The Hawera Star. FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1934. GREAT BRITAIN’S DEFENCES.

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 9 March 1934, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1934. GREAT BRITAIN’S DEFENCES.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clook in Hawer*,, tlauaia, Kaupokonui, Otakeho Oeo, Pihatr.a, Opunake, Norman by, Okaiawa, Eltham, Ngaere, Mangai-oki, Kapouga, Avvatuna, Te Kiri, Mahoe, Lowgarth, Manutahi, Kakaramea, Alton, Hurleyvil.o, Patea, Whenuakura, Waverley, Moknia, Whakamara, Obangai, Mereruei?. Fraser Eoao and Ararata.

The question of the strength of Great Britain’s air force, 'has lately been debated with controversial fervour. There lias been a strong endeavour in some quarters to represent the need of considerable, reinforcement of the aerial arm as a paramount necessity. The “Daily Mail” has thrown itself with characteristic vehemence into the lists, declaring that the National Governmcnt; by permitting the British air force to sink to the lowest position among the air forces of the Great Powers, has incurred a most serious responsibility, and that “never before could it be said that the very heart of Britain was exposed to the deadliest form of attack from abroad.” In an article in the “Daily Telegraph” based mainly on General Groves’ xccent volume, “Behind the i,Smoke Sexeen,” Captain Liddell Hart writes: “To the detached observer there is an astonishing inconsistency in the fervid pacifists who harp on the aerial horrors of the next war as an argument for air disarmament, yet will not face the fact that wo have declined to sixth place in air power, thus having little to offer in exchange for what they are askin,g other countries to sacrifice.” An indictment of the system under which Britain spends “well over a hundred million pounds a year for defence, yeti dtvotes less than three shillings out of

every pound spent to the a.ir force.-. [ which alone can protect the heart ol the country” has been pressed with considerable acerbity, as debates in the House of Commons have attested. Mi Churchill, who- is credited by General Groves with “a surprising blunder” when, in office in post-war days in failing to grasp the true nature of air vajfare, was reported as stating recently in Parliament: “Years ago, our navy was a sure shield, but now this accursed hellish invention of war from the air has revolutionised the position.” That might appear to amount to a partial admission of the justice of the criticism referred to. But that the position is exactly revolutionised is by no. means conceded by most of the experts. The champions of the navy have pointed out that no air force could protect trade or guarantee the safety of troops being carried overseas, and have commented on the extravagance of assertions to the effect that the next wai would be conducted 1 entirely by air raids. Logically enough it lias been argued that if Britain did not protect her trade she would evade air raids, because no nation would be so stupid as- .to bomb defenceless towns when it. could starve her into submission in a few weeks by stopping her sea-borne trade, with no danger to, its own foneeis. Then again, it has been pointed out that if Britain were to increase the numbdr of her ’.planes to 5000, as demanded by a section of the press, she would require three times her present number of cruisers for the protection of her fuel supplies, for not one ’plane could rise from the ground without fuel brought under naval protection. By a leading British scie'ntist it was recently affirmed that exaggerated statements had been made with regard to the dangers from gas to the civil population in a future war, since the scope of this weapon in warfare was extremely limited. Chemical warfare, said this authority, had) got such a hold on the imagination of the civil population that the main danger was psychological. However unfortunate, a clash between the respective claims of the navy and the air force is no new thing. No doubt from the viewpoint that Great Britain is already inferior in air power, and faces inferiority in sea power, the desirability of a strengthening of both arms in the interests of security is incontestable.