WORK OF BRITISH ARMY

Taranaki Daily News, 9 June 1932, Page 15

WORK OF BRITISH ARMY

IMPERIAL POLICE FORCE

HOW STRENGTH IS FIXED. DANGER OF REDUCTIONS. - Mr. Duff Cooper, in introducing the Army Estimates, which show economies amounting. to £3,500,000, said that it would be impossible for any Army Council to recommend similar economies next year, writes Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice, K.C.M.G., in the Daily Mail. No reduction iii numbers has been made this year;. the Labour Govern mem had in 1931 brought them down as low as was possible. The savings made this year have’ been realised by reducing training, by postponing repairs to barracks, by. postponing replacement of stores, and by'paring down administration . expenses. If "two successive Governments, each approaching the problem of reduction from a different point of view, ami both eager to save as much as possible, have been unable to reduce numbers, it must be clear that the limit has been reached, unless the Disarmament Conference relieves- the Army of some of its present tasks. I The establishment of the Regular Army voted for 1932-33 is 149,700, but the actual strength of British troops is only 127,800, and of these 29,000 are tindino- garrisons abroad, exclusive ot India,° and about 99,000 are at home. The strength of the British garrison in India, which is paid for by India, on January 1, was 61,000, so that in round numbers there are 90,000 men in garrison abroad and 99,000 at home. Those abroad have to "be trained soldiers, and those at home aie laigely composed of recruits who are being trained to go. abroad to replace the men whose period of service is expiring. TRAINING MACHINERY.

So, in fact, we have at home little more than, the training machinery required to keep up our foreign garrisons, and it is tiro requirements of these garrisons which really settle the srze of the Regular Army, not the srze of any foreign army. The troops at home can only%e made fit for service by calling up the reserves, and those reserves have been reduced even more drastically than the Regular Avmy. . Let us look at tlie position rn July, 1914, and in January, .1932. In July, 1914 the Brrtrsh Army total was 714,000 men. It was made up of: EguLr Army, Ho»«, 125,000; Mi-, 75 000- elsewhere overscan, 33,000, army reserve, 145,000; special reserve, 04,1100; supplementary reserve, nil; lerntorial Army, 272,000; total, 714,000 In January, 1932, the total was 467,000, made up of Regular Army, Home, 99,000; India, 61,000; elsewhere overseas, 29,000; Army Reserve, 1l4,o00; special reserve nil; supplementary reserve, 17,500; Territorial Army, . 13 6,000. We talked of our little Army in 1914, and if it is apocryphal that the Kaiser called it “contemptible, neithei he nor his generals held that it need be taken into account very seriously. It is now reduced by a. quarter of a million men, and, though its equipment has been much improved, that improiement has barely kept pace with the duties which have been imposed upon lfc ln August, 1914 we mobilised speedily six divisions and a cavalry division; to-day we should be put to it to mobilise two’divisions and a mounted division in the same time, and that is the only reserve we have immediately available for a, sudden cuicrgc.ncy. Durinrr the past, few years the Army has been called upon to intervene m I he interests of law aud_ order far more often than iira like period before 1914. Wc have had to employ troops to restore order in Palestine, Cyprus,. Kashmir and Burma, and to protect our nationals and their property in Shanghai. The North-West Frontier of India is in a much more disturbed state than it was in the years before the Great. War, and if the internal condition of India is less anxious than it was a. few months ago, it is still far from satisiactory. The plain fact is that while we have been reducing the Army and its reserves-, -the calls .upon the Army, lor the maintenance of. order within the Empire and upon its borders have been steadily increasing. It is now no more than a'ii Imperial Police Force, and we can only reduce it further without

grave imprudence if we first reduce ■bur commitments overseas. Many of the disturbances which . I have instanced have arisen out of religious differences and animosities, out of disputes between Arab and Jew in Palestine, between Hindu and Mahommedan in Kashmir and in India, and as the Simon Report shows clearly, in these disputes the neutral British sol<lier has proved again and again to be the best peacemaker, »