THE DEFENCE LEAGUE

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 74, 24 September 1936, Page 8

THE DEFENCE LEAGUE

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondent "Jack Blunt" absolves the Defence League from any intention to encourage the sending of New Zealand troops to fight abroad, but it is quite clear that this has been taken for granted by the Hon. W. Perry, otherwise he would have dissociated himself from the statement of Sir Andrew Russell to the effect that New Zealanders would be fighting in Palestine in the next war. The Hon. W. Perry quoted the statement himself, and he would not have done so if he did not approve of it. The word "Defence" is frequently used by militaristic peoples throughout the world as a cloak for aggression. Later events have confirmed rather than disproved my statement that ex-military officers form, in the main, the newly-born Defence League. An Auckland branch has been formed with ex-military officers taking a leaning part. It is relevant to ask why the Defence League was not formed while the National Government was in power, because the big cut in defences was made by the'late Government? The present Government has been elected by the people, to govern the country, and the people approve of the Government's very sane views on the question of peace and international relations, and support for the League of Nations as the only way, of saving the world from a great catastrophe. Hence their desire to strengthen the League to make it more effective. The last British Government went in on a "Peace" vojte, and once-having secured power, changed its tactics. The League, although it may be excellent in every way, can be let down by the political party that happens to be in power at the time. When the people of Britain learn this, a remedy may be produced. Meanwhile the League still remains the only hope, and while New Zealand should-not disregard the question of defence, the Government has shown its wisdom in taking its stand for the League of Nations, and in producing suggested amendments to its constitution.

This much is clear, that whatever the motive of the Defence League may be, whether the prominence of so many military officers points to a combination resembling a military group or not, this Dominion can render its best contribution to the peace of the world by initiating economic legisla-

tion tending to solve one of the main causes of war, and encouraging other countries to follow a successful example. New Zealand has shown the world, as in the time of Richard Seddon, that she can do this. The carrying out of this programme, like that of defence, could well be left to the present Government. It has been elected to govern the country, and the Defence League has no such mandate. It will be sufficient for a Defence League to be functioning when failure is evident. Meanwhile many people regard the existence of the Defence League as a reflection on the Minister of Defence and his new programme of defence. Hence, political opponents of the Government will welcome the newly-formed league, which, despite its excellent publicity, has failed to stir the imagination of the people.

One learns from the Auckland report that the third object of the Defence League is to foster and further the aims and objects of the Navy League. The Navy League has failed to fill the public imagination and has suffered a sad decline. Your correspondent "Jack Blunt" states that one of the objects of the Defence League is the securing of peace. It is not included in the objects published by the league, but room has evidently been found for the Navy League. Let us have education on international affairs to show the folly of war. Better this, and less talk of sending New Zealand troops to Palestine, as if the sending of 50,000 troops abroad is a mere bagatelle, having no effect as regards unhappiness, home-breaking, war wounds, and impaired health and the like.—l am, etc.,

ANTI-WAR. [This letter has been abridged.—Ed.]