Manawatu Daily Times The Triangle in Disarmament

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6626, 13 August 1931, Page 6

Manawatu Daily Times The Triangle in Disarmament

President Hoover’s advice that the world should give “solemn thought” to the question of competitive armaments during the year of respite from war debts seems to have struck a responsive chord on both sides of the Atlantic. It is well that this is so, for, though the conference on limitation of armaments is called for next February, the thoughts both of statesmen and peoples have hitherto not seemed fully awake to the necessity of doing something. Everyone lias been more interested in calling upon the other fellow to disarm first than in saying what he himself is prepared to do. -

The fact of the situation to-day is that the nations are not yet agreed either as to the extent to which limitation of armaments should he carried or the methods by which it is to be secured. A draft convention, prepared after strenuous work, leaves blank spaces for the figures and embodies several different methods of approach to the main problem. Before next February the blanks should in large measure he filled and the rival methods combined and co-ordinated.

The three rival methods which have to he combined are limitation of expenditure, or personnel, and of material. Statesmen of some countries pin their faith to one of these methods, those of others have pledged themselves to another. It may readily be shown that none of the three methods is sufficient by itself. For example, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in a speech before the House of Commons, gave illuminating figures tracinghow British naval expenditure had decreased between 1914 and 1924, and again between 1924 and 1931. He also told of a similar reduction in Great Britain’s naval personnel.

There is, of course, no disputing the fact that the British Navy is far less powerful now than in 1914. But, in full accord with the Washington Naval Treaty, two powerful battleships and several cruisers have been added since 1924. Obviously, therefore, neither limitation of personnel nor of expenditure gives a complete picture.

Similarly with limitation of material. By the Treaty of Versailles, Germany is forbidden to build any naval vessels of more than 10,000 tons. Accordingly, she spared no expense in producing a 10,000-ton supership immeasurably superior to •every other ship of the same size afloat. The result, known popularly as the “pocket battleship,” is one of the main reasons that France is insisting on building two new battleships, thus endangering the naval agreement negotiated in London last year.

It would be easy to multiply instances of this kind. France is spending more to-day on armaments than in 1924. But the strength of its standing army is down by about 100,000. Great Britain is spending less, but the figures of personnel in the standing army are slightly higher, and so are those of its air force. No one would ascribe aggressive designs to Great Britain or France on account of these facts, but they certainly indicate the prime necessity of statesmen getting down to business now if the conference next February is to succeed.

There is no difficulty about getting at the figures. The legislature of every country naturally wants to know how the nation’s money is being spent, and practically every nation therefore publishes full details of its expenditures on armaments. For the last seven years the League of Nations has printed this information in a volume known as the Armaments Year-Book, which anyone may buy. From the point of view of the public, there are almost too many facts available. Much bandying of armament statistics is liable to make the man in the street bewildered. What the public of every country needs to be assured of by statesmen is that there will be an all-round limitation, or better, reduction—that tlie expenditure c” armaments will permit no navies of superships, and that, there shall be a definite limit set to the number of trained fighters, as well as to the amount of material available for their use.