SLASHING ATTACK ON PACIFISM

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20058, 15 March 1935, Page 9

SLASHING ATTACK ON PACIFISM

PLAIN STATEMENT BY MR MACDONALD

DANGEROUS RISKS TAKEN BY BRITAIN

United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, March 13

The reasons necessitating the adoption by the Government of the policy set forth in the recent White Paper on defence is referred to in an article which the Prime Minister contributes to this week’s “Newsletter,” the National Labour fortnightly. Pacifism in Britain was becoming an easy-going state of mind, fervidly embracing the meaningless formula of a pious aspect, instead of something showing rugged realism of objective fact, says Mr Macdonald. Referring to the White Paper, the Prime Minister says : “For some time I have been most impressed by the supine indifference of numbers of our pacifists to the trend of world armaments, and the complacency with which they regard conditions in England. Peace has become a matter of inviting the aggressor to attack us. Britain has been without a policy. The Government was united in issuing the White Paper after many months of most careful consideration. It is essentially a peace document, otherwise I would not have issued it. I am sure when the history of recent years is written, the White Paper will be classed as one of the greatest efforts in critical times to save peace.”

He says he is greatly concerned at the way in which the peace prospects of Europe were deteriorating, and at the virtual standstill reached at the Disarmament Conference.

“Some of us who are peace-lovers are not satisfied to give voice to well used and familiar formulae. We are determined fully to make conditions hard for aggressors,” the Prime Minister continued, “and not allow nations who did not appreciate our efforts to assume that our peace lead meant that we had ceased to take practical interest ih opposing tendencies making for war. The White Paper makes it clear that whilst peace is our policy, we shall not neglect our obvious defence. Peace is its purpose throughout. For years we set the example to the world in disarmament. The most elementary necessities in our defence have been neglected. We felt that even to replace a gun might have been adjudged as a departure from our peace and disarmament policy. We made proposals for international agreements on armaments and have not always waited for their acceptance before doing something to carry them out ourselves.

“The White Paper,” says the Prime Minister in conclusion, “does nothing, except in the possible case of the air estimates, to increase our power of defence. If our moral gestures cannot protect the world from increasing official armaments, we must take steps to make collective security more than words and protect our civilians against attack. I cannot believe the great nations are blind to the dangers they ran in refusing to come to Disarmament Conferences, and make agreements, which will never threaten their own nor any other nation’s security.” WHITE PAPER UNDER FIRE STOUTLY DEFENDED IN HOUSE OF LORDS United Press Association— By Electric Telegraph—Copyright (Received March 14, 7.50 p.m.) LONDON, March 14. In the House of Lords, Lord Fonsonby initiated the defence debate. He moved that the White Paper would increase international difficulties and armaments co-operation, and weaken collective security in relation to the Covenant of the League of Nations. He expressed opinion that the people were justifiably alarmed lest this was only the beginning of a new policy of rearmament, which would drive the last nail in the coffin of the Disarmament Conference.

Lord Reading said that Britain, from the beginning had led in the promotion of pacification of the world and taken risks for this end which others had not taken. No nation in the world believed the Government was in anywise imperilling peace, but the rearmament of Europe, while Britain had yearly reduced armaments, had created a new situation.

Lord Lothian said that Herr Hitler himself had recently assured him personally that Germany was prepared to abolish air bombers altogether, if everybody would do likewise. This formidable fact would provide an opportunity for the success of the Air Convention. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that if the White Paper alone represented the Government policy or meant the abandonment of the attempt to seek the general limitation of armaments, he would be troubled, but the critics should remember the Government’s encouragement of regional agreements for mutual defence, and their earnest desire to bring Germany back to the League of Nations, without which general disarmament was impossible.. Those who were devoted to the League of Nations and disarmament would not advance the cause by suggesting that the White Paper meant the abandonment of adherence to the League of Nations. Lord Hailsham, replying to the debate, said: “Support of the League of Nations and collective security, did not mean that the people of Britain were to render themselves incapable of defence. The Government was proposing the minimum forces necessary to protect the country and the Empire.” Lord Ponsonby’s motion was rejected without a division.