LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 134, 2 March 1936, Page 11

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Answers to Correspondents A. Avery : Unsuitable. Australian Academy of Advertising Sir, —I have seen ?jo mention of the following fact on your articles published in “The Dominion’’ on the subject of the “Australian Academy of Advertising.” All our correspondence was postdated by the “Academy.” For instance, a letter dated February 14 bore the February 12 date-stamp of the Melbourne G.P.O. Similarly other letters were post-dated by one or two days. Probably all other correspondence was similarly treated.—-I am. etc., E.F.C. Manakau, February 2S. Sir,—Re the Australian Academy of Advertising; Your prompt action has probably nipped in the bud a very prettylittle swindle. One of our typists received an appointment and, being suspicious, I put an inquiry through our bank. The reply was ’“extremely unreliable; use great caution.” It is to be hoped the police will find sufficient grounds for action. —I am, etc., A, CLEMAS. Masterton, February 29. “A Thought-provoking Week” Sir, —This heading of your editorial today provides food for thought longer than a week. Surely a more hopeful outlook can be put forward for those thousands of parents who have brought boys into this world. Are we to understand that after the mother’s pain, the love and material care which parents give to their offspring, their only reward is to see them caught up by “nature red in tooth and claw?” . . , , Mr. Savage hit the nail on the head when he to a deputation last week that some proportion ot our present large outlay on the defence forces should be devoted to publicity—world-wide—in the interests of reason and peace. Can anyone tell me why all the expenditure i*» for warfare and not its prevention.’ It a firm wishes to place a product ou the world’s market, it advertises aud uses all the arte of publicity. Why not apply the same methods for peace of the world? I have a booklet illustrating in most gruesome form the devastations of human faces mangled in indescribable horror, bodies without limbs, and so on. Is anything in this world worth this sacrifice? And yet parents are being carefully prepared to condone another ana a worse slaughter. If photos such as 1 have were freely circulated in all schools, factories and offices, I venture to suggest this*talk of war would take on another form. ~ , . . . As one who has given this subject deep and earnest thought, I would welcome anyone who can show me why I should bring children into a world which, accordin'’ to your editorial to-day, holds out such excellent prospects of their being butchered or maimed when they grow up. —I am, etc., STUDENT. [This letter has been abridged.— Editor.] Si r —Your leading article appearing in Saturday’s issue of your paper is a very timely warning to the Government and people of New Zealand on a Prpblen l which, so far, has received very little public thought or consideration. As a New Zealander who has been particularly interested in our defence system —by this I mean not only the army but also the navy and air force as well—l cannot help feeling that we are not doing nearly enough to provide the necessary means of protection required by this little country should the British Empire become embroiled in another war. _ As you say the world is changing and will continue to change, The problem today is very different to the problem of 20 years ago. During this period populations have grown, industrial efficiency has increased, political systems have changed, and, as a consequence, the situation, as far as world peace is concerned, is very much more critical to-day than it was in July, 1914. In 1914 New Zealand was protected by sending an expeditionary force overseas. To-day -that can be only partly effective and we will have to prepare to protect our own shores from enemy invasion. We have a powerful potential enemy much closer to our shores than Germany was in 1914. ’A nation whose population has increased, and is still increasing, at the rate of nearly one million a year. This nation is highly industrialised, is very overcrowded, and, compared with our own, has a low standard of Inin" We have erected high trade barriers against this nation, and in every way possible done all we can to reduce her trade with us to a minimum. Look at the problem from her point of view. Being an industrial nation she. must export her goods to maintain her present standard of living. We along with most other nations of the world, say: No,, we won’t have'your goods.” To me that nation has only two alternatives : (a) reduce her already low standard of living or (b) to fight for what she must consider her just righto as a great natlol am a pacifist and do not wish to see another war. It is my belief that at least 99 per cent, of British people, are pacifists, but we are not anti-militarists. There is a very great difference between the two Th© anti-militarist will not prepare to defend his country, although that pre : naration means the saving of life should war come. The pacifist wants peace, but is prepared to do his share toward tne protection of his country. . What are we doing to protect this country of ours? We have two third-rate cruisers which will probably leave New Zealand waters directly war is declared, or possibly sooner. Our army is very much a paper one, and finding it more nnd more difficult each year to obtain recruits. Our air force consists of about half-a-dozen more or less up-to-date bombers and a few training machines. Is this combined force going to keep New Zealand on the map as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. 1 sav, emphatically, No! We must take stock of our defence system without delay and put it in order. One of the lessons of the last war we can take very well to heart is that although Germany was beaten, and badly beaten, there is still a Germany, but there are no German colonies. It Great Britain is beaten in the next war there will still be Great Britain, but what about the British Dominions and colonios 1 ?—I am, RETURNED SOLDIER. Wellington, March 1.