CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1622, 11 May 1887, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not. bold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by ouu correspondents. To ensure publication, however, it will be necessary for writers to avoid personalities.! To the Editor of the Star. Sin, — In reading your leader on the relative strength of continental nations in relation to Great Britain, you seem to lump the strength of the five great nations with their nine millions of fightinp; men against England's six hundred thousand ; as pointing to the possibility of England at some time having those cations her enemies. I need not say that that is outside the realms of possibility. I think the true value of a nation's greatuess as a fighting or a protecting power is not in the number of men living in idleness and overpowering their country, but in the relative numbers that a nation can command in time of war. Take, for instance, a war with France : Englnnd has the assistance of Germany. With regard to war with Russia, the disparity of numbers is all on tbe side of Russia. Though she has a population of 90 millions, as against our 36 she speaks eleven languages, and caunot be expected to show the smue determination as a united nation like Great Britain. In addition to the immense numbers of trained men always at the service of England, ou the outbreak of war we have a force of 250,000,000 of East Indiaus to recruit trom, acd China, with her population of 400,000,000, is anxious to tako from Russia something like three hundred miles of frontier that Russia has gradually taken. When the question is viewed from this light. England has a force of some 600,000,000 to take her sidp. I believe also that nearly all troops taken from the nations that I have mentioned would be on an equal footing in the field with the 3,000,000 of Russia. England's real strength to protect her home is the navy, leaving, as you truly say, her strength and muscle for work and further prosperity. It may appear that France and Germany compelling the adult population to become soldiers for a term of three years far outweighs England. I think it does so in Germany, but not in France, Germany with her military system really keeping every adult man a soldier for something like twelve yeais. Frenchmen, after the first three ycare, are allowed to go free. England, on the other hand, takes her men voluntarily, and keeps them in thorough discipline for at least seven years. Yon then have a soldier that will last in or out of the service, and, though in the ordinary course of things raore men pass under the dnil instructor in France than England, the latter country has the greatest complement of well-drilled men. The fighting that I witnessed when a boy taught me the lesson that the undisciplined always ruu away. — I am, &c, Red Coat.