Greatest War Problem Intrigue at Whitehall

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7085, 6 December 1929, Page 7

Greatest War Problem Intrigue at Whitehall

GRABBING IN STRATEGY

Plea for Coordination of all Defence Forces

Progress Towards Peace Too Slow

Australian Press Assn.—United Service. Received Thursday, 9.30 p.m. LONDON, Dec. 4. In the House of Commons, Mr. A. V. Alexander, in answer to a question, said Britain’s liability for expenditure on the Singapore base was only limited by the Dominions and colonies’ contributions. Any additional expenditure, however, must he borne by Britain. Mr. F. Montague informed a questioner that since the establishment of Imperial Airways, Limited, in 1923, it had had five fatal accidents, in which 19 passengers and nine employees and one Civil Servant had been killed. Mr. E. L. Burgin, Liberal member for Luton, moved a motion calling on the Government to stimulate international action for the comprehensive reduction of armaments, expressing the opinion that the country’s defence ought to be co-ordinated. Mr. Lloyd George said he had always strongly favoured the co-ordinatioif of defence. No Government ever sat down to consider the problem of defence as a whole. “How much wa suffered in the Great War because not merely was a- war taking place in Flanders and Gallipoli, but a departmental war was going on. at Whitehall! That was far and away the greatest problem with which we had to deal.” It would have been far better, from the viewpoint of efficiency, if we had one man in charge, instead of the Admiralty and the War Office grabbing for men and even grabbing in sti’ategy. There was no doubt that when the whole story of the Dardanelles was told, it would be found our failure was largely due to lack of co-ordination. Without blaming anyone in particular, it was pre-eminently a strategical problem, only solvable by perfect harmony and co-ordination between the forces. We could have a far more efficient defensive force, at less cost, if there was less jealousy amongst the departments, which were fighting one another. It was something inconceivable that each department should he milking the Treasury, which, was fatal from the viewpoint of economy. President Hoover, the first official of a great nation, had the courage to remind us that men under arms throughout the world, including active reserves, were now ten millions above the pre-war total. There were far more powerful weapons of destruction in the world now than before the war. Mr. Lloyd George asked what the Government was going to do to force the League’s Disarmament Commission to deal with the problem. The commission had done absolutely nothing. It was a farce. The present Government, backed by President Hoover, had the power to insist on something being done. .“I feel deeply on the subject, as one who had a good deal to do with the manufacture of arms and who signed the disarmament obligations and the peace treaty, which all the Allies have trampled on. You are not going to get peace with, millions of armed men. The chariot of peace cannot advance along a road littered with cannon. You must break up the machinery of hatred and convert it to the mechanism of peace and progress.” - Sir Samuel .Hoare said Britain had greatly reduced her fighting forces. Mr. Lloyd George: “I am glad of the opportunity of admitting that Britain has done more than any other countiy in this direction.” Sir Samuel Hoare said the limitations of air forces should be limited to those used for aggressive purposes. If the question of air armaments were kept separate, we might at first seek an agreement for Anglo-Franco-Italian parity. Mr. Alexander, in replying to the debate, maintained that no Government had done more to stimulate international feelihg on disarmament The sacrifice of armaments by one country alone would not solve the problem, solution would be foiyid when all nations co-operated to reduce armaments to a minimum required to maintain peace. The motion was agreed to unanimously.