THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1934. ARMAMENTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22204, 6 March 1934, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1934. ARMAMENTS

'Amid increasing talk of the need of security the question of the strength of Great Britain’s air force has lately been debated with controversial fervour. There has been a strong endeavour in some quarters to represent the need of considerable reinforcement of the aerial arm as a paramount, necessity. The Daily Mail has thrown itself with characteristic vehemence into the lists, declaring that the National Government, by permitting the British air force to sink to the lowest position among the air forces of the Great Powers, has incurred a most serious responsibility, and that “never before could it be said that the very heart of Britain was exposed to the deadliest form of attack from abroad.” In an article in the Daily Telegraph based mainly on General Groves’s recent volume, “ Behind the Smoke Screen,” Captain Liddell Hart writes, “ To the detached observer there is an astonishing inconsistency in the fervid pacifists who harp on the aerial horrors of the next war as an argument for air disarmament, yet will not face the fact that we have declined to sixth place in air power, thus having little to offer in exchange for what they are asking other countries to sacrifice.” An indictment of the system under which Britain spends “ Avell over a hundred million pounds a year for defence, yet devotes less than three shillings out of every pound spent to the air forces which alone can protect the heart of the country ” has been pressed with considerable acerbity, as debates in the House of Commons have attested. Mr Churchill, who is credited by General Groves with “ a surprising blunder” when in office in post-war days in failing to grasp the true nature of air warfare, was reported as stating recently in Parliament, “ Years ago our navy was a sure shiejd, but now this accursed hellish invention of war from the air has revolutionised the position.” That might appear to amount to a partial admission of the justice of the criticism referred to. But that the position is exactly revolutionised is by no means conceded by. most of the experts. The champions of the navy have pointed out that no air force could protect trade or guarantee the safety of troops being carried overseas, and have commented on the

extravagance of assertions to the effect that the next war would be conducted entirely by air raids. Logically enough it has been argued that if Britain did not protect her trade she would evade air raids, because no nation would be so stupid as to bomb defenceless towns when it.could starve her into submission in a few weeks by stopping her sea-borne trade, with no danger to its own forces. Then again, it has been pointed out that if Britain were to increase the number of her planes to 5000, as demanded by a section of the press, she would require three times her present number of cruisers for the protection of her fuel supplies, for not one plane could rise from the ground without fuel brought under naval protection. By a leading British scientist it was recently affirmed that exaggerated statements had been made with regard to the dangers from gas to the civil population in a future war, since the scope of • this weapon in warfare was extremely limited. Chemical warfare, said this authority, had got such a hold on the imagination of the civil population that the main danger was. psychological. However unfortunate, a clash between the respective claims of the navy and the air force is no new thing. No doubt from the viewpoint that Great Britain is already inferior in air power, and faces inferiority in sea power, the desirability of a strengthening of both arms in the interests of security is incontestable. The somewhat heated discussions on the air force were, anticipatory of the air estimates, which have now been presented. These provide for an expenditure showing a very modest increase over that for 1933. But, rather curiously perhaps, the estimates appear to have been well received, even by the Daily Mail. Pending the result of the Disarmament Conference, Lord LondondexTy has observed, the number of new units, curtailed to a minimum, will do a little to bridge the widening gap between the present strength of the Royal Air Force and the air forces of other Great Powers. The most disapipointing aspect of the whole position is reflected in the necessity which appears to be driving the British Government in the direction of an increased expenditure on defence. The reports concerning the results of Captain Eden’s mission to Paris, Berlin, and Rome in the 1 interests of disarmament seem to suggest little prospect of a reconciliation of the Fi’eneh and German standpoints on the basis of the British memorandum. Yet this has been represented as a “ last attempt ” on part to obtain ordered limitation of armaments.