Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NEW LEAD

DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS BRITISH DECLARATION NEWSPAPER COMMENT London, July 8. The “Daily Express,’’ referring to Mr Baldwin’s declaration on the British disarmament policy in the House of Commons, says: “The English-speaking nations have given a new lead to the rest of the world. The whole trend of civilisation depends on the welcome accorded to proposals.” The News-Chronicle” says: “What makes the proposals mere sham is that navally they involve no disarmament at all. It is a scheme of disarmament for our grandchildren.” “The Times,” in u loader, emphasises that the “British plan involves sinking nearly 300,000 tons of warships, whereas America, after allowing the right of new building, would lose half that figure. The Hoover plan, however, does uot affect the size of ships, which is the main difficulty In reconciling the proposals. It is obviously impossible to reduce the British Navy below a certain point owing to her widespread responsibilities. Even in recent years police duties in South America, China, East Mediterranean and the Red Sea might have been required simultaneously. If the Hoover police policy regarding land armaments were applied to the Navy it should not be impossible to reach an understanding.” FEELING IN WASHINGTON New York, July 8. The “New York Times’ ” Washington correspondent states that administration circles accepted the British disarmament proposals as “in line with the spirit of Mr Hoover’s proposal,” but consider that they will require extensive study and negotiation before they are adopted by the United States.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBTRIB19320709.2.74

Bibliographic details

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 175, 9 July 1932, Page 8

Word Count
245

NEW LEAD Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 175, 9 July 1932, Page 8

NEW LEAD Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 175, 9 July 1932, Page 8