ARMAMENT FIRMS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 103, 28 October 1933, Page 22

ARMAMENT FIRMS

OUTSPOKEN INDICTMENT

Reviewing Fenner Erockway's "The Bloody Traffic"—an outspoken indictment of armament firms which has created considerables discussion in England—a writer in the "Literary Supplement" of "The Times" remarks that the author makes a scries of charges against the firms engaged in the- manufacture, of armaments. They are said to have formed an international ring, to have forced up prices artificially, to have supplied countries hostile to their own, to have fostered a warlike spirit and created war scares by lying about the military preparations of other nations, to have bribed Government officials, to have employed the Press to increase their business and allied themselves with banks to finance armaments, and, finally, to have sent representatives to international conferences in order to hinder disarmament. For most of these charges there is support, though some are founded on single, doubtful, or otherwise explicable incidents, while others aro ,not not really discreditable. If, for example, a firm in A, a Great Power, supplies arms to B, a small State, and the transaction is financed by a loan through one of A's banks with the approbation of A's Government, there is, surely, no discredit to the firm. It is, nevertheless, a very serious problem, just because the business of armament firms is destruction and because it must be to their interest to have their products used for this purpose. The crux is that, while there remains risk of their being , attacked, Governments cannot do without the private armament firms. On the one hand, they want their resources in reserve to supplement, in case of need, the output of their national arsenals, where they possess such institutions; on the other, they cannot in times of peace keep the departments of these firms which produce munitions of war in any way fully employed. From some points of view, indeed, armament firms, especially in this country, may claim that their treatment in times of peace is hard. They are expected to keep their military departments up to date and efficient, while given little support at home. When they sell abroad they are subjected to bitter criticism. During the Sino-Japanese fighting they were for a short but critical period prevented from sending munitions to- either side by the British embargo, while their rivals abroad were supplying both sides. After the war they made tremendous efforts to convert their factories to the production of the requirements of peace-time industry, and suffered heavy losses owing Ito the economic conditions of the country. '■-.■' One must admit that the whole situation is undesirable and menacing, and that it is not easy to see a solution. Mr. Fenner Brockway, whose matter is more moderate and reasonable than his manner, proves clearly that the complete nationalisation of the production of armaments would not suffice, though he thinks it might bo a step on the right road and declares that he would vote for it if the proposal came before a legislative assembly of which he was a member. His own belief is that the struggle for markets "is the underlying cause of rivalries in the foreign policies of Governments and of the rivalries in armaments themselves." He therefore eoncjudes, in accordance with his political views, that only the overthrow of our economic system can bring traffic in arms to an end. Those of us who' believe that such an overthrow would be disastrous may consider that he exaggerates his case, but we cannot deny that he has one.