IMPERIAL DEFENCE

Evening Star, Issue 22577, 19 February 1937, Page 9

IMPERIAL DEFENCE

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEDATE LIBERAL LEADER’S VIEWS "POSSIBILITY OF TRIPLE ATTACK" Press Association —By Telegraph Copyright LONDON, February 17, Sir Archibald Sinclair, addressing the House of Commons during the defence debate, said: “We are facet! with the possibility of a triple attack against tho Empire —in the Far East, the Mediterranean, and a knock-out blow at the heart of the Empire. We aro entitled to know whether the Government’s policy is collective security, military alliance, or isolation. Vast expenditure on armaments must force up prices, and tho Government should satisfy us that it is taking effective measures to mako these armaments unnecessary.” Enunciating the policy of removing the causes of armament, Sir Archibald Sinclair urged that the Government should strive for tho abolition of quotas and Imperial preference, and restoration of the open door in the colonial Empire. He also urged the appointment of commissions to investigate the grievances of dissatisfied nations. " HYPOTHETICAL EMERGENCIES " OBJECT OF THE PLANS. LONDON, February 17. In the course of the defence debate in the House of Commons Dr Dalton asked whether the dominions were going to contribute to the common cost, and whether additional contributions were in sight from the colonies defended. Mr Neville Chamberlain, intervening, said that Britain had not got a single particular Power for an enemy, “ nor are we in alliance with other Powers on whose aid we can count. We must consider a whole series of hypothetical emergencies in which we may be opposed by this or that Power, and wo will draw up a defence programme to make us feel as safe as possible against this hypothetical set of emergencies. According to Sir Archibald Sinclair, the whole troubles of the world are due to Imperial preference. If Sir Archibald Sinclair had his way lie would probably soon lose us the Empire. It is true that we are dependent largely for supplies of essential materials on the dominions. In that sense, therefore, the dispersal of the dominions throughout the world does lay a special duty on the Navy, but there is no intention to call on the dominions to contribute to a common fund. The dominions have spent a great deal in perfecting and improving their own defences. That is their contribution to the common fund, and no other form of contribution is under discussion at the present time.” MAINTAINING PARITY AMERICA WATCHFUL; WASHINGTON, February 18. At a Press conference Admiral William Leahy, chief of naval operations, gave a clear indication that the Navy Department would bo matching Britain in new battleship construction. He stated that he knew of no change in the United States policy. The navy was second to none, and he believed it was the sentiment of the country that, “if any other Power expands its navy appreciably, we shall have to follow to maintain parity.” He intimated, however, that since the new British construction appeared to be the replacement of over-age ships there was probably no necessity for the United States to build new aircraft carriers or cruisers, because Britain has several old ships in these categories and America none. The belief is expressed in some quarters here that Britain does not intend to build all the ships listed in the White Paper, but her real aim is to frighten naval Powers, chiefly Italy and Germany, which refused to participate in the naval armaments agreement. NOT OUTCLASSED QUALITY OF BRITISH CRUISERS. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, February 17. Sir Samuel Hoare, in a House of Commons reply, said the numbers of eight-inch gun cruisers completed or being built by Powers were:— British Commonwealth ... 15 America 18 Japan ... 12 France -... 7 Italy 7 Germany 3 Sir Samuel added that he was glad of the opportunity of saying there was no warrant for the assertion recently made in the Press that British ships in this category were outclassed. SOUTH AFRICAN OPINION CAPE TOWN, February 18. (Received February 19, at 11.5 a.m.) The general opinion in defence circles is that while the British programme is mammoth Britain must have good cause for embarking ou it. Simultaneously with the publication of the White Paper, Mr Pirow was urging on Parliament the need for speedily strengthening South Africa’s defences, for which £1,500,000 is provided in the Estimates. FRENCH COMMENT PARIS, February 18. (Received February 19, at 11.5 a.m.) Commenting on the House of Coinmans defence debate, the ‘ Figaro ’

says Britain no longer shelters behind a "hollow formula. The new British era may be summed up as “ our influence depends upon our strength.” JAPANESE FEARS LONDON, February 18. (Received February 19, at 2 p.m.) Tho Tokio correspondent of ‘ The Times ’ says officials point out that British naval rearmament involves increased forces at Singapore and in East Asia, which will affect Japan. Moreover, the United States will probably increase her navy, producing naval competition from which Japan would be unable to abstain. DEBATE CONTINUED MINISTER OP DEFENCE ANSWERS CRITICS. RUGBY, February 18. (Received February 19, at noon.) The House of Commons debate on defence was continued to-day. Mr A. V. Alexander argued first that there was need for the rearmament programme, due to opportunities lost in past years by the Government in the sphere of foreign policy; secondly, no evidence was forthcoming of the Government obtaining proper value for the expenditure on which it was asking Parliament to embark; and, thirdly, that the method of raising the money by loans for such expenditure violated the canons of sound finance. Sir Thomas Inskip (Minister for Defence) remarked on the fact that no speaker questioned a single item of the programme of rearmament set out in the White Paper. He said the House itself would have full opportunity of safeguarding economy when the Estimates came before it. Sir Thomas Inskip gave examples of considered! planning in which all three services had co-operated, and which he hoped would serve to allay anxieties on the score of lack of co-ordination. The whole question of coast defence had been generally examined, bearing in mind the weight of naval or air attack to which the different ports might bo exposed, and the actual defence required for each individual port under modern conditions had been worked out in detail, down to discussion with the authorities on the spot as to the allocation of different forms of armaments. Another example given by the Minister was the accumulation of munitions reserves and the industrial potential. He doubted if the House realised the exhaustive review which had been made of factory capacity for different types of armament and munitions. He instanced the discovery of a definite deficiency in the case of certain needs of the Army, and how immediate steps were being taken to remedy it by the Government acquiring an engineering undertaking on the Tyne, which would make its capacity equal to any demand which an emergency might make. Regarding higher strategic considerations, the Minister spoke warmly of the experience, initiative, and intelligence of the military, naval, and air experts working on or under the Committee for Imperial Defence, and mentioned incidentally the consideration being given to the lessons of last year arising from events in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean. An Opposition speaker later in the debate said that though the Labour Party must vote against the loans proposal, all sides of the House were united in making the defences of the country adequate.