DISARMAMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 9 July 1932, Page 5

DISARMAMENT

BRITISH PLANS OUTLINED BY MR BALDWIN. (British Official Wireless.) ‘ RUGBY, July 7. Mr Baldwin made an important declaration of the British disarmament poiicy in the Commons.

He said the Government cordially welcomed Mr Hoover’s declaration because it called for a really .substantial measure of disarmament, and sought to apply twd principles of ■quantitative and qualitative limitation. Th e success at Geneva .depended on a: general agreement, and the Hoover proposals were put forward as a contribution 'to the agreed general programme. The British proposals shoeild be similarly regarded. .Britain further agreed with\ Mr Hoover that the three problems, .'military, naval and air disarmament were inter-connected, Britain, like the. (United States, found the strongest arm in the navy, and. although naval contributions. to disarmament, on the largest scale had already been made in "advance of the present conference, the Bi'itish Government . now offered a further contribution as part, of the world settlement.

Dealing with land disarmament, Mr (Baldwin, aaid that Britain had already joinad in rejecting chemical and bac. teriological warfare' and had proposed the abolition of all mobile guns above 155 m.m, calibre. Regarding tanks, the Government agreed with Mr Hoover in desiring specifically offensive weapons to be prohibited. Britain had already put into practice a measure of disarmament which mor e than conformed to the standards proposed by Mr Hoover. Coming to the navy proposals, Mr ■Baldwin said the numerical reduction of the British Navy had already bsen applied on a large scale, and indeed the cruiser numbers would require special consideration • hereafter. It was ■possible, howeveT, to secure, by other means, a large diminution i of naval armaments. v The British proposals would seek to reduce the size of guns and ships, Wow the standard put forwprd by the United States../If the calibre of the gun were reduced .■to twelve inches maximum, the size of the capital ships could be reduced 'from thirty-five to .twenty-five thousand tons. Th e same principle could •be applied to cruisers and the maximum size and gun calibre could be reduced from ten, thousand tons, and eight inches to seven thousand tons, and 6.1 inches. It would then be p'W sible to 'reduce the size of capHff ships still further and! fix the maximum at twenty-two thousand ton 3 , with eleven inch guns. This would nearly 'halve the initial coat, and greatly reduce the maintenance cost. Mr Baldwin said that Britain lavossfljd th 6 abolition of submarines, which'would also make possible u reduction in destroyer tonnage, by about one-third, If submarines could not ■be completely abolished there should be strict limitations to the total tonnage, and the number of units. Turning .to the air. 'proposals, Mr Baldwin said the Government was prepared to go to any length in agreement with other Powers to preserve civilian population from air bombardment, and he proposed .the prohibition of bombing from the air, save within certain limits. Attacks upon civilian population should be entirely prohibited. Britain also proposed the strict limitation of the uniaden weight of all military and naval aircraft '(troop carriers ‘and flying boats excepted), and the restriction 1 in the pujnbera of all kinds of military and naval aircraft. ,

COMMENT IN PRESS. .

EFFECT ON BRITISH NAVY

LONDON, July 8. . Commenting on Mr disarmament statement, the “Dally Express,” says: “The .'English speaking nations have given a new lead .to the Test of the world. Th e whole trend of. civilisation depends, on the weloome act forded thereon.”

The “News Chronicle” says: What ■makes the proposals mere sham ig that as regards tffc auvy, they involve no disarmament at all. It is only a scheme of disarmament for our grandchildren !”. “The Times,” in a leading article, emphasises that the British plan would involve the sinking of nearly three hundred thousand tons of warships, whereas the plan of America, after allowing the ■ iright to new building, would lose half of that figure. It says: The Hoover plan, however, does not affect the size of .ships, which is the

main difficulty in reconciling the pro's- posals. It is obviously impossible to f reduce the British Navy below a cer- / , tain point, owing to widespread respon. I 1 isibilities. Even in recent years police duties in South America, China, the East Mediterranean, and the .Red Sea might be required simultaneously. If President Hoover’s police, policy regarding land armaments were to be applied to the navy, it should not be impossible to reach an understanding. AMERICANS CAUTIOUS. 'NEW YORK, Julv R. * The '“New York Times” Washington correspondent states: U.S, administrative circles accepted the Bri_ tLsh disarmament proposals as “in line with the spirit of Mr Hoover’s .proposal,” but they consider that the ■gjjritish proposals require extensive

study and negotiation before they cjould be adopted by the United 'States.