The Christchurch Star THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1934. THE SHYLOCK TOUCH.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20331, 14 June 1934, Page 8

The Christchurch Star

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1934. THE SHYLOCK TOUCH.

PUBLISHED BY New Zealand Newspapers Ltd.

A MERICA’S SUGGESTION to Britain “ that substantial sacrifices should be made to meet the war debts ” is the product of minds that must be altogether hardened against liumanitarianism, if not truth, but it is the sort of thing to expect from men who now claim that there was “no connection whatever between the debt owed to the United States by Britain and those owed to Britain by other countries.” This point was met by the late Lord Balfour when he raid:— It cannot be right that one partner in the common enterprise should recover all that she has lent, and that another, while recovering nothing, should be required to pay all that she has borrowed (not for herself but for the other nations). And two famous American generals said something much more to the point:— If it had not been, said General Pershing, that the Allies were able to hold the line for fifteeen months after we had entered the W2r with the support of the loans we made, the war might well have been lost. We gave the > money well knowing that it would be used to hold the Boche until we could prepare. We entered the war in April, 1917, said General Ryan, and it was not till July, 1918. that we were holding any appreciable part of the line During that time many thousands of French and British boys died while serving as substitutes for American boys. We loaned moneys to our Allies, but it was no substitute for the lives of those French and British boys, who died that our boys might train in security at home. General Ryan’s observation gains tremendous force from the fact that the pensions payable by America to-day to her ex-service-men alone make the war debts appear a mere bagatelle. In fact, Mr Frederick Peabody has calculated that the avoidable losses of the American armies through the Allied armies bearing the brunt of the lighting amounted to £5,500,000,000. And Mr James Gerard, former American Ambassador to Berlin, picturing the grandchildren of the Allied Powers coming to Washington sixty years hence with sacks of gold as the symbols of a conquered people bearing tribute said: “We are looked upon as the Shylocks of the world, exacting from starving peoples our pound of gold.” WAR, IRON AND PROFITS. ■pvO MUNITION MAKERS foment ' the war scares by which they profit? The question is now being investigated by a Senatorial committee in Washington, and it would be particularly interesting if we could read the findings while the Disarmament Conference is struggling with its baffling problems in Geneva. Armament firms are usually indicted under three heads: That they make money out of slaughter and prospective slaughter; that they are international, selling their services impartially to friend or foe and profiting equally by death on both sides; and that, in many parts of Europe at least, they dominate Press and public, corrupting governments and promoting wars in the selfish ends of business. The first charge cannot be disputed. The other charges, freed from hysteria and exaggeration, are not so easily sheeted home. Gun-making firms may seek international markets and connections, but their governments keep them under very much more severe restrictions than was the case thirty years ago. One of the best known British firms, for instance, has a “ secret ” list of products which cannot he shown or sold abroad. The gravest charge is undoubtedly the last, but there is very little direct evidence that armament makers have directly promoted the outbreak of wars—major wars, at any rate. At the same time, competent and impartial authorities agree that history does record several more or less recent cases in which “ war scares ” have been flagrantly exploited with the object of bringing about orders for munitions. The general conclusion reached by most investigators, however, is that the arms industry is a perfectly natural product of our civilisation—to eliminate it requires the creation of a world that can get along without war.