WHO WON THE WAR?

Hokitika Guardian, 10 June 1927, Page 2

WHO WON THE WAR?

LORD HAIG’S VERDICT.

[“Sydney Sun” Cables.] LONDON, June S. “ I doubt if it is yet fully realised in Britain the immensity of the British armies’ contribution to the war,” said Lord Haig when presiding at the Service League Conference. Tremendous cheering broke out as Lord Haig proceeded to break his diplomatic postwar silence. He said: “ There has been a national tendency to belittle our achievements. This lias often been fostered by political considerations and it has allowed us to ascribe victory to various causes, as for examjile, “ the military genius of our allies,” “ our enemies’ mistakes ” and “ the intervention of America ’’—anything in fact but the true cause, namely,. the inherent fighting qualities of the BritisTr armies and the endurance, loyalty and discipline ol the British peoples throughout the world. But the Ameri“ can reserves did brin& the war to wliau many politicians regard as an unexpectedly sudden end. The British Empire during the last eighteen months of the war, carried the burden victoriously, and almost solely, on our shoulders. It mobilised, equipped and trained the finest lighting force which the world has ever seen in the greatest war of history.”

Lord Haig said that the direction of that jinstrument had mainly rested with himself. As far as he personally was concerned, be was prepared to leave that to the judgment of history. At present, lie was concerned in seeming a fair measure of credit lor all ranks; composing tlioiv armies, because it was of the utmost importance for the future of the people of Britain and the Dominions accept a true version of the part they played in the war. The Empire Service League would have justified itself if it kept alive in the hearts of its members a just pride in their achievements in war time.

Mr Amerv (Secretary for the Dominions) in opening the Ctnifereneo paid a tribute to the League’s work in assisting in the development of the overseas 1 Empire. Some people seemed anxious regarding the effect of the Imperial Conference of 1926. They were mist:iicon. That conference lmd not loosened a single band. Oil tli© contrary it had made it clear that unity depended on common interests and mutual co-operation.

The conference passed a resolution urging the extension of overseas settlement, and also the granting of spociat concessions to ex-service men.

Mr Andrew Young, a Scottish school master, declared that Australia was' worse than Canada in excluding boy migrants because they had been convicted of youthful escapades. He hoped the delegates would persuade the Dominion Government to modify their restrictions in such cases.

Captain Simson (the Secretary) expressed the opinion that the Dominions’ restrictions did not discriminate between murder and youthful crimes. Thousands of youths were not being accepted because they had been convicted of trilling offences at 9 or Id years of age, when they lacked parental control. The conference became uproarious; when Mr Fraser East, of Brisbane,. Queensland, in defending the Australian Government, pointed out that some of the Dominion formerly had mo choice in declining to accept criminals f Mr Gyett declared that the British laws should be amended so as to permit boys who have been convicted of trilling offences to migrate with clean records.

There arc still 29,000 officers and men under treatment. The death rate of the disabled prisoners is extraordinarily low, being only 15J pci thousand.