BRITAIN’S REARMAMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23044, 21 November 1936, Page 21

BRITAIN’S REARMAMENT

ro THE EDITOK Sir, —The recent decision to increase her defence forces, so as to place Britain in a position of security, was forced upon her by the enormously increased armaments of every other big Power. This necessity was so evident that the recent Trade Union Congress recognised it. We have amongst us citizens who invariably argue that our country is wrong. To-day these people protest against Britain's tardy decision to rearm, because (so they assert) she did not make any reduction; they even refuse to admit that she tried to bring about disarmament. As far back as January, 1930, Mr Ramsay MacDonald, Socialist Prime Minister, broadcast; “ We are the only nation among leading Powers who can show a continuous reduction in armaments We cannot go much further ahead alone: indeed, if we cannot get an agreement we may be forced to expand.” Mr Tom Shaw, Socialist Minister for War, said in March, 1931; “ I believed 10 years ago that, provided somebody set an example, that example would be followed. We definitely did so, but the result did not come—it is a beautiful theory that ought to work out but does not.” To deny reduction of armaments by Britain is to ignore facts. The following shows the position of the navy in 1914 and 1935:—Capital ships reduced from 69 to 15; cruisers from 105 to 50; torpedo boat destroyers, from 322 to 118; submarines, from 74 to 48. In the army, 9 cavalry regiments, 27 battalions of infantry, 61 batteries of artillery and 21 companies of engineers were disbanded, and Territorials were reduced from 313,000 to 170,000. In the air Britain fell from the first air force in the world to fifth or sixth place. These figures were officially stated in the House of Commons in October, 1935, and should carry more weight than mere assertion of those citizens who never willingly give their country any credit.—We are, etc., N.Z. Welfare League. November 18.