DEFENCE FORCES

Southland Times, Issue 20950, 6 December 1929, Page 5

DEFENCE FORCES

CO-ORDINATION URGED

CRITICISM OF PRESENT SYSTEM Departmental jealousy rtTnited Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright.) (Rec. 9.30 p.m.) London, December 4. Mr E. L. Burgin, Liberal member for Luton, moved in the House of Commons a motion calling on the Government to stimulate international action for the comprehensive reduction of armaments, expressing the opinion that the country’s defences ought to be co-ordinated. Mr. Lloyd George said he always strongly favoured co-ordination of defence. No Government, ever sat down to consider the problem of defence as a whole. “How much we suffered in the Great War because not merely war was taking place in Flanders and Gallipoli, but a departmental war was going on at Whitehall,” he said. That was far and away the greatest problem with which they had to deal. It would have been far better from the viewpoint of efficiency if they had one man in charge instead of the Admiralty and the War Office grabbing for men, even grabbing in strategy. There was no doubt that when the whole story of the Dardanelles was told it would be found that their failure was largely due to lack of co-ordination without blaming anyone in particular. It was a pre-eminently strategical problem, only solvable by perfect harmony and co-ordin-ation between the forces. They could have a far more efficient defensive force at less cost if there was less jealousy among the departments which were fighting each other. It was something inconceivable that each department should be milking the Treasury, which was fatal from the viewpoint of economy. Mr Hoover, the first official of a great nation, had the courage to remind them that the men under arms throughout the world, including active reserves, were now 10,000,000 above the pre-war total. There were far more powerful weapons of destruction in the world now than before the war. Mr Lloyd George asked what the Government was going to do to force the League’s Disarmament Commission to deal therewith. The commission had done absolutely nothing. “It is a farce,” declared Mr Lloyd George. “The present Government, backed by Mr Hoover, has the power to insist on something being done. I feel deeply on the subject as one who had a good deal to do with the manufacture of arms and signed disarmament obligations and the peace treaty which all the Allies had trampled on. You are not going to get peace with millions of armed men. The chariot of peace cannot advance along a road littered with cannon. You must break up the machinery of hatred and convert it to mechanism of peace and progress.” Sir Samuel Hoare (Conservative) said that Britain had greatly reduced her fighting forces. Mr Lloyd George: I am glad of the opportunity of admitting that Britain has done more than any other country in this direction. Sir Samuel’Hoare said that limitations of air forces should be limited to those used for aggressive purposes. If the cpiestion of air armaments were kept separate they might first seek an agreement for Anglo-Franco-Italian parity. Mr A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, replying to the debate, maintained that no Government had done more to stimulate international feeling on disarmament. The sacrifice of armaments by one country alone would not solve the problem. A solution would be found when all nations co-operated to reduce armaments to the minimum required to maintain peace. The motion was agreed to unanimously.