WHAT DEFENCE MEANS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 92, 20 April 1939, Page 8

WHAT DEFENCE MEANS

On the question of the defence of New Zealand there are two schools of thought. Taken at their extremes, one would stake all on the most powerful possible air force that the country could provide, equip, and man, and trust to it to stand off or frustrate any attempt of an enemy to land on, our shores by maintaining command of the air for a long distance out to sea from the New Zealand coast. The other school would raise the largest possible army the population and resources of the Dominion could furnish and have it ready to deal with raiders and invaders. Both schools would doubtless agree that in the present circumstances it is beyond New Zealand's power to possess a navy capable of maintaining command of the sea, and that the British, Navy will not be able through the need nearer home to render the usual assistance. It is impossible to say which school is right. Modern warfare, as exemplified in Spain and China, offers no parallel to New Zealand conditions from which satisfactory conclusions could be drawn. The Chinese never had even the nucleus of an air force or a navy capable of preventing the Japanese, with their command both of sea and air, of landing wherever they liked on the coast of China. During the Spanish civil war no attempt was made by either side to land troops in the territory of the other, apart from the initial crossing of the Straits of Gibraltar by General Franco and his Moors.

Thus the air theory of defence remains untested in practice, though the arguments of experts are so strong that most people will agree that New Zealand was right in adopting the air as the first line of defence. But there is far more than the mere military argument of not having all your eggs in one basket in favour of the second school of thought. Modern warfare- is assumed to be totalitarian, affecting and concerning everybody in the community, and experience in Spain and China has confirmed this. Nobody can escape. It is essential therefore that the whole community should be prepared and trained to meet the emergency, otherwise the community becomes a helpless mob. The moral argument is even more important than the military, and this is the real case that the New Zealand Defence League has endeavoured to put before the country with a prospect of ultimate success, judged by the attendance at last night's meeting in the Town Hall. The strength of the totalitarian States lies not so much in the numbers of their armed forces as in the trained and disciplined populations which their leaders in time of peace have deliberately prepared for war. The democracies, in their own democratic way, must do the same if they are to survive. In New Zealand the Territorial Force offers such a training, together with the provision of a National Register for the whole population, such as has been adopted in Britain and partially in Australia. The Prime Minister has foreshadowed something of the same kind for New Zealand. The need is urgent. Few will disagree with what Mr. Perry said last night in the Town Hall:

What New Zealand needs more than anything else is trained man-power. The Territorial Force should not be regarded as the Cinderella of the Services: it should be regarded as the last and most important line of defence, if this country is going to be preserved as a country.

Is there any doubt that the people of New Zealand, individually and collectively, would be the better for such training and service?