Untitled

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16448, 31 May 1919, Page 2

Mr. Thomas Bloodworth, an Auckland Labour leader, recently expressed an objection to celebrating peace, and he has now written a lengthy explanation of his position. One or two of the points he makes are worth notice. He says that “the war that is ended was fought as a war to end war” and that, as he considers the peace terms will lead to future trouble, he cannot approve of celebrations. The idea that we fought the war to end war is a fiction of Mr. Bloodworth’s invention. Wo fought the war to prevent Germany dominating the world, and the contest was so severe that many persons expressed the hope that it would bo the last. Such hopes have often been expressed before, but are not likely to be realised. The chief argument put forward by Mr. Bloodworth is 'his objection to the demand By the Allies that Germany shall pay for the wilful destruction carried out by her in France and Belgium. His objection to this is that it will make slaves of the Germans, who will have to work for the Allies. If Mr. Bloodworth had suffered as the Belgians and French have done he would have not the least objection to seeing Germans working to restore, as far as might be, the damage they had done, and would not trouble whether any outsider described them as slaves or by any other name. Mr. Bloodworth and all of us, according to his definition, are slaves, for we work so many days or weeks each year to pay taxes to our Government, which is exactly what the Germans will do under the terms of the peace treaty. He points out that the indemnity cannot be paid in gold and must be paid in commodities, a fact which everyone realises. His great argument is that if this is so “Gorman workers will be kept busy while those of other countries are unemployed, and this will have a tendency to reduce the standard of the workers’ living the world over.” This is nn argument that will appeal only to the ignorant who believe that the amount of goods the world can consume is a fixed quantity, and that if the Germans produce them there is less worH.for others. Suppose, for example, 100,000 tons of coal from Germany were landed in New Zealand to-day as part payment of the indemnity, it would, according to Mr. Bloodworth, be a serious blow to ns. On the contrary, it would ho a cause for rejoicing in every house*hold in the Dominion, and would not put a single miner out of work. The statesmen of Britain and France understand the position quite as well as the Auckland Labour leader, and will take from Germany, not the products she wishes to dispose of, hut those they wish to obtain. Germany can provide vast quantities of potash, coal, and building material, which are essential for the proper housing and employment of labour in the Allied countries, so that Germany’s payments will really assist labour in these lands, instead of injuring it.