ADEQUATE DEFENCE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 139, 16 June 1930, Page 8

ADEQUATE DEFENCE

(To tho Editor.)

. Sir,—So far as the controversy about abolishing compulsory training lias gone it has suffered from a certain vagueness as to the purposes for which training should be kept up. On these lines I feel that some criticism of your contributor "Sodales Parati" may be of use. In the first place his remarks about the dangers of "sweet parity" demand the severest comment as being vague, mischievious, and misleading. , This saying "Bogeybogey" with the object of creating a fearful and malleable public opinion is.a successful nursery trick, but I contend that its effect is to create the danger it attempts to meet by introducing suspicion and insecurity. Surely it is'obvious that if Britain is the least armed nation in his words, parity means Britain building up -to parity level, and the contrary suggestion that "other nations are piling gtin upon gun" is merely mischievous, in'

default of proof. Apart .from this important point the article may be considered fair comment. Turning to the Territorial Force the following considerations demand attention: (1) 'Is the Territorial Force a Defence Force or an Expeditionary Force? (2) Is the Force as at present constituted art elfective instrument for either, purpose? Previous to 1914 the danger was obvious, and the Territorial Force may be said to have been organised for the purpose for which it was in fact used-, as an Expeditionary Force. Since the Armistice cau there be said to have existed any equivalent emergency sufficient to justify the. maintenance of an organisation for offensive action? Certainly Lloyd George staged a Holy War in Asia Minor in 192 i, and successfully led Mr. Massey up the garden, but his bluff had been called at Home before that famous reply came. The use of colonial forces to support a British political stunt is questionable, even though it may be unlikely to recur. The suggestion of the use of colonial troops in disturbances in India, Egypt, or Palestine is surely an equally dangerous extension of the meaning of defence. The policy that gives rise to such disturbances is not of our determining and, control is traditionally in the hands of Britain. In any case the point needs to be stressed that the upkeep of a full strength military organisation cannot be justified on such grounds alone, but on the existence of urgent and definite danger, macapable of political solution.' For the immediate future, European wars on the grand scale may be written off. An has been well observed ■ no European countries can at present afford war unless the combatants on both sides are financed by Britain or the United States, and this support seems unlikely As regards the defence of New Zealand Jiere again the position has altered greatly. Prior to 1914 a strong German naval iorce was stationed in the Pacific and under the circumstances of the time some Protection against raids was reasonable. is it contended that our danger at the present day from Japan or the United btates is in any way comparable? On the contrary these two nations together with Britain have agreed on a fixed ratio ot naval forces which is in itself an active discouragement to aggression. The chances o£ the neutralisation of the Paciuc_ for a considerable period seem fairly bright at the moment, still an attitude of caution is comprehensible even if somewhat excessive. Coming to the second'question of the efticiency ot training, I speak subject to correction as regards present methods, but compulsory .training before the war had comparatively little bearing on the conditions of that war as was proved by the amount of further training considered necessary any troops were sent into action. It took us twelve months from enlisting to reaching the line, during ™ ■»'? passed through two complete additional courses of '''"training (the development of warfare, having rendered tha Wew Zealand course obsolete). I see no reason why the present training should be any more applicable to future conditions. A fundamental disadvantage of peace training in my experience is that it has to go through the motions" without the incentive of shooting, bombing or bayoneting somebody as the prospective reward, and so the sporting element is missing. On these grounds alone I consider that compulsory training is open to grave criticism. The question of detailed alternatives is of minor importance at the moment.—l am, etc., ■ : "26075."