The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1942. REALISM IN HOME DEFENCE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 30, 30 October 1942, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1942. REALISM IN HOME DEFENCE

In his address to Lines of Communication trainees at Waikanae on Monday last, the Central District Commandant (Colonel Foster) drew attention to one of the basic problems of home-defence organization. “The unreality of war in the form of a direct threat to the country,” he said, “is a serious difficulty with which the Army has to contend in the maintenance of interest and enthusiasm in part-time voluntary training.” This is very true. It applies also —perhaps with even greater force —to civilian training in home defence, for iti this sphere the atmosphere of military authority and routine is lacking, and the development of training along regular, systematic lines depends to a great extent upon the goodwill of the individual. Both the Army and civil-defence organizations are empowered by law to compel the obedience of part-time trainees. But Colonel Foster, in his comments, did not bring this fact forward—and no doubt for very good reason. Part-time training, whether it be in the Home Guard, in military auxiliary branches, or in the E.P.S., requires the volunteer spirit. A foundation or background of compulsion is necessary in order that deliberate slackers may be dealt with, and occasional sluggards brought up to the mark. Beyond this, compulsion alone is not of much value in building up strong, virile and alert services. Enthusiasm must also be present, together with the spirit of self-sacrifice in personal ways —the giving up of time, and the taking of pains not merely to learn but to become skilled and habitual. _ Perhaps most important of all is the quality of earnestness, based on a clear and full understanding of what will be at stake in this Dominion should it come about that reality replaces “unreality” in our situation. It follows, therefore, that the more clearly the people realize the danger confronting this country, the less difficult will become the task of home-defence organization. Actually this has already been proved in practice. Time and again, news of reverses suffered by the Allies in the Pacific or further afield has had the effect of galvanizing the rankyand file of part-time military and civil-defence trainees into keener and more conscientious endeavour. Unhappily the reverse has also applied. A slackening of interest has been evident after good news has come to hand. This mercurial tendency has bred overoptimism and has led in some circles to a persistent apathy toward home-defence duties, which has added greatly to the difficulties of those entrusted with the training of personnel. Much could—and should—be done to remedy such weakness by means of. example in national leadership. Home defence training, both military and civil, should be rid as far as possible of the high administrative drag—the frequent discouraging delays in planning and the implementation of policy—which dogs it. The programme of development should proceed steadily, without loss Of time. There should be a minimum of reticence such as is being displayed over the recent expert report on the fire-fighting side of our civil defence. Given this change in the administrative atmosphere the people would be constantly reminded of the very grim realism of war which lies just over the horizon of New Zealand. Home defence would likely be given the greater attention and more wholehearted co-operation which prudence demands for it.