TELLING THE TRUTH

Wairarapa Age, 13 March 1935, Page 5

TELLING THE TRUTH

WHITE PAPER DEFENDED BY MR. BALDWIN. ISSUES OF PEACE AND SECURITY IN EUROPE. REPLY TO LABOUR ATTACK. RUGBY, March 11. Interest in to-night’s House of Commons debate on Imperial Defence has been stimulated by the fact that the subject, instead of being raised as in previous years on the Estimates for individual services, is for the first time being discussed as a whole and by the terms of the White Paper, issued a week ago, in preparation for the debate, defining the Government’s policy on defence and the reasons ‘on which it is based.

The House was crowded and many foreign diplomats, including the French, Belgian and Turkish Ambassadors and the German Counsellor, were present in the galleries when the debate was opened by Major Attlee, who moved the Labour Opposition’s vote of censure on the Government to the effect that the Government's defence policy is a't variance with the spirit in which the League of Nations was created to establish a collective world peace, jeopardises the prospect of a disarmament convention, and will lead to international competition and insecurity. BRITAIN AND THE LEAGUE. Mr. Baldwin declared that in the White Paper a democratic Government had told what they 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 unpalatable truths. 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 were 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 a collective system therefore not complete. Two great Powers had given notice of withdrawal and had thus dealt the collective system a heavy blow, while one great country had never undertaken the obligations of the League at all. (Continued on Page 6.)

POWERS OF THE LEAGUE. VIEWS OF SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN. FOREIGN SECRETORY’S APPEAL. LONDON, March 11. Continuing the debate on the Defence White Paper in the House of Commons, Sir Herbert Samuel, the Liberal leader, asked if they were to ring down the curtain on the Disarmament Conference as a failure like the World Economic Conference. Disarmament was the only road to security. Our duty was not to despair of the League, but to do our utmost to complete the system of collective control, seek an agreement against the private manufacture* of arms, and inoculate our people against the insidious and infectious war fever. Sir Austin Chamberlain, in submitting his amendment, said that Major Attlee talked of putting faith in collective security, but it was not serving the League to pretend that it could do what it could not do. The type of War known as accidental war by the sudden arousing of national feelings could be prevented now by opportunities for conciliation. The real fear which was canting world unrest was a war planned of set purpose to achieve some national ambition, aggrandisement, or revenge which could not be satisfied by peaceful-means. “Let us try to strengthen collective security,’’ he said, “but it should not be supposed that a multiplication of pacts and definitions of aggressor will prevent the kind of war where a nation sees a good prospect of success, if it throws the dice for a war of this sort. War can only be prevented by making it clear po the aggressor that there will be such a massing of forces against him that there can be no prospects of success. We are still one of the Great Powers. If we use our power wisely and justly we might have great influence in the •world, but if we left our own defence to others, what encouragement would it give them to undertake such obligations* Tn the course of his speech Sir John Simon, Foreign Minister, said:—"l wish to make a definite statement, with full Government authority, that its po-

licy is unalterably based on membership of the League of Nations.” Every State of Europe, he continued, save one, belonged to the League. His forthcoming journey and that of Mr. Eden were to search for a basis for Germany effectively to rejoin. “We are determined to endeavour to secure this result, 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 Yugoslavia were all under the league machinery. The London Declaration was approved by all parties in Britain and widely approved abroad. That remained. Its authors declared ' that its purposes were unchanged. They would be glad if Germany welcomed its fair and friendly spirit. It was in that spirit that he and. 'Mr. Eden would visit the 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 an equal conference with all the States concerned. The responsibility rested on the Government. There might have been an easier course to take than to face the 'facta as they found them, but with a responsibility to discharge, not onlyto the people of Britain, but to the Empire, they asked the House overwhelmingly to justify their policy. Major Attlee’s motion was defeated by 424 votes to 79, and Sir Austen Chamberlain's amendment was carried

by 412 votes to 78. APPROVAL IN FRANCE. PEACE—BUT NOT ,ATz ANY PRICE. — 16 (Received Tuesday 9. p.m.) PARIS, March 12. Mr. Baldwin’s speech, regarded as h vindication of Franco-British work for ‘‘peace—but not at any price," has favourably impressed official circles, who see in it a parallel to M. Flandin’s speech of March 10. Both, it is pointed out, proclaimed the anxiety of their respective countries to organise peace and security, while maintaining that the moment had come for an overhaul of defence arrangements. HITLER INTERESTED. SPEECHES HEARD BY RELAY. (Received Tuesday, 9 p.m.) LONDON, March 12. The " News-ChrOnicle’s" Berlin correspondent ©ays Herr Hitler was kept specially informed of the progress of the House of Commons debate. Portions of the speeches directly bearing on the German situation were telephoned to Munich from London and relayed to the Chancellor’s home.

“We desire with all our hearts the universality of the League,” said Mr. Baldwin. “It is for this reason we welcome the entry of the Soviet Union into the League and have ourselves never ceased to try and persuade Germany to cancel her notice of withdrawal.” In international polities, 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 were net proposing an increase in the size of the forces, except in the case of the Air Force, which was as debated last summer. What they did ask was that those forces they possessed, if called upon to meet an aggressor or to pursue obligations under the pact, should be as well equipped as possible. CO-OPERATION SOUGHT. Referring to the joint communique issued after the Anglo-French London conversations, he said that the reference in it to the direct and effective co-operation of Germany was in the opinion of both 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 existing treaties no less than those asked to concur in those modifications. “If the former expect—and no one can complain if they do—some modification of the present situation, the latter may also reasonably ask that the changes in which they are asked freely to concur be accompanied by assurances which are essential to ensure tranquillity and security." 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 Paper said nothing in substance which he had not himself said with general agreement 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 a beginning, much less to the end, of any effective agreement. hoped that they could now come to business. There was no reason why the negotiations 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 were prepared to contribute their share. But the desire to create or magnify fictitious incidents or failure to grasp facts were no contribution at all.

AN APPEAL TO FACTS. Answering a suggestion that the British proposals would lead to the rearmament of others, Mr. Baldwin frankly presented the 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 had adopted comprehensive plans for the mobilisation of the whole' nation in time of war. Britain had never, taken a lead in re-armament. Her Air Force still came only fifth aad apart from anti-aircraft defence no increase in the armed forces of the Navy or of the Army were proposed. They could not ensure immunity against air attack, but they could make it more difficult. That was the idea of the proposed air pact. They had somehow or other to make an attack from the air not worth while in any part of Europe. Mr. Baldwin maintained that the Government’s policy, as set out in the White Paper, so far from being inimical to peace, would help them in the- times that- were coming -to make peace more secure. He said that they must all wish that their representatives who were going to the European capitals during the next two or three weeks might be favoured and prosperous in that work, and would bring them nearer that security for which they had been so long struggling,— (British Official Wireless.)

AIR DEFENCE. THE LABOUR ONSLAUGHT. AN ALLEGATION CHALLENGED. LONDON, March 11. In the House of Commons, Major Attlee, submitting Labour’s motion, claimed that the first part of the White Paper meant repudiation of the League Covenant. (Cries of “No,” and Labour counter-cheers.) Failure to make the League effective was the real cause of the present-day talk of war armament. We had spent £1,500,000,000 on armament during the period we were sup* posed to have practised unilateral disarmament. Labour was utterly and entirely opposed to Hitlerism and the present rulers in Germany, and detested militarism in every form in every country. Labour in no way underrated the facts. Germany had left the League and was now re-arming and preaching Avar, but he believed this 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 should only need the forces necessary to meet in combination any menace 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, and anti-aircraft guns and anti-gas measures. If they wanted world peace, they must sacrifice the greed and ambitions of nationalism and imperialism. The cause of the present unrest was economic. Everywhere there were masses of people in distress. Their rulers were unable to satisfy 'them and therefore preached flamboyant nationalism.