Grey River Argus SATURDAY, May 4th 1935. ARGUMENT BY ARMAMENT.

Grey River Argus, 4 May 1935, Page 4

Grey River Argus SATURDAY, May 4th 1935. ARGUMENT BY ARMAMENT.

In spite of parleys, declarations and pacts among the Powers, the European situation loses little of its menace and less of its anxiety. Statesmen talk peace and security. but Governments act as if these were receding, as re-arma-nient rivalry is growing from day to day. What has long been inherent in the situation is now most evident. The danger is in the centre. One of the elder statesmen. Sir Austin Chamberlain, has gone nearer the mark 1 han th e Prime Minister in the House of Commons’ exposition of Britain’s position. ll e implied that Germany might require again to be faced as in 1914. Mr MacDonald. whose attitude in warning, while not repudiating, Germany, finds favour in many quarters, beckons Herr Hitler to reverse his attitude. H e refuses to discount any suggestion of the Xazi leader for non-aggressive understandings, hut has to admit those suggestions have been meantime rendered nugatory by the independent course Germany follows in rapidly augmenting every arm of her forces. In Britain, the test is now one between those who expect Geneva procedure to undo what has been done in spite of the League, and those who anticipate that the only safeguard is to prevent re-armament from placing any aggressive regime in a position Io impose its will with force by having at hand force sufficient to counter aggression. A good deal must depend upon what interpretation is to be placed on the motii es of any regime re-arming iv ithout regard to the common feeling on the question. Germany

may be considered to have a j moral claim to possess defences' proportionate to her importance and interests, but her decision to ignore every other Power in the matter, and resume her pre-war policy, prompts the conclusion that her motive is aggressive. Were it not, she would be better disposed to co-operate. The sit nation is not, indeed, so simple as merely to be determined by Germany alone. Britain is ready, it seems, to join the other Western Powers in preserving the status quo on the Continent, especially in preserving Austria from annexation by Germany, but the decision now obviously taken to expand the British Air Force enormously means that it will be equal not only to that of Germany in any eventuality, bur equal also to any other in Europe in the future. That is evidently what the Conservative Party desire, and, despite what opening Germany may be left to return to Geneva or co-operate in security, the new British air policy is the most reliable indicator of what the course of events is likely to be. The Franco-Russian pact goes further than any pact proposed for a security scheme, and its explanation is the judgment which those Powers place on th? policy of Germany. The Stresa Conference has shown that Britain. France and Italy are pledged to co-operate in peace preservation, and that pledge must involve more than merely a negative attitude towards the possibility of hostilities. The advocates of a policy of coaxing Germany into an understanding are, at the same time, agreed that the course of action taken by the Xazi regime has united all sections in Britain in favour of a

policy of precaution, even though that be considered to include a reliance upon the League to remove any spirit of aggression ami non-co-operation. The question of commitments involving the dominions is borne in mind by the British Government, but there appears to be an assumption that the dominions have only a passive part to play. Mr Forbes has certainly lent colour to this idea, whether or not he meant to imply that the dominions did not want any voice in the matter. Granting that he may have far more information on the possibilities of the world situation than the ordinary person, it is not for him when out of the dominion to make a statement of a more sweeping nature than any he has chosen to make within the country. The point emphasised by the criticism to which he has from various quarters been subjected, is clear. There is a neglect on the Government’s part fully to take the public into its confidence, and to explain the under lying factors. This neglect is on all fours with the presumption that the dominion public are con tent to remain ignorant and to be thus committed to any hostilities by what statesmen may decide on the other side of the world. The demand for fuller information and for adequate discussion and deliberation before any commitment of this country as a means of averting danger as far as these would enable it to be done, is a very proper demand. A fuller insight into the European situation should serve to prove the wisdom of a precautionary policy.