MENACE FROM THE AIR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23692, 27 December 1938, Page 8

MENACE FROM THE AIR

Nearly a year ago the House of Commons debated a motion emphasising the opinion that the growing horror of aerial bombardment of defenceless civilian populations should be expressed in an international agreement to co-operate in the prohibition of it, and urging the British Government to exert its influence to that end. That motion won the unanimous approval of the House, and it does not need to be added that all the influence of which British statesmanship is capable has since been directed toward securing international recognition of the principle embodied in it. But the net result of such effort, as the world well knows, has been virtually nothing. The nations are using the respite won at Munich for the feverish acceleration of armament programmes. While it is still the fervent hope of millions of people in every land that war will not be the outcome of the present international tension, it is nevertheless realised, especially in the democratic countries, that no preparation to meet the dreadful emergency of conflict can possibly be overlooked. Sir John Anderson has lately been informing the House of Commons, and through it the British people, of the steps that the Government is taking to protect the civilian population from the menace of air attack. It is a melancholy reflection that such steps have to be accounted not only wise but urgently necessary. The Government is aiming at the provision of steel shelters which will provide shelter during bombing raids for nearly 20,000,000 people, and the cost of such provision, which is to be borne almost entirely by the Government, is estimated at something like £20,000,000. Huge as that figure is, it represents only a fractional part of the total cost of war preparation, and serves to impress once again the dreadful wastage of human effort and enterprise that the fear of war entails. The first thought that emerges from a study of such a statement as Sir John Anderson has had to make is that attempts to secure international appeasement can never be abandoned while even the slenderest hope remains for the peaceful solution of problems that are ranging the nations in opposing alignments. Recent experience in Europe and elsewhere has proved conclusively that small reliance can be placed on the faithful observance of international undertakings. There are leaders in the world to-day who, it is to be feared, will not scruple to employ in a crisis every weapon of aggression known to science if by so doing their ambitious ends may be served. It is that knowledge that makes the work of preparation against the possible onset fit terror from the air imperatively necessary. The world knows that British arms will never be employed except in defence of British liberty or. in a cause where British intervention may be demanded. But neither Great Britain nor any other democracy can just now feel any security except that given by an undeniable capacity not only to resist aggression but also to strike back hard and instantly. The goal of international agreement for the prohibition of ruthless aerial warfare is still one to be pursued with vigour and possibly not without hope. But the grim fact remains that, while danger threatens, so must the call for preparedness to meet any emergency be obeyed.