THE IMPREGNABILITY OF THE DOMINIONS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 11883, 20 January 1914, Page 4

THE IMPREGNABILITY OF THE DOMINIONS.

Mr Norman Angell, the economist who has been trying to convince the nations that war is useless, recently supported the affirmative in a debate on the proposition, "That the British Dominiono are Impregnable." Mr Angell argued that enormous military and financial forces would have to be exercised for the conquest of any of our Dominions; and that if their conquest were accomplished it would be futile. For the purposes of his argument, Mr Angell excluded India from the discussion, and confined himself to the five white nations of the British Empire. These five Dominions differed from industrial European nations like France or England. Terms could not be dictated to them without effective occupation of the country. The invader who seized Ottawa, or the capital of Australia, would not by that fact paralyse either the industrial, economic, or political life of the country. It would be a problem of the effective military occupation of a continent. It took us three years, with 400,000 men and 250,000,000 sterling to occupy the Transvaal. The resistance of Australia, New Zealand, or Canada would be infinitely more effective. If the conquest of one of our Dominions are attempted, there must be some great need. If it were a struggle | for bread, Germany could have Canadion wheat now by paying for it, and she could not have • Canadian wheat without paying for it, even if Canada were conquered. Therefore conquest would not alter the problem of the struggle for bread. If it were said that Germany needed German colonies, then Germany could not Germanize a British Dominion by conquest. We had conquered Quebec, but in Quebec to-day the French language, French law, and the Roman Catholic religion were maintain- | cd. It was far more difficult to root I out nationality, to-day than it was then. Moreover, although the average German would shout for his flag if Germany did acquire a colony, the average German was careful not to go there. God had so made the British Empire that it could not be destroyed except by ourselves. All this may be logical enough as far as it goes, but does it go far enough, Most people will be disposed to agree with the view expressed by Mr Harold Cox, who, in opposing Mr Angell's arguments, said that the Brie ish people had made the British Empire by fighting, and it was only be being ready to fight that they could pre serve it from destruction. The whole of Mr Angell's arguments turned on the assumption that tho Germans or somebody else wanted some material advantage by attacking some other Power. Mr Cox believed that Avas a profound illusion. He believed that j most wars had sprung from human passion and animosity. Mr Angell believed that man existed for: bread alone. That was a fundamental untruth. Sir F. Pollock, who also dissented from Mr Angell's views, said modern wars were not made for taking territory at large, but to obtain or to deprive the enemy of some definite and limited advan tage. No European Power could,get at our Dominions without command of the seas. The real factor that had to be taken into account was therefore British command of tho sea.