The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1934. “WAR WILL NOT COME”

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 266, 7 August 1934, Page 8

The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1934. “WAR WILL NOT COME”

“If it rests with Germany, war will not come again. President Hitler’s words are rich in hope for a strife-torn world; but they emphasise again the pitiably confused processes of .fought and actio bv which mankind pursues its .end If it rests with Bri am or wth France, in the present state of public opinion, war will not con., again. But Germany, and France, and to a less degree Britain, ate arming to protect themselves from the fear that some o her Povc. will make war. And when weapons are there it is (fatally easy fot statesmen to forget their pious resolves, and use them. Germany, says Herr Hitler, will never fight again except in selfdefence. Leaving aside the allied obligation to fight for other nations in compliance with treaty undertakings, that is the attitude of mo European nations. Unfortunately, however, preparedness for a defensive war involves the building up of a fighting force that * a, ™° s equally effective in a war of aggression. Herr Hitlers fe vently pacific pronouncements—and those of other Powers,, too—would mea. a great deal more if they were backed by a convincing measure of disarmament. The German leader is a trifle unfortunate also in he contrast between his words and recent events. However genuine his wishes for peace—and in this respect his speeches have the noteworthy merit of consistency—many of the activities of the Nazi Part) both in Germany and, more recently, in Austria, can fairly be describe as direct challenges to peace. Herr Hitler’s dual capacity as party and national leader puts him in an awkward position, the more so now that his national leadership is supreme. Germany'the nation is liable to be held responsible for the swashbuckling and excesses of the Nazis. One means of reducing the confusion, br at least guarding against its ill effects international.} would be for Germany to resume her place in the League of Nations. There at least she would be assured of welcome; and her return woulc be helpful also in the task of restoring the League s lost prestige and influence.

The irony of the present situation is that while all this active war preparation is being undertaken in the name of defence, publicists are asking if defence may not for practical purposes be almost a thing of the past. “The essence of sea force,” says Sir Norman Angell in his latest book, “The Menace to our National Defence, was that the stronger Power could take command of the sea; that material preponderance enabled that Power (at least until the coming of the submarine) to repel attacks; to protect its bases and its nerve centres. And just because attacks could be repelled with fair certainty by the materially stronger, Superiority of strength operated in large part ‘silently,’ without combat. Decisive material preponderance could not be offset for very long by suddenness of attack from the weaker side. . . These characteristics do not apply to the air. I here is practically unanimous agreement among experts that: (a) Given certain weather conditions, aeroplane attack cannot be repelled. (b) Once delivered, an attack can be paralysing in its destructiveness. The whole issue of the next war may be decided by the side that can get its blow in first. There can be no gradualness of pressure. Once begun the destruction must be ruthless. No nation, that is to say, will ever be able to rule the air as Britain ruled the sea and by her ruling acted as the world’s policeman. The air seems to be a domain more suited to gangsters than tp policing by any one nation, from which Sir Norman argues that Lie only effective safeguard of peace will be to internationalise civi aviation, and perhaps establish a small international force of aerial police. _______