THEY MUST GROW

Evening Star, Issue 22194, 23 November 1935, Page 8

THEY MUST GROW

FORCES OF BRITAIN CHAMBERLAIN'S WARNING A warning that Britain’s forces must bo increased if she is to play her part in maintaining world peace was delivered by Mr Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Kelso, Roxburghshire, recently, says the ‘ Daily Telegraph.’ Ho described the present as “ one of those tense moments when history is being made, and when decisions are being taken that must vitally affect the lives and the fortunes of the people of many nations. “ We have for once the spectacle of a whole nation practically unanimous in support of the policy adopted by the Government,” continued Mr Chamberlain. “It is true that Mr Lloyd George lias raised a solitary voice, not to condemn the Government for anything they are doing now, but to complain that they did not do it before. He has said that we ought to have acted earlier, but, as he himself omitted to say anything at all about it, I do not think we need pay too much attention to this specimen of wisdom after the event. “It is a wonderful tribute to the prestige and influence of our country that whenever international troubles arise it is to Britain that other countries turn to appeal for a lead. On this occasion they did not appeal in vain. “ What we have to deal with is not merely a dispute between Italy and Abyssinia.' It is the much wider and deeper issue of the whole future of the League of Nations as an instrument for the maintenance of peace. The reason why tho League of Nations has such a hold on the minds of our people is because they see in it the only alternative to the old system of alliances. “ I am afraid that Italian opinion has been further embittered—ltalian opinion led by Italian authorities in a campaign of- almost incredible misrepresentation and calumny—and has been led to regard the country as a monster of hypocrisy and selfishness. DANGEROUSLY LOW. “ Throughout all these difficult and anxious weeks it has been made abundantly clear to r.s that we have been gravely handicapped by the fact—the knowledge of which is widespread upon the Continent—that our defensive forces have fallen to a dangerously low level. “ That knowledge has shaken the confidence of our friends in our ability to carry out our obligations, and it has encouraged those who are not so friendly to us to think that we can be treated with indifference,* if not with contempt. That is not a tolerable situation for a great country, and it is not helpful to the cause of peace. “ There is. no nation in the world more devoted to peace than our own. There is no nation in the world which has more to lose by war—which could give us nothing we want._ Whether we ourselves were engaged in it or not, wherever it is waged, it must inevitably check and hamper that trade by which we live. , “ We should never use our forces lor aggression. They threaten no one and no one is afraid that they do. Me do not desire forces greater than are necessary for our own defence t and to enable us to fulfil our responsibilities. “ But we are a world-wide Power. Our colonial possessions, scattered oyer the whole globe, depend for their security on our ability to protect them, and "even the Dominions and India would not feel safe if the British Navy were unable to keep seas. PEACEMAKER OF EUROPE. “ I believe myself that Britain, by reason of her political situation as the heart of the British Empire and of the immense authority which she enjoys among the nations of the world, can probably contribute more effectively to the maintenance of peace than any other nation. “ But if Britain’s words are to be listened to with respect, if 'she is to make good any obligations which she might undertake, then she must be recognised to be strong enough to make good those words. In that way only can she fulfil what I believe to be her mission—that of the peacemaker of Europe. “ We have tried unilateral disarmament in the hope that other countries would follow our example. It has proved to be a complete, a costly, and a dangerous failure. The time has come now when we must bring our forces up to the minimum required for our own self-respect, when we must recognise that, in this workaday world, disarmament must follow and not precede the establishment of a sense of security.” , NAVY’S NEEDS. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s hint at the measures about to he taken to restore our dangerously enfeebled sea powers draws attention to the fact that Britain’s crying need is for cruisers, convoy sloops, and destroyers. But tlie replacement of our many obsolete battleships is scarcely -Jess urgent, writes Hector By water in comment. In 1928-31, when every other navy was increasing its personnel, we reduced ours by 10,000, with the result that the fleet is now shorthanded. Slight increases were made this year and last, but it is estimated that an additional 8,000 officers and men are needed fully to man the Navy on its present basis, without reckoning those required to man the ships of the forthcoming big programme. Foreign naval armaments are expanding on a scale of which the magnitude does not appear to ho fully realised in this country, save in official circles. Recognition of this fact is responsible for the Government’s decision to take immediate steps to strengthen the Navy. By far the largest programme is that of the United States. The Japanese Navy, . hich has this year achieved its full treaty strength, is about to be enlarged above the three-five ratio. Except for battleships, its material is entirely post-war, and it is already superior to the British Navy in modern cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. Tho Japanese naval personnel’numbers 87,000 —only 7,000 fewer than the British figure. Since the - war France has built 51 cruisers and nearly 80 submarines. Italy has produced 19 of the fastest cruisers in the world, 66 destroyers, and 66 submarines, mostly in the last 10 years. Germany, at the present rate of building, will have attained to 35 per cent, of British naval strength by 1937-38.