DEFENCE PROPOSALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22519, 13 March 1935, Page 7

DEFENCE PROPOSALS

THE BRITISH WHITE PAPER MAKING PEACE MORE SECURE HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE A LABOUR CENSURE MOTION (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) , RUGBY, March 11. Generally foreshadowed as the most important debate since the war, to-day's occasion hardly fulfilled expectations. Obviously the Government, while not modifying a word of the White Paper, studiously avoided offending Germany in view of Herr Hitler's renewed invitation. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in the role of an Elder Statesman, from the back benches, produced a memorable contribution, and received an ovation such as has seldom been heard in the House of Commons. The Chamber was packed. The Ambassadors' Gallery was inadequate to accommodate the foreign diplomats, who overflowed into the Dominions' Gallery.

THE GOVERNMENT'S AIMS

OUTLINED BY MR BALDWIN (British Official Wireless.) -'■ ' RUGBY, March 11. In preparation for the debate, the House of Commons, was crowded. Many foreign, diplomats, including the French, Belgian and Turkish Ambassadors and the German Counsellor, were present in the galleries when the debate was opened by Major Attlee, who moved the Labour Opposition's vote of censure on the. Government. Major Attlee, in submitting Labour's claimed that the first.part of the White Paper meant repudiation of the League Covenant.—-(Cries of "No," and Labour counter cheers.) Failure to make the League effective was the real cause of the present-day talk of war and armaments. "We spent £1,500,000,000 on armaments during the period we were supposed to have practised unilateral disarmament," he said. Labour was uttarly and entirely opposed to Hitlerism and the present rulers of Germany, and detested militarism in every .form in every country. Labour in no way underrated the fact that Germany had left the League and was now rearming and preaching war,, but it believed that she should be dealt with by the League, in which the whole world could be ranged against an aggressor. "If we were inside a league of collective security, we would only "need the force? necessary to meet in combination , any menace by an aggrepsor. Why does the White Faper talk about the need for us to protect the integrity of certain territories on the other side of the Channel?" It was deceiving the country to suggest that it could be protected fronv air a;tacks by a larger air force, anti-air-craft guns and anti-gas measures. If they wanted world peace they must sacriMce greed, ambitions, nationalism and Imperialism. The cause' of the presentday unrest was economic. Everywhere there Avere masses of people in distress. Their rulers were unable to satisfy them; therefore they preached flamboyant nationalism.

Mr Baldwin declared that in the White Paper a democratic Government had told what is believed to be the truth to democracy. In the past some of the greatest perils to democracies had arisen through the failure of their leaders to tell them unpalatable truths. He deprecated the statement that the Government had paid only lip service to the League, and maintained that British statesmen of all parties had, since its inception, played more than their part in supporting the League under conditions and in times of extraor linary difficulty and against opposition from countries that had now left it. The Government was still determined to work through the League for the future, but people often forgot, in talkin" of collective security and sanctions, that membership of the League was not universal, and the collective system, therefore, was not complete. Two great Powers had given notice of their withdrawal, and had thus dealt the collective svstem a heavy blow, while one ereat country had ne*ver undertaken the obligations of the League at all. "We desire with all our hearts the universality of the League," said Mr Baldwin. ""It is for this reason that we welcome the entry of the Soviet Union into the League, and we have our- . selves never ceased to try to persuade Germany to cancel her notice of withdrawal."

In international politics, he continued, it was not a question of doing what was ideally best, but of doing what was best in the existing circumstances. The Government was not proposing to increase the size of the forces, except in the case of the Air Force, which was as explained last summer.

What they did ask was that the forces they possessed, if called upon to meet an aggressor or to pursue obligations under a pact, should be as well equipped as possible. Referring to the joint communique issued after the Anglo-French London conversations, he said the reference in it to the direct and effective co-opera-tion of Germany was, in the opinion of both the French and British Governments, of special importance, and they

followed that up by making; arrange-, ments for the visit of Sir John Simon to Berlin. That would take place in about a fortnight's time. All had their parts to play in these matters —those countries desiring modifications of the existing treaties no less than those asked to concur in those modifications. If the former expected —and no one could complain if they did—some modification of the present situation, the latter might also reasonably ask that changes in which they were asked freely to concur be accompanied by assurances which were essential to ensure tranquility and secutity. It had been suggested in some quarters that Germany was the only country alluded to in the White Paper. That was far from the truth; yet the paper said nothing in substance which Le had not himself said with general agreement last November. Its terms were set out in no other than,a friendly spirit, and in the belief that a frank understanding was the best, and indeed the only effective, prelude to any kind of negotiations. Without frankness no one would ever get to the beginning, much less to the end, of any effective agreement. _ He hoped they could now come to business. There was no reason why the negotiations begun in Paris and Rome —to be followed, they hoped, in other capitals —should not lead to a new era in Europe. The Government wanted them to do so, and was prepared to contribute its share, but desire to create or mag nify. fictitious incidents or. failure to grasp facts were no contribution at all. Answering a suggestion that the British defence proposals would lead to the rearmament. of others, Mr Baldwin frankly presented facts and figures about the large increases in the forces of other nations, including those of the United States, Japan, and Russia. He mentioned also that many countries—and particularly authoritarian countries — had adopted comprehensive plans for the mobilisation of the whole nation in time of war. Britain had never taken a lead in rearmament. Her Air Force still came only fifth, and, apart from anti-aircraft defence, no increase in the armed forces of the navy or of the army was proposed. They could not ensure immunity against air attack, but they could make it more difficult. That was the idea of the proposed air pact. They had- somehow or other to make an attack from the air not worth while in any part of Europe. Mr Baldwin maintained that the Government's policy, as set out In the White Paper, so far from being inimical to peace, would help them in times that were coming to make peace more secure. He said they must all wish that their representatives who were going to the European capitals during the next two or three weeks might be favoured and prosperous in their work —a work that should bring them nearer to that security for which they had been so long struggling. Our policy since the Washington and London Treaties has been one of limited replacements, hoping to have a steadying influence on foreign programmes, but tins had not been achieved. Japan's naval personnel had been increased from 72.000 to 88,000 during the past four years. They had a far more modern navy than we had. The United States was building up to treaty limits, which we had never clone. Her naval estimates were 350,000,000 dollars for 1933, 492.000,000 dollars for this year, and 580,000,000 dollars for next year. Italy laid down two 35,000-ton capital ships armed with 15-inch guns. France was laying down a similar pair in reply. Russia's regular army four years ago was 000.000; now it was 940.000. Russia had 800 aeroplanes in 1920; now she had over 2000. Japan's army had more than doubled in the last four years. Italy's Air Force had increased by 25 per cent. The United States army and air estimates had increased by 39,000,000 dollars. GERMANY'S POSITION LONDON, March 11. The Times says: " Nowhere outside Britain is the increase in the British estimates misunderstood or resented. Whatever foreigners think of British diplomacy, they do not think that armed forces are likely to be used except in defence of a victim of aggression. If it is the intention of the British Government to get Part 5 of the Treaty of Versailles superseded by a system in which all will be equal, then no purpose would be served by harping upon a breach of the treaty. Herr Hitler's present policy favours taking collective sanctions, but some advisers see the salvation of Germany in gradually renewing her strength, and attracting friends from other nations, thus gaining more by the old system of blocs and alliances than in a new deal of union against an aggressor." COMMENT ON THE ISSUES (British Official Wireless.i RUGBY, March 11. Commenting on the issues involved in the defence debate, The Times points out that it was always obvious that, failing the immediate success of the Disarmament Conference, the arrears of_ several years of economies in the service estimates would have to be made up. Britain would soon be better equipped to play her full part in a collective

system, particularly in the air. As soon as the collective system could be made a reality, the logical and natural i consequence would be a reduction all round of the individual national forces. Interest in the debate in the House of Commons on defence was stimulated by the fact that the subject, instead of being raised as in previous years on the estimates for individual services, is for the first time being discussed as a whole. and by the terms of the White Paper issued a week ago. GERMAN PRESS COMMENT BERLIN, March 12. (Received March 12, at 9 p.m.) The House of Commons debate is featured in the newspapers. The Volkische Boebachter, commenting lengthily on Mr Baldwin's speech, notes with satisfaction the White Paper references to Germany, which are intended in a friendly spirit, "but it remains regrettable that so little of this spirit is traceable in the document, and that in the opinion of practically the whole world a relapse i into the Versailles methods and the 1919 way of thinking lias to be recorded." Germany welcomed the negotiations on condition that her equality was neither theoretically nor practically infringed. An editorial specially welcomes Mr Baldwin's reference to' Russia, " which, avowedly for the purpose of a Communist world revolution, possesses the strongest war power in the world." The editorial concludes " Germany's disappointment would not have burst out if the facts cited by Mr. Baldwin had headed the White Paper's survey." Herr Paul Scheffer, editor of the Tageblatt, finds satisfaction in Mr Baldwin's statement that Germany is not the only nation engaged in increasing armaments, but he complains that "much for which the White Paper has been criticised is still left unmentioned.