OUT-OF-DATE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 22, 26 January 1934, Page 7

OUT-OF-DATE

BRITAIN'S DEFENCE

INADEQUATE AIR FORCE

MILITARY MAN'S VIEWS

Itajor-General Fuller, ono of the most clear-sighted of military thinkers, emphasises in this trenchant article in tho "Daily Mail" tho "suicidal" folly of neglecting Britain's first line of defence and trusting, for security to weapons which, though more costlythan air protection, aro already' obsolete. In 1914, writes Major-General Fuller, the, world was armed to the teeth. We were armed also, yet our armaments exerted little force because our policy was pacific. Had we openly said: In tho event of war, we will, to the full extent of our power, support France, it is possible, even probable, that war would never have been declared. Today the greater part of the world is still armed to the teeth; it is greedy, truculent, and volcanic. What are wo doing? . ■-..-•' We are meandering abjaut with a cage of cooing doves in ono hand and a blunderbuss in the other. We are trying to 'tell peace far which there is no market, and we are hoping to protect ourselves with armed forces which are; in no way adequate to defend theso islands, let alone secure the Empire or stamp out a European conflagration. . It is a strango' and terrifying picture. We'seem-to'have learned nothing. Wo cannot or will .not sco that, in a world which resembles a gold rush camp, a world in which every nation carries a gun on its hip, unless we carry an effective weapon also we can command no respect. How can we speak with authority when ye cannot even defend •ourselves? Is this the true situation? It is; f although we are spending the colossal sum of £105,000,000 on pur, defence forces, to all intents and Purposes We are impotent, because wo h'avo refused to heed the lessons of the war. i v In 1914 we had a powerful navy based on .the capital ship;-wo had an efficient army of, cavalry, infantry, and horsedrawn guns; and a microscopic air force, still in its early infancy. We were equipped like other nations and better. Yet what happened $ BATTLESHIPS AN ENCUMBRANCE. Battleships proved more of an encumbrance than a safeguard, and as for cavalry, ■ infantry,..and fie 1 d artillery, they decided nothing outside slaughter and destruction., The. weapons which decided the military operations, or which most certainly would havedone so had tho war continued for another year, were not the old/traditional ones, but the new scientific ones, the aeroplane, tank, and submarine. The quality arms'and not the quantity arms, the arms of size and of number. ■>. ! >In spite of this obvious lesson^ immediately after the war, and.from then onwards, .our one purpose, has been to get.rid of the quality weapon?, weapons.which we as an industrial nation cjin easily manufacture; weapons which are so powerful that they can bring'the terrors of war'to every hearth -and home and so can teach the people what to expect, aiid weapons which, should a war be declared, can end it quickly and so .-prevent the world being economically bled to death and'thrown into a delirium of hatred. ~ ■ ■■'■'; ■ Look at this question today;' Wo are faced:.:by' three 'problems': Home (lefence, Empire • defence, and the maintenance of peaeo in Europe, and that largely depends on the first Without security at home nothing is secure; for I firmly believe, and there are many who believe with nic, that'the security of" these islands is the keystone in tho arch of world peace. ■'■''<, :. ■, -' • ■ V ,'• This keystone need not be large, but it must be of the higfiest quality. What are we doing with our £105,000,000? We are-doing exactly what, in 1878, Lord Cafnarv.on said we were doing then: "We lavish on what is obsolete, save oh' what is essential, and always think that our past good-luck is a gua-rantee-off uture success,',' During tho war it was the submarine and not the capital ship which all but brought us to our knees; yet what do we see today! Of this weapon we have 61,000 tons, ' Franco has 97,000, the TJnitea: States 77,000; Japan 77,000, and Italy- about the same. • ■ Soon France, very wisely; so I think, from her point of view, will possess twice as many of, these vessels as we shall, that is 124 to some 59, and be it remembered that, in 1914, Germany entered the war with 27! ;_ If; this were not' madness, enough, since 1914 we have reduced our destroyers (our anti-submarine weapon) from 216 to 152, and in tonnage today have less than France, and 62,000 tons less than the U.S.A. Though these figures are sufficiently perturbing, the neglect: of our air force has. been nothing short of suicidal. , AIR rOECE REDUCED. Here "is the arm of the future, and what do we see? In 1919 we were in jossessjon of the niost powerful air force in the world. Today we have reduced it by 80 per cent, and stand fifth, if not sixth, among the air forces of ihe nations. We still hold fast to building capital ships costing £5,000,000 —ships which aronext to useless for trade protection; yet for this gum we can obtain at least 1000 aeroplanes. \To pit a: battleship against 1000 aircraft currying , torpedoes, or even; a tenth of this number, is about as sensible as to expect a slug to get out of a swarming ant-heap. • This, hovever, is not the worst, because the few squaro miles which comprise the Port of London are both tho stomach of this country and the true heart of the If this port goes, all goes, and today only a strong air force can protect it. Threaten to bomb at and every breakfast tablo will tremble; bomb It for three days, not to obliterate but to disorganise it only, and. even had we a thousand'warships and a million armed men we should be verging ;upon collapse. Today our air forco is, our first line of defence, yet in the yearly Estimates it stands third on the list. On our army we spend £38,000,000; that is well over twice as much as on our air force, and remembering.our obligations it is not an excessive figure; but how is it being spent, and for what war are wepreparing! That is the .question. Thq answer is: For i war of stage coaches in an age of steam' and petrol engines, because cavalry and infantry are all but as obsolete as bowmen and piiemen. Here is a proof that these are not idle words: On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, in 1916, before tanks were used, our casualties numbered some 60,000; on tho first day of the Battle of Amiens, in 1918, when over 400 tanks took the field, they were approximately 1000. OBBOLETE FORCE. Turn to tho "Army List" and see what our regular army consists of today—22 cavalry regiments, 136 infantry battalions, and five battalions of tanks, a considerable number of whose machines are ten years old!

Is this army worth £38,000.000! The tmlk of it can only move at three miles an hoar, is pervious to every bullet

fired at it, .offers a magnificent target to air attack, and is not'capable of catching a motor bandit. It is not even a reliable- or efficient police force. What is it for! What are our three great defenco Services for! It is about time tho people of this, country asked themselves this question. Are they a luxury or a necessity? If the former, the sooner they arc scrapped the better, for money is scarce. If the latter, aro we getting our moneys worth? We are not!, For £105,000,000 we can maintain peace here, in the Empire, and in Europe, granted that this money is spent upon quality. Without quality our defence' forces are paralysed, our diplomacy is stultified, and our Empire is jeopardised—an Empire which still maintains peace over a quarter of the globe and among 500,000,000 people; a peace no League of Nations is ever, likely to establish.