TRAINING AND DEFENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15920, 4 May 1912, Page 3

TRAINING AND DEFENCE.

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir, —There are a good many people in New Zealand who dislike and eistrnst our system of compulsory military training, but who hesitate to join in the agitation against it, because they feel that this agitation is going along wrong lines. if compulsory service is really necessary for our protection, and if nothing else can ensure our safety, then the State has the right to demand that all who accept the benefits or citizenship should also accept its burdens. Many of us who supported the agitation for universal training which ultimately led to the present Act, supposed that by an extension of the rifle club system we should become an armed nation without being a military one. Under our new scheme, however, rifle shooting has so far received very little attention, and we arc drilling our boys but not arming them. Competent authorities consider that most of our drill is obsolete, taking its origin from the time of the British square and the bayonet charge. Much of the drill is mischievous in that it destroys initiative and makes the men too much dependent on their officers. In this connection General Baden-Powell says, speaking of the Boy Scout movement: —“lt is very important that _ there should be no kind of soldiering in this movement. . . . The drilling of boys makes them too much like a machine.”

Supposing, however, that our military training is going on the right lines, should we not have first made a serious attempt to create a Territorial Army on a voluntary basis? The principle of compulsion is abhorreut to many who have themselves been Volunteers, and it is certain, however much wo may deplore it, to keep many good settlers away from this country. To ray certain knowledge it has already driven away some very useful citizens who will prove most valuable settlers in their new home across the Pacific. Js it worth while to create all- this bitterness? Is compulsory service necessary? Will it ensure our safety? Our nearest possible enemy is over four thousand miles away, and as long as Britannia rules the waves no enemy will waste men by landing them in New Zealand. If Britain loses command of the sea, how can a military force save us? New Zealand is more dependent on sea-borne commerce than any other country on earth. Our internal trade even is largely sea-borne, and if the North Island were cut off from the South, the Northerners would soon be without bread. . On the arrival of a hostile fleet all our export and coastal trade would cease. Our freezing works would close down immediately, and the export of dairy produce would he impossible. A commercial panic would at once ensue, and the stoppage of credit would result in universal bankruptcy. The blockade of our coasts would cause such widespread misery that the actual invasion would make matters little worse. In fact, with an enemy in undisputed possession of our coasts, the most heroic resistance would only prolong, the ngonv and add to the completeness of our ultimate ruin. An enemy attacking us could choose whatever point he pleased for landing, and, if he wished, could concentrate most of his forces on one point, and at the same time, by. threatening several other points, could prevent our forces from concentrating. Our principal lines of communication are either on the sea or close to it. Nearly the whole of our population is within twelve miles of the coast, so that a great naval Power (and our enemy must needs he a very great naval Power) would hold us in the hollow of its*hand.

My contention is that we should not create .disloyalty and dissatisfaction in our own people, but.that we should encourage voluntary service. We should alsq coroperate with the Admiralty by the formation of a fortified navnl'base, the establishment of a submarine flotilla, or in some other way'which naval experts might suggest. Our aim should be not so much to repel an invasion as to prevent it.—l am, etc.. 0. MORGAN WILLIAMS. Kaiapoi, May 1.