THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1934 THE EMPIRE'S AIR DEFENCES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21861, 25 July 1934, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1934 THE EMPIRE'S AIR DEFENCES

Labour's attack on the air-defence policy of the British Government is made without good reason. According to Lord Ponsonby, its head and front in the House of Lords, the arguments advanced for the censure motion there are both practical and ideal: the intended increase in air armaments will not give security, it is claimed, and will endanger efforts for world peace. In both respects the contention is so erroneous that little doubt can exist about the bad faith of the objections. They are raised rather as a means of partisan strife than as an offer of useful advice. This fact is particularly evident in Lord Ponsonby's neglect to suggest any practicable alternative of defence against air raids, or to propound any other measure of precaution against foreign assault in general. A sincere belief in the futility of the Government's idea of confronting aircraft with aircraft, if this belief were associated with a concern for national protection, would have prompted a serious effort to think out something else. Lord Ponsonby; when holding a Ministerial position, would have been quick to condemn criticism that was not constructive. In opposition, he is conspicuously careless of the critic's responsibility. Moreover, he has been quite unfair in his quoting of Mr. Baldwin's "air menace" speech in the House of Commons on November 10, 1932, wherein occurred the passage—"l think it is well also for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed ; whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through, and it is very easy to understand that, if you realise the area of space." Tactically torn from its context, the quotation has. served ,Lord Ponsonby's partisan purpose: in its full setting it impressed the futility of "international control," the practical idea that comes nearest to Lord Ponsonby's easy gospel. Surely, if one bomber can get through —"odd aeroplanes" was Mr. Baldwin's explanatory phrase—that is no reason for allowing a whole squadron to work its evil will unobstructed 1 In its ideal aspect, the Labour criticism takes altogether too little account of realities that ever hedge ideals about and that ideals ought to include in their purview and service. The point is made that the Government's scheme of providing 41 air squadrons during the next five years, 23 of these for home defence and the rest for service overseas, ought not to have been propounded before the termination of the Disarmament Conference. This action, Lord Ponsonby says, is bound to lead to armament competition and thus endanger world peace. Could any argument be more inept? Proceeding at its present rate, the conference will easily outlive this toofacile critic—unless it be killed by such unhappy means as the division of British national opinion which he is helping to bring about and advertise. The British Government has done its utmost to assist the conference, and is prepared to continue that eminent aid. No nation is less under suspicion than Lord Ponsonby's own of seeking to serve its own ends while so engaged. That fair acknowledgment he might have made. Yet, in spite of the practical proof it has given of its wish for general and effective disarmament, even to the utter imperilling of its own being by cutting defences to the bone, its example has not been followed. The competition to which the Government's air policy is. said to lead is already going on, so far ahead of British restraint that it seems to have got out of Lord Ponsonby's sight. How true this is in military and naval strength calls for little proof; relevant to the Labour criticism is the position as to air forces—Britain's fighting aircraft ranking her now fifth in order. The Secretary of State for Air has pointedly referred to developments abroad ; they are such that it would be nationally suicidal to delay any longer the steps that ought to be taken to reduce the dangerous disparity. It is evident that gestures of one-sided disarmament have failed; that being so, to look to defence is imperative. The spreading of this air-defence expenditure over five years saves the policy from being reasonably interpreted aB provocative of com-

petition, especially in view of the present low ranking of the Empire in fighting aircraft. It means that the rest of the world has ample time to make up its mind about general disarmament before the British Air Force can become a serious menace. To call it a "sensational increase," as Lord Ponsonby does, is a reckless use of words. Nor will the adoption of the scheme hamper in any way the endeavours of the Government to strengthen the cause of peace. It has explicitly reserved the right to modify or adjust the construction programme in accordance with any new factors that may arise, and to keep the annual expenditure upon it within limits preventing any unmanageable addition to the Budget. Some will see in these announcements a regrettable lack of definiteness, but none can say that they involve any threat to other peoples. The way is thus left clear for a continuance of British co-operation in endeavours to reach a satisfactory disarmament convention. Indeed, there may be a distinct accession of influence in future discussions: a realisation that this action has been compelled by what others have done should prompt them to review their own policies. At all events, no voice breathing blame will be heard in Geneva, and it is a thousand pities that any hostile voice has been heard in Westminster. This is an instance of censure calling for censure.