of civil aircraft for military purposes. It now appeared that there were nations which were not prepared to agree to such an abolition, and it was impossible to deny that there were great practical difficulties in the way of such a far-reaching measure.

But Britain- could not accept a continuance of her present infenor-

If parity could not be secured by reductions elsewhere, then the converse of the proposition must follow, and there would be no option but to begin to build upward, while continuing efforts to secure an international agreement in fixing parity at the lowest level to which other nations would subscribe.

Having referred to the programmes for increased air forces in the United States, Japan, and Russia, Lord Londonderry said that they must hope _ it would be possible to fix a first-line strength for the principal air Bowers which would neither he a threat to the peace of the world nor impose an intolerable financial burden. Britain and the Empire as a whole must be made safe in the air. but a race in air armaments should be avoided at all costs. Appropriate steps to ensure this policy

Wing-Commander James’s amendment was carried by 151 votes to 31: then as a substantive motion by 139 votes to 30.