ARMAMENTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 110, 11 May 1936, Page 7

ARMAMENTS

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE ESSENTIAL TO IMPERIAL DEFENCE THE OFFICIAL VIEW [By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright! LONDON, May 3. “Abolition of the private manufacture of armaments would be a gamble with the dice loaded against us,” Sir Maurice Hankey told the Arms Commission. Sir Maurice explained that he was speaking on behalf of the defence services, the Foreign Office, and the Treasury, whose official view was firstly that prohibition uf private manufacture would be disastrous to Imperial defence; secondly, that it was unthinkable when Britain was in the throes of a great reconditioning programme; and thirdly, that a case for prohibition had not been established. He added that nationalisation at present would could such a dislocation as might easily involve the nation in disaster. Referring to an allegation that private firms were useless in view of the development of invention, he produced a list of a hundred inventions by such firms, and pointed out in connection with the complicated character oi armaments that nearly a thousand firms were required to complete a battleship. Dardanelles Guns Referring to the moral aspect of the international armaments trade. Sir Maurice said it had been described as horrible that British guns were used at the Dardanelles against the British, but only thirteen guns in the Dardanelles defences out of the 234 were British, the remainder being mostly German. If we had refused to make those guns the soldiers and sailors would not have benefited. Moreover, when the naval attack failed we did not know the amount of munitions th? Turks possessed. If we had provide t all the guns we would probably hav? known how little remained and might have reattackid. He added that the prohibition of the international armaments trade wouil be incredibly bad for a Power depci Pert on the sea which had been saved from disaster in the Great War by munitions from a foreign Power.