A STORM BREWING

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 91, 15 March 1935, Page 7

A STORM BREWING

GERMAN AIR ARMAMENTS. VIOLATION OF VERSAILLES. FRENCH COMMENT ON “BLACKMAIL.” (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received March 15, 9.20 a.m. PARIS, March 14. A storm is browing over Germany’s air rearmament, Franco maintaining that the cardinal point of the policy decided in Romo and London is that no Power has the right to modify her obligations unilaterally. The newspapers describe it as the first official violation of the Versailles Treaty. The Echo de Paris says: Doubtless Herr Hitler flatters himself as having revenge lor the White Paper, but it remains to be seen whether France, Britain, and Italy will submit to blackmail. The Matin says: Germany has anticipated advantages which ought to have been granted her only after her participation in the other instruments of peace. GERMANY QUITE FRANK. STEPS “INDISPUTABLY LEGAL.” CONFIDENCE IN MILITARISM. Received March 15, 9.20 a.m. LONDON, March 14. The Manchester Guardian's Berlin correspondent says the German view is that German rearmament in general, and air rearmament in particular, is indisputably legal. No Power, it is declared, has the slightestright to complain. Germany is only insisting on the same rights as the other Powers, whose failure to disarm has compelled Germany to rearm. “There is now no chance of reducing either air or land armaments by means of a treaty,” says one commentator. “Germany, in fact, is sceptical regarding the possibility of any useful convention, and is not without confidence in her own military strength.” THE WHITE PAPER DEBATE. IN HOUSE OF LORDS. VARIETY OF OPINIONS. (British Official Wireless. ) Received March 15, 11.15 a.m. RUGBY, March 14. The Government’s defence policy, as set out in the White Paper, was discussed in the House of Lords last night on a Labour motion of censure similar to that debated in the House of Commons on Monday.

Lord Ponsonby supported the motion and criticised both the substance and the time of the issue of the White Paper, and charged the Government with failing to reflect in their policy Britain’s deep-seated desire for peace. Lord Stanhope contested this view and denied that the Government had abandoned the liopo of a disarmament convention. With Germany outside the League it was, however, impossible. Far from deserting the idea of a collective system, the Government, declared Lord Stanhope, believed in it more firmly than ever. Lord Reading (Liberal) said the Government’s anxiety for peace was shown by the risks they had taken while setting the example of disarmament. Lord Cecil was critical of the White Paper and the policy it embodied, although lie agreed that it possessed some virtues. He asked whether anyone really believed that security was to be achieved by armaments. The Archbishop of Canterbury thought a reassuring feature of the Government’s policy was their encouragement of agreements for mutual assistance and their evident desire to bring Germany back to tho League. Lord Lothian thought, the White Paper an unfortunate document. Ho stated that when he recently saw Herr Hitler he had declared that Germany was prepared to abolish all bombers if everyone els« did the same. Replying to tho debate Lord Hailsham emphatically denied that the Government had abandoned the collective system or tlie League of Nations, and declared that the expenditure now proposed would only 7 provide the minimum of defence. . While expressing interest in Lord Lothian’s statement that Herr Hitler was willing to abolish bombing ’planes, he jjointed out that it would not remove the danger of civil aircraft, which could be quickly transformed into bombers. Tho House rejected the Labour motion without a division. VIEWS AT VARIANCE. ARCHBISHOP’S SPEECH. LONDON, March 13. In the House of Lords, Lord Ponoonby initiated tho defence debate, moving that the White Paper would increase international difficulties and armaments competition and weaken the collective security inherent in the League Covenant. He expressed tlie opinion that the people were justifiably alarmed lest this was only tho beginning of a new policy of rearmament driving tlie last nail in the coffin of the Disarmament Conference. Lord Reading said that Britain from the beginning had led the promotion of pacification in the world and had taken risks for this end which others had not taken. No nation in the world believed that the Government was in anywise imperilling peace, but the rearmament oi Europe while Britain yearly reduced armaments had created a new situation. Lord Lothian said that Herr Hitler himself had recently assured him personally that Germany was prepared to abolish air bombers altogether if everybody would do likewise. This was a formidable fact providing an opportunity for the success of the air convention. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that if the White Paper alone represented Government policy 7 or meant the abandonment of the attempt to seek a general limitation of armaments lie would be troubled, but , critics should remember the Government’s encouragement of regional agreements lor mutual defence and' their earnest desire to bring Germany back to the League, without which general disarmament was impossible. Those devoted to the | cause of the League and disarmament would not advance the cause by suggest- j ing that the White Paper meant the abandonment of adherence to the League. . Lord Ha.ilsham, replying, said that support of the League and collective security did not mean that Britain was to render herself incapable of defence. The Government was proposing to pro-

vide the minimum forces necessary to protect the country and Empire. Lord Ponsouby’s motion was negatived without division.

THE NAVAL ESTIMATES. EXPLANATION TO COAIAIONS. BRITAIN’S DESIRE FOR LIMITATION. (British Official Wireless.) Received Alarch 15, 11.15 a.m. RUGBY, March 14. Introducing tlie Naval Estimates in the House of Commons to-day, Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell pointed out that the increase of £3,500,000 in the total did not mean any increase in the size of the Fleet. An additional expenditure of £2,000,000 was essential to make good the serious deficiencies in equipment and to carry out tlie modernistation of certain old ships. Tlie remaining £1,500,000 increase was due to an automatic rise in expenditure during 1935 on new construction involved by the programme authorised in previous years, and constituting part of the normal replacement policy allowed by the terms of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, which is still in force. Tlie number of ships in the British Navy had been already drastically reduced and in view of its Imperial responsibilities the Government could not agree to a further numerical reduction. At- tlie same time, they were anxious to join in an international agreement for a reduction of sizes within the categories. In particular, they would like to see the tonnage of battleships fixed at 25,000, with I2in. guns, and cruisers restricted to 7000 tons, with 6in guns. Failing tho total abolition of submarines, which they favoured, they would like to maintain the qualitative limitations of tho London Treaty and drastically reduce the maximum permissible submarine tonnage. These proposals for qualitative limitation would be of enormous advantage to the world, because they would preserve therelative strengths of the different countries at a greatly reduced cost.