THE ARMS DEBATE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 89, 13 March 1935, Page 7

THE ARMS DEBATE

CENSURE VOTE DEFEATED. STRIKING FIGURES GIVEN. LEAGUE POLICY STANDS. (United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 11. After a lengthy debate in the House of Commons on the subject of Imperial delence and the recent White Paper the Labour vote of censure was defeated by 424 votes to 79 and the amendment, moved by Sir Austen .Chamberlain, in support of the Government programme, was carried by 412 votes to 78. “Our policy since the Washington and London Treaties,” Air Stanley Baldwin said, “has been one of limited replacement in the hope that it .would have a steadying influence on foreign programnips, hut this was not achieved. Japan’s naval personnel has increased from 72,000 to 88,000 in the past four years. It has a far more_ modern navy than we have. The United States is building- up to treaty limits, which we have never done. Her naval estimates were 350,000,000 dollars in 1933, 492,000,000 dollars this year, and 580,000,000 dollars for next year. Italy has laid down two 35,000 ton capital ships armed with 15-inch guns. France is laying down a similar pair in reply. Russia’s regular army four years ago was 600,000 men and is now 940,000. Russia had 800 aeroplanes in 1926 and now has over 2000. Japan’s army has more than doubled in the last four years. Italy’s Air Force has increased by 25 per cent, and the United States armv and air estimates have increased by 39,000,000 dollars.” Sir John Simon contended that Britain’s regular and territorial armies were now smaller than in 1914. The increased expenditure included £750,000 for the restoration of pay and pension cuts. Another big item was the provision of better barracks, many of which did not reach civilian standards.

“I wish to make the definite statement with full Government authority.” ho said, “that its policy is unalterably based on membership of the League.” Every State in Europe, save one, belonged to the League. His and Air R. A. Eden’s forthcoming journeys were to search for a basis for Germany effectively to rejoin. “We are determined to endeavour to secure this result because we are convinced that there is no security in the world comparable to the effective working of a real and universal League' of Nations.”

Britain’s efforts regarding the Saar and Hungary and Yugoslavia were all under League machinery. The London Declaration was approved by all parties in Britain and abroad. That remained and its cuthovs declared its I purposes unchanged. They were glad that Germany welcomed its fair and friendly’ spirit. It was in that spirit that he and Ah- Eden would visit foreign capitals. They were striving in a spirit of realism to find a basis for strengthening European security. Theywere seeking to do so in equal conference with all the States concerned. The responsibility rested with the Government. There might -have been an easier course to take than face the facts as they found them, but, with a responsibility t-o discharge not only to tho people of Britain but to the Empire, lie asked the House overwhelmingly to justify their policy. While Admiral Sir Roger Keyes (Con.) was speaking two young women sitting in the front row of the galleryrose and hurled a bundle of green leaflets on the floor of the House. While they were being ejected they’ shouted; “Not a penny for war. Tear up the White Paper.” The disturbance lasted only half a minute. Sir Stafford Cripps (Lab.), said that the object of those who had established the League and arranged every pact and treaty was to get rid of armaments. Now these . very pacts were being used as an argument to justify increased armaments. While Sir Herbert Samuel was winding up his speech there was more leaflet-throwing from the gallery and two more young women were ejected. OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. SUPPORT AND DISAPPOINTMENT. LONDON, March 11. The News-Chronicle, in a leader, says that Air Baldwin, in jauntily defiant mood, not only refused to apologise for tlie AYhite 'Paper or the occasion of its publication but deliberately justified both. His defence was at the best a half-truth. He gave no assurance that the Government- was not proposing to abandon the idea of collective security. The Daily Mail, in a leader, says: Britain cannot be defended by fine phrases, or leaving protection to other nations, which is the real interpretation of fhe pompous Socialist talk about collective security and the League. A large loan to provide an imposing air fleet would be perfectlyjustified. The Times, in a leader, says : If dictatorships believe their countries must be self-sufficient in war time, democracies would he feeble defenders of the collective system if they alone believed they could remain inadequatelyarmed. British democracy will -certainly mainly agree with Afr Baldwin and Sir Austen Chamberlain’s statements.

Commenting on the issues involved in the debate the Times, a British Official Wireless message states, points out that it was always obvious that, failing the immediate success of the Disarmament Conference, the arrears of several years of economies in the service estimates would have to he made up. Britain will soon he better equipped to play her full part in the collective system particularly in the air. As soon as the collective system can lie made a reality, the logical and natural consequence will he a reduction all round of individual national forces. ATTITUDE OF GERMANY.F RIENDLY SPI BIT PLE A SES. REFERENCE TO VERSAILLES. BERLIN, March 11. The House of Commons debate is featured in newspapers. The Yolkischc Boebaeliter, commenting lengthily on Mr Baldwin’s speech, notes with satisfaction that the White Paper references to Germany were intended in a friendly spirit, but it remains regrettable that so little of this spirit is traceable in tlie document, and that, in the opinion of practically the whole world, a relapse into the Versailles methods and the 1919 way of thinking had to be recorded. I Germany welcomed negotiations on I condition that her equality was neither | theoretically nor practically infringed. The editorial specially welcomes Mr

| Baldwin’s reference to Russia, “which avowedly for the purpose of a Communist world revolution possesses tha strongest war power in the world.” It concludes that Germany’s disappointment would not have burst out if the facts cited by Air Baldwin had headed the White Paper’s survey. Herr Paul Scheffer, editor of the Tageblatt, finds satisfaction in Air Baldwin’s statement that Germany’ la not the only nation engaged in increasing armaments, but complains that much for which the White Paper was criticised is still left unmentioned. The News-Chronicle’s Berlin correspondent says that Herr Hitler was kept specially informed of the progress of the House of Commons debate. Portions of sp_eeclies directly hearing on tho German situation were telephoned to Munich from London and relayed to the Chancellor’s home. EXPLANATION OF BUDGET. IN AIR BALDWIN’S SPEECH. “THE NET RESULT.” Received Alarch 13, 9.15 a.m. BERLIN, Alarch 12. The Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung says, the British Government lias realised the mistake it made by’ one-sidedly accusing Germany in the White Paper. Air Baldwin endeavoured to remedy this. Not the AYliite Paper, but AllBaldwin's speech, contains the true explanation of Britain’s military budget. The net result is crisp and'sober, namely, that the British Government | has taken bac-k nothing, but has also made good her own case by pointing to tlie armaments of nations other than Germany. The Frankfurter Zeitung saya tho debate has not removed toe lact that Britain seems to have embarked on a policy which definitely excludes a serious reduction of armaments or any discussion on last year’s basis. OPINION IN FRANCE. POLICY ON PEACE. PARIS, Alarch 12. Air Baldwin’s speech is regarded as a vindication of Franco-British work for “peace—hut not at any price,’’ and favourably impressed official circles who see in it a parallel to AI. Fiandin’s speech on Alarch 10. Both, it is pointed out, proclaimed the anxiety of the respective countries to organise peace and security- while maintaining that the moment had come for an overhaul of defence arrangements.