“Retirement” Of Colonels

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 237, 4 July 1938, Page 11

“Retirement” Of Colonels

Sir, —There is no parallel, although the cases are co-incident, between the attempted arraignment of Mr. Duncan Sandys, M.P. for Norwood in the British House of Commons, before the English military authorities for disclosure of military secrets, and the sudden “retirement” of four colonels of the New Zealand Defence Forces. The English military authorities had no cause and no power to arraign Mr. Sandys as a territorial officer: his question concerned only the number and calibre of guns, not tbeir disposition and range. The only relationship between Mr. Sandys’ case and the “retirement” of our colonels is that of concern for the safety and security of the lives of the people resident in Great Britain and in New Zealand in ease of attack.

The Speech from the Throne put into the mouth of our Governor-General was marked by its extreme poverty of concern for the national security of our people in case of war and an entire absence of any reference to the necessity for the general military training of our young people throughout the Dominion. We were told in the Speech that the Government had “reorganised the service” ; and the next thing we hear is that four colonels have been “retired.” It is currently reported that these responsible officers had urged the necessity for general military training and had deemed it their duty to themselves and their country to emphasise its need and had drawn attention to the Government's lack of interest in the defence services necessary for the security and safety of our people. Anyone seized with any sense of the world’s international conditions, and the Government confesses that these conditions have caused it “grave and increasinganxiety,” must be amazed that with nothing being done to awaken the people’s minds to such “gravity,” the Minister of Defence should have tolerated the disorganisation of the so recently a “reorganisation of our Defence Forces” by the “retirement” of officers of such high standing and efficiency when such officers were realising the urgent need for general military training throughout the Dominion. The British Government <H<I not cashier Lord Roerts when he publicly drew attention to the weakness of Imperial Defence. When more attention is paid to “social security” than to the preservation _ of “national and individual security” it is high time that the “retired” colonels’ warnings should be reiterated, that the people, especially our young men and women, should be awakened to _a_ real sense of their responsibilities as citizens, and that the Ministry of the day should cease to boast about their “sufferings’’ and give earnest heed to the “national ’ security of this country. The “retirement” of these colonels is so hedged about and hidden that it suggests the necessity for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. That might do more than anything else to quicken the public mind concerning national safety and test the real purpose of the Government in respect to our national defence. —I am, etc., J. D. SIEVWRIGHT. Wellington, July 2.

gi r ,—Many of us had hoped that the Labour Government would have at least left politics out of defence, because the Opposition promised full support for any measures that may be taken in the interests of safety. Lord Rothermere pointed out that England was spending 40 per cent, of her revenue in rearmament, and New Zealand only 2i per cent., and was told to mind his own business. Surely if Lord Rothermere is ’ having to contribute heavily to the defence of New Zealand more heavily in proportion than any New Zealander —the is entitled to give his warning I „ What is the position here? These four colonels have done their very best to point out to the Government the danger as many of us see it. They cannot move the authorities, so regardless of their own military futures, they deem it their duty to bring before the public the danger which at any time may come without warning. Xf war did break out, and God forbid it, we would look to some of these colonels to again lead in the field of -battle, so why shelve these men just because they have tried to point out that the only possibility of preventing war is to be too strong to be attacked-? Every responsible citizen should realise that no premium is too high to pay for peace, and outside of politics every returned soldier will resent the injustice done to the colonels, and will hope that it will be righted at some future date. In conclusion, may I repeat, the words as quoted by Winston Churchill in your to-day’s issue? “What humiliations we would have been spared if we had undertaken that duty of rearmament at a time when the need was apparent. If it was not taken it was certainly not for the want of warning.”—l am, TrCE Hawke’s Bay, July 1.