DEFENCE WHITE PAPER

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 88, 12 March 1935, Page 7

DEFENCE WHITE PAPER

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE

JUSTIFICATION OF MEASURE

(United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) Received March 12, 11.15 a.m.

RUGBY, March 11.

Generally foreshadowed as the most important debate since the war, to-day’s occasion in the House of Commons hardly fulfilled expectations. Obviously the Government, while not modifying a word of the White Paper on defence, studiously avoided offending Germany in view of Herr Hitler’s renewed invitation.

Sir Austen Chamberlain, in the role of elder_ statesman, from the back bench produced a memorable contribution and received an ovation such as is seldom heard in the House of Commons.

The Chamber was packed and the Ambassadors’ Gallery was inadequate to accommodate the foreign diplomats, who overflowed into the Dominions’ Gallery.

(MR BALDWIN’S SPEECH. Interest in the debate was stimulated by tho fact that the subject, instead of being raised, as in previous years, on the Estimates lor individual services, is for the first time being discussed as a whole and by the terms of tho White Paper issued a week ago in preparation for the debate. Tlie House was crowded with many foreign diplomats, including the French, Belgian, and Turkish Ambassadors. The German Counsellor was present in the galleries when tlie debate was opened by Mr O. R. Attlee, who moved the Labour Opposition’s vote of censure on the Government.

favoured and prosperous in that work and would bring them nearer the security for which they had been so long straggling. THE LABOUR VIEWPOINT. Mr Attlee, submitting the Labour motion, claimed that the first part of the White Paper meant repudiation of tho League Covenant. (Cries of “No,” and Labour counter cheers.) Failure to make the League effective was the real cause of the presnt-day talk of war and armaments. We had spent £1,500,000,000 on armaments during the period in which we were supposed to have practised unilateral disarmament. Labour was utterly and entirely opposed to Hitlerism, the present rulers of Germany, and detested militarism in every form in every country. ' Labour in no way under-rated the fact that Germany had leit the League and was now rearming and preaching war, but believed she should be dealt with by the League, in which the whole world could (be ranged against tlie aggressor. If we were inside a League of collective security we only needed the forces necessary te meet in combination any menace by an aggressor. Why did the White Paper talk about the need for us to protect the integrity of certain territories on the. other side of the Channel ? It was deceiving the country:' to suggest that it could be protected from air attacks by a larger Air Force and antiaircraft guns. Greed, ambitions, nationalism, and imperialism were the cause of the present-day unrest, which was economic. Everywhere there were masses of people in distress. Their rulers were unable to satisly them, therefore they preached flambuoyant nationalism.

Mr Stanley Baldwin declared that “in the White Paper the democratic Government have told what they believe to bo tho truth to democracy.” In tho past some of the greatest perils to democracies had arisen through the failure of their leaders to tell them the unpalatable truth. He deprecated the statement that the Government paid only lip service to the League of Nations and maintained that British statesmen of all parties had since its inception played more than their part in supporting the League under conditions and in tinies of extraordinary difficulty, and against opposition from countries that had now left it. The Government were still determined to work through the (League for the future, but tlie people often forgot, in talking of collective security and sanctions, that membership of the League was not universal and that a collective system, therefore, was not complete. Two of the great Powers'had given notice of withdrawal and had thus dealt the collective system a heavy blow, while one great country had never undertaken the obligations of the League at all.

“We desire, with all our hearts, the universality of tho League,” said Mr Baldwin. “It is for this reason that we welcome the entry of the Soviet Union into tho League and have ourselves never ceased to try to persuade Germany to cancel her notice of withdrawal.”

Up to the time of the first edition going to press Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech had not been received.

In international politics, he continued, it was not a question of doing what was ideally best, but of doing what was the best in the existing circumstances.

The Government were not proposing to increase the size of the forces, except in the case of the Air Force, which was debated last summer. What they did ask was that the forces they possessed, if called upon to meet an aggressor or pursue obligations under a pact, should be as well equipped as possible. ANGLO-FRENCH DISCUSSIONS. Referring to tlie joint communique issued after the Anglo-French London convei'sations, Mr Baldwin said the reference in it to the direct and effective co-operation of Germany was, in the opinion of both the French and British Goverhnments ; of special importance, and they followed that up by making arrangements for the visit of Sir John Simon to 'Berlin. That would take place in about a fortnight. All had their parts to play in these matters —those countries _ desiring a modification of the existing treaties no less than those asked to concur in those modifications.

“If the former expect, and no one can complain if they do, some modification of the present situation the latter may also reasonably ask that the changes in which they aro asked freely to concur be accompanied by assurances which are essential to ensure tranquillity and security,” said Mr Baldwin. 1 It bad been suggested in some quarters that Germany Avas the only country alluded to in the White Paper. That Avas far from the truth, yet the paper said nothing in substance AA’hich he had not himself said AA'ith general agreement last November. Its terms Avere set out in no other than a friendly spirit and in tlie belief that a frank understanding Avas the best, and indeed the only, effective prelude to any kind of negotiations. Without frankness no one Avould ever get to the beginning, much less to tlie end, of any effective agreement. NEW ERA POSSIBLE. He hoped they could jioaa’ come to business. There was no reason Avhv the negotiations begun in Paris and Rome, and to be followed. they hoped, in other capitals, should not lead to a neAV era in Europe. The Government Avanted them to do so and Avere prepared to contribute their share, but a desire to create or magnify fictitious incidents, or failure to grasp facts, AA’ere no contribution at all.

AnsAA r ering the suggestion that the British defence proposals would lead to the rearmament of others, Mr Baldwin frankly presented facts and figures about the large increases in the forces of other nations, including those of the United States, Japan, and Russia. He mentioned also that many countries, had adopted confpreliensive plans for the mobilisation of the Avhole tion in time of' Avar. Britain nacl never taken the lead in rearmament. Her air force still came only fifth, and apart from anti-aircraft defence no increase in the armed forces of the Navy or Armv wrs proposed. Mr BaldAvin said, they could not ensure immunity against air attack, but thev could make it more difficult.. I hat Avas the idea of the proposed air pact. They had, somehoAV or other, to make an attack from the air not worth Avhile in any part of Europe. Mr BaldAvin maintained that, the Government’s policy, as set out in the White Paper, so far from being mimical to peace, Avould help them in the times that Avere coming to make peace more secure. He said they all Avished that their representatives Avho Avere going to the European capitals during the next tAvo or three weeks might be