WAR HAZARDS

Evening Post, Issue 19, 23 January 1932, Page 12

WAR HAZARDS

MILITARY: MONETARY

LI HUNG CHANG'S OBJECTION

THE PACE THAT KILLS

(By "Z.")

The recent story of Citizen G., formerly of Soviet Eussia^ sets the mind thinking.

Told rather serappily in the cable grams, it seems to amount to this: firstly, a Russian allegation that a European member of the Foreign Mission in Manchuria had tried to bribe a citizen of the Soviet Bepublic to commit some offence, or, cause some offence to be committed, against a Japanese Ambassador—an-offence likely to . embroil Eussia with Japan, already embroiled with China; secondly, a story, also coming but of Eussia, that Citizen G. (presumably the tempted citizen) had died of a sudden illness. The implication of these cablegrams appeared to be that a Eussian citizen had lost his life because- he- had been in negotiation with a European diplomat on the subject of promoting a Eusso-Japanese war by means of an attack upon a high Japanese official. A later allegation that the diplomat was a certain Chechoslovakian was met by a Czechoslovakian denial.

Considering the critical triangular situation in North China, a calculation that a big conflagration could start from a small spark is not an unreasonable calculation.

It is remembered that the Great War had its ostensible cause in the assassination at Sarajevo of the heirapparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne—a crime rightly- or wronclv attributed to Serbs.

Only the other day an unsuccessful attempt V was made to assassinate the Emperor of Japan. So it is fairly clear that when warlike situations exist, "untoward incidents" provocative of war are not unlikely to occur.

WHO PROFITB? „

Such incidents may be almost individual in execution, but that will hardly cancel the impression that much has happened behind the scenes. But the question will be asked: "Who profits by war?" •

Hitherto the . answer would have beeu^ "The armament manufacturers and the makers of war munitions." That they have profited by past wars none will deny. But in past wars they have generally been paid. Whether they will be paid in future wars apparently depends on whether they can secure payment in advance, or at least c.o.d. Certainly there are already extant millions of war debt that will never be paid. What hope is there that a new big war, even confined to Asia, will be paid for?, On. what business basis, then,, would armaments and munitions be supplied?

It may be that, within a belligerent country, payment for things required in war does not matter. They -will be commandeered. But armaments and munitions supplied by neutral countries would, be in a different position. The range of demand in modern war is wider than ever. Since 1918 the possibilities of aerial warfare have greatly widened, and those of poison gas have certainly not grown less. A firstclass war would draw on world stocks of many things. Who, by the way, claims to be the inventor of poison gas? Probably it was a multiple inventor.. Of, if a single inventor, perhaps he has no desire to push his claim: