ARMAMENTS

Hokitika Guardian, 1 July 1931, Page 6

ARMAMENTS

BRITISH POLICY. (British Official Wiretess.) RUGBY, Junp 29. In the Commons, Mr McDonald nuiue an important statement on the question of disarmament. He said with reference to the forthcoming world conference that the British preparation lor the conference the tremendous importance of which was recognised by members of all pMjg; ties in the House, had taken the form of the setting up of a sub-committee of the Commitetee of Imperial Defence, upon which all parties were represented, and before which was placed a body of reliable facts of the present situation.

Having reminded the House of the terms of Article Bof the League of Nations Convenant, and the disarmament pledges of the nations in connection with the treaties of Versailles niiu Locarno, which, he said, were obligations from which the nations could not get away, Air MacDonad cited the comparison of armaments expenditure before the wnr*and now. He explained llie basis of calculation, and the adjustment, of the alteration of money values, and claimed that the figures were substantially eonect and gave a fair impression of armaments movements.

In 1914, the total naval expenditure of the United. Kingdom was £51,500,000, or in terms of present money values £76,000,000. In 1930 the total was £52,500,000 on pre-war expenditure and of £3,500,000 since 1924. The United States spent ill 1914 on navy £42,000.000 in current values, and in 1930 approximately £76,000,000 an increase of £36,000,000.

iho figures for the French Navy showed a decrease of £5,000,000 on pre-war figures, but an increase of £10.000,000 since 1924.

The Japanese navy cost £11,000,000 more than before the war, and £3.000,000 more than six years ago.

Examination of the figures of naval personnel in other countries showed increases in much the same proportion as the British decreases.

Regarding ships, in 1914 the British Commonwealth possessed 69 capital ships compared with 15 to-day. Cruisers had decreased, since 1914 from 131 to 59, destroyers from 298, plus 70 topedo boats, to a figure which would be reduced to about 120 by the London Naval Treaty. Britain bad 40 Fewer submarines now than in 1914, in spite of the increases in other navies.

Regarding the Brite'sh army, excluding the Indian and Colonial Forces, expenditure in 1914 was over £-10 000,000 in present values: in 1974 £■'"> 000.”09 and in 1931 practically £10,000,000. it must be remembered that non-effective charges, such as civilian pay, maintenance of fabric, also the nay of officers and men bad increased since 1925. Military expenditure in France had increased by £20,000,000 that of Italy by £15,000.000, and the United States by £15,000.000. After giving other comparisons of military air strength. Mr MacDonald claimed the figures proved that Britain had shown an example on the matter of disarmament in which she had le’en swift, patient and pars stent, hill th« reductions must be international. “We have gone pretty nearly to the limits of example, and I appeal to every nation interested in peace and disarmament to study those figures. One nation cannot bring about disarmament. It is the duty and respo?*-

si Pity c-f all to join together, and make further disarmament possible by internet ion a 1 a gree men ts .

Mr M aeDonald continued: It might be said that Britain’s reductions were a risk to its security, but this could not be expressed in technical and miT‘tnry terms alone. Military security must be subordinated to political security, tile buiuLng up of wlicb the Government had been active. They believed the security of Europe and i lie world was weakened by armament. The general policy of the Government bad been to get political relationships which would protout war at .he beginning. lie referred to the success of the London naval conference, and the recent visit of the German statesmen tillri tain, and the forthcoming visit to France as hopeful signs of increasing, goodwill and friendly relations. He paid a tribute to Mr Hoover’s initiative. When the disarmament conference met in 1932, they hoped for a - agreement of all round reductions, which would enable the British Government to effect further economies and which would lay deeper and broader foundations of pence. Ah Baldwin thanked Air MacDonald for his statement, and said he had shown conclusively that Britain, under successive Governments had done its best to go on with progressive disarmament. The figures showed That w e had taken grave risks. No one would regret tlmm if they helped toward the success of the movement for tlm into”nationnl reduction of armaments. As p or the Conservatives, he assured Mr MacDonald that he spoke, for the whole House. Sir H. Snmiml asso -iated the Liberals with Afr AlacDouald’s statement nml a open 1.

BRITISH POWER.. M 3 CHURCHILL’S VI £ .V. WEAKENED AND MISDIRECTED LUIS BOX, June 2'J. In the House of Commons, .ur Clmrqtiill, discussing the dis rmamcnt question, described Mr McDonald’s statement as tlie most important made for years. Thus far, he said, Britain alone had disarmed, and had aba ,d> n ed naval supremacy. She had also abandoned parity with the next strongest power. She was incapable of maintaining her food .and oil supplies in certain contingencies. Her Air Keren Vi as-vastly inferior to that of h. r n ;nro.st neighbour. Her army was never more than "a glorified police force.”

Referring to. Russia, Mr Churchill sod tint the wliole group of the s v ail States from the Baltic Sea -o. the Black Sea were in a state of lively ap prehension regardinj Russia. dll of these States looked to the French Army f '-r security. Hence it was the Jpg' - est. imprudence on the pa• t of the British Government to disturb Britain's good relation? with r 'rau-o. Mr Churchill continued :—“We mu- 1 consider our infiiiem-e, a”d I urge that we regain, at the earliest, our r.val freedom, in oii’er to secure our food ■supplies over the narrow sens; secondly,- that we regain our imlepe’ clenee from European '•ntann ,l e*”erts. and our free judgment in anything that may arise. h