NATIONAL DEFENCE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 29 March 1944, Page 4

NATIONAL DEFENCE

BRITISH POLICY AFTER THE WAR DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. PAST MISTAKES RECALLED. (British Official Wireless.) (Received This Day, 11.45 a.m.) RUGBY, March 28. Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, opened a debate on the future national defence policy of Great Britain in the House of Lords. He asked the Government if it was planning to improve the administration of Imperial and national defence after the war and if it would reconsider the practicability of obtaining the agreement of all parties that national defence policy should in future be a non-party matter. “With-out safety,” said Lord Chatfield, “all our plans for welfare would be built on sand. Now is the time, when we are still surrounded by danger, to think of this problem, for when peace comes, when our unity breaks up, when dangers are over, anyone ,wno preaches on the problem of. defence will be a mere voice crying in the wilderness.” Lord Chatfield added that if we found that our principles of handling defence machinery were not good, they must be ruthlessly discarded; otherwise we would inevitably be led back, sooner or later, to the verge of the same precipice over which we were so nearly pushed four years ago. Pointing out that it was wise to reduce armaments systematically when a nation had conquered, Lord Chatfield said that six years before the outbreak of this war we were still planning general disarmament. Instead of accumulating friends, we were increas-. ing the number of our enemies. “If you want to roar like a lion, you must have the strength of a lion,” Lord Chatfield concluded. Lord Hankey said the root cause of our unpreparedness was an extreme disarmament movement, based on high ideals, which swept public opinion in the Empire and in Britain off its feet, and resulted, not only in inadequate defence, but also in moral disarmament. ' Lord Strabolgi said we must get rid of that unfortunate tradition that we I had to enter war in such a state of un- ' preparedness that we had to suffer a disgraceful succession of humiliating defeats at the beginning. He advocated a Combined General Staff, and a greater exchange of officers who ” would in future be members of senior staffs between various services, and there should be retained a single Minister of Defence who would not, in peace time, be Prime Minister. Earl Perth urged that it would be happier for the country, the Empire and the world as a whole if we had a definite national policy both for ioreign affairs and defence. The debate was adjourned.