UNITY IN DEFENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 121, 18 November 1936, Page 10

UNITY IN DEFENCE

Plans for the defence of a country and measures taken cannot, for obvious reasons, even in the most democratic community, receive the same publicity as is accorded other functions of government. Consequently in times of crisis the public may feel a pardonable anxiety as to whether everything is being done that can be done for the security of the country. This is the position in Britain at the present time and, to a lesser extent, also in New Zealand and other parts of the Empire. All parties are at one on the necessity for a full provision for defence and for this reason the Labour Party in Britain, is supporting the National Government in its policy of re-arma-ment, seeing no alternative. At the parly's recent conference at Edinburgh Dr. Hugh Dalton, M.P.,< one of the leaders, summarised the situation uncompromisingly in these words: Five years ago Britain was secure in the military, naval, and air sense. Today British security has gone. Collective security has not been organised and our insular security is finished with the growth of great air forces within a few hours' flying distance of our cities on the Continent of Europe. This is the situation. . . . A Labour Government, if it came into power tomorrow and was faced with the present world situation, pending an international agreement to reduce and limit armaments, would be compelled to provide an increase in British armaments. This is what the British Government is doing with the utmost possible speed. Aspects of defence have been discussed in the House of Commons with unusual frankness. One of these aspects —ihe vulnerability of warships "to attack from the air—was the subject of a broadcast on Saturday night by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Samuel Hoare), who made out a strong case for the battleship against the bomb and the retention of the Navy in full strength for the maintenance of the sea power which'had created the British Empire. He laid much stress on the "closest co-operation between the Navy and the Air Force for insuring the greatest practical measure of security in essential areas of the narrow seas, naval bases, and civil harbours." The defence of New Zealand, like the defence of the Motherland, has its own particular problem and it is satisfactory to learn from the Marquess of Harrington, British Undersecretary for Dominion Affairs, that the Labour Government is tackling the problem in an "earnest and resolute way." As the distinguished visitor was accompanied during the latter part of his brief tour of the North Island by the Minister of Defence (Mr. F. Jones) and has visited the naval and air bases at Auckland, it may be taken that he is fully informed with what is being done and planned. He declared that it was "inspiring to see how much defence is in the minds of the New Zealand people." This is the essence of any solution of the defence problem in a democratic country. If such is the feeling of the people, they will be prepared to make sacrifices, personal and material, and to insist on a Government doing its full duty in providing for defence. There is no surer way of inviting attack than neglect of defence. The people of New Zealand will hardly share the confidence of the Marquess of Hartington—that they are "as far as is humanly possible immune from external attack," but they do feel the same anxiety as to the future "if the Empire should succumb to external assault." They realise that "to be prepared for emergencies is the only means of security." In such circumstances it is a spur to further action to be assured that we are proceeding on right lines.