MILITARY TRAINING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20364, 19 September 1929, Page 14

MILITARY TRAINING.

Sir,—The Revs. D. C. Herron and Gordon Bell have between them given a fine exposition of the "shut-eye" faculty. Mr. Herron's idea of the "skeleton force of men who chose soldiering for their life work, and who could be employed in case of emergency," - is a most immoral compromise to come from one of his cloth. In admitting the necessity for even _ a skeleton force he is admitting the inevitability of war (which even war-mongers, pacifist definition, do not), and at the same time denying the opportunity for the manhood of the country at large to learn at least the rudiments of modern warfare. So far as his strictures upon the collective morality of the boys in camp are concerned, my own experience, dating from the old volunteer days in New Zealand, running through service with tho Imperial Force during the war, and moro or less close association with the local military world since, refutes Mr. Herron to this extent, that the general attitude of the lads is not immoral, oral or otherwise, and tho influence of boys trained, as I hope Mr. Herron's would be, to a proper recognition of the problems and temptations of life is an active factor in leading their less fortunatelyeducated fellows to a better way of speech and action. Mr. Herron's idea that the influence is otherwise is shockingly pessimistic. If, however, Mr. Herron's idea is that boys should bo kept in glass cases, away from tho contaminating influence of their fellows (immoral or otherwise), then I can have no fu'rthor argument with tho reverend gentleman—we do not belong to the same place. Mr. Gordou Bell's attitude about conscientious objectors is, I think, chiefly due to a misapprehension upon his part as to the duty of individuals in tho matter of the laws of tho country they live in. Does Mr. Bell encourage his congregation to refuso financial obligations to the State, as well as personal service? Or, boing presumably over military ago himself, does he personally refuse to pay his rates and taxes, which assist to finance our military tervice scheme ? To be consistent he should join with Messrs. Miller and Richards and risk his civil rights for his principles. But it is upon his reading of recent history that I must chiefly join issue with Mr. Bell. He states that "everybody knew full well many years before tho war the grave danger that was threatening Europe, and if there should be any danger to New Zealand to-day .i- . there would bo adequate time to create an adequate defence." Surely Mr. Bell, as •an intelligent man, knows that England (to go no further abroad) blankly refused, in spite of Lord Roberts and his confreres in opinion, to recogniso the danger. Surely ho knows that tho original British Expeditionary Force was practically annihilated in order to give Britain time to prepare, hastily and inefficiently, additional forces. Surely he knows what happened to that magnificent material, th» Kitchener Armies, largely through that insufficient training. Great Britain was able, on the outbreak of war, to put 80,000 men in the field. Had she been able to assure Germany, in no equivocal terms, that there would have been 800.000 similarly trained and equipped, ready for service if war started, I believe, with many more authoritative opinions than mine, that there would have been no war* iVerb sag,. R. H. Maeryatt.