INADEQUATE DEFENCES

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 May 1938, Page 9

INADEQUATE DEFENCES

N.Z. OFFICERS’ INDICTMENT “STATE OF UNPRFPAREDNE&S” I'PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, May 18. The view that the statement on defence made at Dargaville by the Minister for Defence (Hon. F. Jones) is inadequate, is expressed by four senior officers of the New Zealand territorial force in a manifesto. The officers, all of whom formerly commanded brigrades, state: —

“Sensible of the duty cast upon us ns senior officers of the New Zealand territorial force, and of the grave responsibility which we must share in the event of that force, being called upon to assist in the defence of this country, we seized the opportunity ot exchanging our respective views while attending a recent senior officers course at Trentham. We then discovered unanimity of opinion on certain matters affecting the territorial force which we had not had an opportunity till then of realising. On Friday, May 6, we were granted an interview with the Minister for Defence, when we placed before him our views, and ways and means by which we considered this grave state of affairs could be remedied. After a most courteous hearing by the Minister, he promised to issue a statement. “After the meeting, it was realised that the Minister had not given us any time within which this statement would be issued. We then requested the chief of the general staff, MajorGeneral J. E. Duigan. to request the Minister to nominate such a time; but also to intimate to the Minister that we would consider the expiry two weeks to be an undue delay in the face of what we considered to be an urgent state of affairs. We further agreed that if such a statement was not issued within such a period, or, if issued, was inadequate to achieve the results desired by us, that we would publish our considered opinion. Such statement has now been issued, and wo consider it inadequate. We therefore make the following statement.

“Conscious of the very poor measure of support accorded to the forces by the public, we find it necessary to inform them of our opinions, in the hope that the country itself may decide whether or not it requires a territorial army. If it decides that such a force is a necessity, then it must assume the duty of supporting those volunteers who have been endeavouring loyally to preserve a nucleus of a territorial army for many years past, with little oi- no public assistance. This action is taken by us solely for the purpose of ensuring that an adequate and efficient land force shall be available for the defence of New Zealand. We claim intimate knowledge of the problem of our defence, and the state of unpreparedness now existing. We realise that, as senior volunteer officers on the active list of the territorial forces, we have' a duty to place on record what we believe to be facts: THE FIVE FACTS. “1. That the present organisation and establishment of the force is insufficient for the defence of New Zealand. „ , A “2. That the number of volunteers trained and in training is insufficient to complete the establishment as at present laid down. “3. That the standard of physique and training of the serving volunteers in some cases is such as to render them unsuited for the purposes of expansion of the present organisation in time of need. r . “4. That the morale of the existing volunteers is being snapped by successive, reduction in strength, ami lack of public support—that we fear the disintegration of our present skeleton unless definite support is accorded by the Government and people, and assurances are given that the force is desired, and will be fostered. “5. That, in our opinion, the failure of tlie present volunteer system would not have occurred had the active support of successive governments been accorded our land forces since the inception of the voluntary system. “We are impelled to refer to the splendid and loyal service given by that silent department of our army—the officers of the staff corps and the New Zealand permanent staff, whose duties have been, and are being, carried out under most disheartening conditions. Upon their shoulders the blame for failure will assuredly be visited. Should our forces be called to action, the fault will not be theirs. In conclusion, we hesitate to mention the effect of this statement on our own personal positions as military officers. However, we would like the people of New Zealand to realise that the gravity of the situation is such that we feel all personal considerations must be put aside if we are to carry out our duty to our country as citizens and soldiers.”

SIGNATORIES’ CAREERS. The officers signing the above manifesto are all officers on the active list of the Territorial Forces. They all commanded the brigades enumerated until the reorganisation of last year, when they were retained, and posted to tho colonels’ list of the force. Of the two other officers on the colonels’ list, Colonel R. C. Milligan is at present in England, and Colonel S. D. Mason is not a party to this statement. The officers signing it are Colonel C. R. Spragg, who served with the Fourth Rough Riders in the South African War, served with the Wellington Mounted Rifles in Gallipoli and in Palestine. He is commander of the First Mounted Rifle Brigade in the northern district, and is well known in the Auckland district as a farmer, and for his interest in the dairy industry. Colonel N. L. Macky, M.C., served with the New Zealand Rifle Brigade in the western Egypt campaign and in France. He is commander of the First Infantry Brigade in the northern district, and is a solicitor. He is a partner in the firm of Russell, McVeagh, Macky, and Barrowclough. Colonel A. S. Wilder, D. 5.0., M.C., served with the Wellington Mounted Rifles on Gallipoli and in Palestine. He is commander of the Second Rifle Brigade in Wellington and is a sheepfarmer at Waipukurau. Colonel R. F.-Gambrill, M.C., served with the Wellington Infantry Battalion in Gallipoli and France. He is commander of the-'Second Infantry Brigade in Wellington. He is a solicitor, and a partner in the firm of Nolan and Skeet, solicitors, Gisborne.

| Mlt. POLSON’S CRITICISM NEW PLYMOUTH, May 18. Strong criticism of the Labour Government’s attitude toward Empire defence was expressed by Mr. W. J. Polson, M.P., in an address at Korito. The Labour Party, Mr. Polson said, through its leaders, and particularly Mr. Savage and Mr. Nash, had recently been noticeably making professions of loyalty to the Throne, and acclaiming the 1 heroes of Anzac with fervour and enthusiasm. It was pleasant reading; but the Labour Party’s members had. not always been so loyal or so enthusiastic, and in view of the attitude of Mr. W. J. Jordan, the High Commissioner, at Geneva, under instructions from his Government, the people might be forgiven for doubting their sincerity to-day. Mr. Jordan had strongly disagreed with the policy of the British Government in seeking a settlement with Italy that would prevent war and make

for better international conditions. They had the spectacle, said Mr. Polson. of the smallest Dominion, which was spending a paltry 2 or 3 per cent, of its taxation on defence, not only criticising Britain, which was spending 50 per cent, of her taxation for a. similar purpose, but actually harassing and humiliating her in a council of nations. The Labour Party had already made it clear that it would not assist with a single soldier if Britain was drawn into any war over Abyssinia, and was in effect demanding that Britain should risk a quarrel with Italy. Probably Labour realised that the public was not aware of its action in Parliament in 1935, when the* Economic Sanctions Bill was passed before the last New Zealand Government went out of office. That bill, passed by Empire Parliaments at the request of Geneva, had been turned into a Military Sanctions Bill by the Labour I arty before it would give its support. The Labour Government insisted on a clause providing that, in imposing sanctions on Italy, no person in New Zealand should be required to serve in New Zealand or overseas as a member of any military, naval, or air force, and no person should be trained for any such service. So Mr. Jordan, at Geneva, knowing that New Zealand, through the attitude of his own Government while in opposition, had stated definitely that she would not help if it came to wax, yet demanded ol Britain that she should take a course calculated to lead to war. Mr. Polson read a telegram from Mr Forbes in support of his assertion that Clause 3 was included to meet a Labour objection that power under the Economic Sanctions Bill might be used to compel service in military forces, either in New Zealand or overseas. Actions spoke louder than words, said Mr. Polson, and the fact that the New Zealand defence forces were being turned into a farce was known to every volunteer. Only the other day they had read the assertion of a representative of the New Zealand Defence League that the defence force was down to a disorganised halftrained 4000 men. The Labour Party could put the ostrich in the shade when it came to ignoring responsibilities which did not suit its peculiar opinions; but it could hardly camouflage these facts.

LEAVE FOR TRAINING AUCKLAND, May 18. An appeal to members 1 of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce not only to grant to members of their staffs who were territorials the necessary leave to undergo training, particularly for the annual six days’ camp, but also to make up the difference between their army pay and the pay from their business, has been made by the president, Mr. Arnold Ely. He says that the aim to establish in the Territorial Force, by voluntary enlistment, 9000 trained officers, noncommissioned officers, and men, to maintain the security of New Zealand, was dependent on the backing of the community, as well as the spirit of service of the fit and keen men who joined up. At present the force W’as 1,500 men below establishment, and the most serious aspect was that an average of only 50 per cent, of those serving attended the annual camps this year. To effect the improvement required, the co-operation of all employers was needed. The Government, the largest employer in New Zealand, had given the business community a definite lead in the matter by gen erou? special leave and pay facilities.

LEAGUE SUPPORTS MINISTER ■WELLINGTON, May 19. Gratification at the programme outlined by the Minister of Defence (Mr. .Tones') in regard to air defence and land forces, was expressed by the New Zealand Defence League. In a statement, the League endorsed the policy of obtaining mechanised units, and stressed the need for increased land forces. ‘We are in serious need of more trained men,” says the statement, ‘•Our voung men are not attending territorial camps in sufficient numbers to enable a sufficient proportion of the population to be adequately trained. More trained man-power is absolutely essential for supporting other branches of the service.” The statement continues that the Minister invites the co-operation of all citizens, and the League hopes that all the people of New Zealand will respond to the Minister’s appeal. After drawing attention to its willingness to co-operate with the Government in the provision of adequate defence forces, it adds: “The League hopes that other members of the Cabinet will follow the lead of the Minister of Defence, and do their utmost to ensure that New Zealand defence forces will be adequate in the event of any emergency.” ~ x t> ‘ As Dominion President of the Defence League,” said Mr. Perry, M.L.C., to day. “I would say we welcome the fact that the Minister of Defence has made a comprehensive statement of the defence position a& it exists In New Zealand. We have not yet been able to call our national executive together, to discuss the statement in detail, and in the meantime, I am not prepared to make any comment on it.”