DEFENCE OF WHITE PAPER

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20056, 13 March 1935, Page 9

DEFENCE OF WHITE PAPER

IMPORTANT DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT MR BALDWIN’S MASTERLY STATEMENT British Official Wireless (Received March 12, 5.5 p.m.) RUGBY, March 11. Generally foreshadowed as the most Important debate since the war, today’s defence debate in the House of Commons hardly fulfilled expectations. Obviously the Government, while not modifying one word of its White Paper, studiously avoided offending Germany in view of Herr Hitler’s renewed invitation to Sir John Simon (Foreign Secretary) to visit Berlin. International Interest The chamber was packed and the Ambassadors Gallery was inadequate to accommodate foreign diplomats, who overflowed into the Dominions Gallery. » • Interest in the debate was stimulated by the fact that the subject, instead of being raised, as in previous years, on the estimates for individual services, was for the first time discussed as a whole and by terms of the White Paper issued a week ago in preparation for the debate.

The House was crowded, many foreign diplomats, including the French, German and Turkish Ambassadors, and the German counsellor, being present in the galleries when the debate was opened by Mr C. R. Attlee, who moved the Labour Opposition’s vote of censure on the Government. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in the role of elder statesman, from a back bench produced a memorable contribution to the debate and received an ovation such as is seldom heard in the House of Commons. Sir Austen tabled the following amendment to the Labour motion of censure: “That the House of Commons, faithful to the country’s obligations as a Member of the League of Nations, desiring the limitation of armaments by international agreement, recognises that these objects are unobtainable by unilateral disarmament, and approves of the Government policy as equally necessary for the defence of our own people, and the discharge of our international obligations.” Mr Stanley Baldwin declared that in the White Paper a democratic Government had told what it believed to be the truth to democracy. In the past some of the greatest perils to democracies had arisen through the failure of their leaders to tell them the unpalatable truth. He deprecated the statement that the Government paid only lip service to the League of Nations and maintained that British statesmen of all parties had since its inception played more than their part in supporting the League under conditions and in times of extraordinary difficulty and against opposition from countries that had now left it. The Government was still determined to work through the League for the future but people often forgot in talking of collective security and sanctions that membership of the League was not universal and the collective system was therefore not complete. Facing the Facts Mr Baldwin said two great Powers had given notice of their withdrawal and had thus dealt the collective system a heavy blow, while one great country had never undertaken tjie obligations of the League at all. “We desire w'ith all our hearts the universality of the League,” said Mr Baldwin. “It is for this reason that we welcome the entry of the Soviet Union into the League and have ourselves never ceased to try to persuade Germany to cancel her notice of withdrawal.” In international politics, he continued, it was not a question of doing what was ideally best, but of doing what was best in the existing circumstances.

The Government was not proposing an increase in the size of its forces, except in the case of the Royal Air, Force, which was as debated last summer. What it did ask was that the forces it possessed, if called upon to meet an aggressor or pursue obligations under a pact, should be as well equipped as possible. Referring to the joint communique issued after the Anglo-French conversations in London, Mr Baldwin said the reference in it to direct and effective co-operation with Germany was, in the opinion of both the French and British Governments, of special importance, and they followed that up by making arrangements for the visit of Sir John Simon to Berlin. That would take place in about a fortnight. All had their parts to play in these matters—those countries desiring modification of the existing treaties no less than those asked to concur in those modifications. If the former expect—and no one could complain if they do —some modification of the present situation, the latter might also reasonably ask that changes in which they are asked freely to concur be accompanied by assurances which were essential to ensure tranquillity and security. Purpose of White Paper Mr Baldwin said it had been suggested in some quarters that Germany was the only country alluded to in the White Paper. That was far from the truth, yet the White Paper said nothing in substance which he had not himself said. With the general agreement of last November its terms were set out in no other than a friendly spirit, and in the belief that a frank understanding was the best, and, indeed, the only effective prelude to any kind of negotiations. Without frankness no one would ever get to the beginning, much less to the end, of any effective agreement. He hoped they could now come to business. There was no reason why the nego-

tiations begun in Paris and Rome, to be followed, they hoped, in other capitals, should not lead to a new era in Europe. The Government wanted them to do so, and was prepared to contribute its share, but the desire to create or magnify fictitious incidents or failure to grasp the facts were no contribution at all. Logic in Figures Answering the suggestion that the British defence proposals would lead to the rearmament of other countries, Mr Baldwin frankly presented facts and figures about the large increases in the forces of other nations, including those of the United States, Japan and Russia. He mentioned also that many countries, and particularly authoritarian countries, had adopted comprehensive plans for the mobilisation of the whole nation in time of war. Great Britain had never taken the lead in rearmament. Her Air Force still came only fifth, and apart from anti-aircraft defence no increase in the armed forces of the Navy or of the Army was proposed. Britain’s Policy Outlined Mr Baldwin said that Britain’s policy since the Washington and London Treaties had been one of limited replacements, hoping to have a steadying influence on foreign programmes, but this had not been achieved. Japan’s naval personnel had increased from 72,000 to 88,000 in the past four years. They had a far more modem navy than Britain had. The United States was building up to the Treaty limits, which Britain had never done. The United States naval estimates were 350,000,000 dollars in 1933, 492,000.000 dollars this year, and 580,000,000 dollars for the next year. Italy had laid down two 35,000 ton capital ships, armed with 15-inch guns and France was laying down a similar pair in reply. Russia’s regular army four years ago was 600,000, and was now 940,000. Russia had 800 aeroplanes in 1926 and now had over 2000. Japan’s army had more than doubled in the last four years. Italy’s air force had increased by 25 per cent., the United States Army and Air estimates had increased by 39,000,000 dollars. Labour Amendment Major C. F. Attlee moved the Labour Party’s motion, which contended that the Government’s policy is completely at variance with the spirit in which the League of Nations was created, to establish collective world peace. It jeopardised the prospect of any disarmament convention and instead of ensuring national safety will lead to international competition and engender insecurity which will ultimately lead to war.

Major Attlee claimed that the first part of the White Paper meant repudiation of the League Convenant. Cries of “No,” and Labour countercheers.

Failure to make the League effective was the real cause of the presentday talk of war arrangements, continued Major Attlee. We spent some £15,000,000 on armaments during the period we were supposed to have practised unilateral disarmament. Labour was utterly entirely opposed to Hitlerism, the present rulers of Germany, and detested militarism in every form in every country. Labour in no way under-rated the fact that Germany had left the League and was now rearming and preaching war, but it believed she should be dealt with by the League, in which the whole world could be ranged against an aggressor. If we were inside a league of collective security we would need only forces necessary to meet in combination any measures by an aggressor. Why did the White Paper talk about the need for us to protect the integrity of certain territories on the other side of the Channel? It was deceiving the country to suggest that it could be protected from air attacks by a larger air force, anti-aircraft guns and anti-gas measures. If they wanted world peace they must sacrifice greed, ambition, nationalism and imperialism. The cause of the present-dav unrest was economic. Everywhere there were masses of people in distress. Their rulers were unable to satisfy them, and therefore preached flambuoyant nationalism. Mr L. C. M. S. Amery welcomed the White Paper as ending make-believe. Lively Diversions While Admiral Sir Roger Keyes was speaking, two young women sitting in

the front row of the Gallery rose, and hurled a bundle of green leaflets on to the floor of the House. While being ejected, they shouted: “Not a penny for war. Tear up the White Paper.” The disturbance lasted only half a minute. Sir Stafford Cripps (Labour) said that the object of those who established the League of Nations and arranged every pact and treaty, was to get rid of armaments. Now these very pacts were being used as an argument to justify increased armaments. While Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal) was winding up his speech, there was more leaflet-throwing from the gallery and two more young women were ejected. Reply by Sir John Simon Sir John Simon (Secretary for Foreign Affairs) contended that Britain’s regular and territorial armies were now smaller than in 1914. The increased expenditure included £750,000 for the restoration of pay and pension “cuts.” Another big item was the provision of better barracks, many of which did not reach civilian standards. “I wish to make a definite statement with the full Government authority,” continued Sir John, “that its policy is unalterably based on membership of the League of Nations. Every State in Europe, save one, belonged to the League and his and Mr R. A. Eden’s forthcoming journeys were in search of a basis for Germany effectively to rejoin.

"We have determined to endeavour to secure this result,” said Sir John, “because we are convinced that there is no security in the world comparable with the effective working of a real universal League of Nations.” Britain’s efforts regarding the Saar, Hungary and Jugo-Slavia were all under the League machinery. The London Declaration was approved by all Parties in Britain and abroad. That remained and its authors declared that its purposes were unchanged. They were glad that Germany welcomed its fair and friendly spirit, and it was in that spirit that he and Mr Anthony Eden would visit foreign capitals. They were striving in a spirit of realism to find a basis for strengthening European security. They were seeking to do so in equal conference with all the States concerned. The responsibility rested with the Government. There might have been an easier course to take than to face the facts as they found them, but, with a responsibility to discharge not only to the people of Britain but to the Empire, he asked the House to overwhelmingly to justify their policy. Major C. R. Attlee’s motion was defeated by 424 votes to 79. Sir Austin Chamberlain’s amendment was carried by 402 votes to 78.