DISARMAMENT

Marlborough Express, Volume LX, Issue 230, 29 September 1926, Page 9

DISARMAMENT

LEAG rfcs COMM I TTEES BEG I N . WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. LONDON. Aug. 11. We hear that at Geneva yesterday the naval, military and air sub-com-mittees of the Preparatory Committee of Disarmament began to consider the questioii of tlie international supervision of armaments. This is ,of course, tlie preliminary to that much sought for end, an international agreement whereby some limit shall be put to the growtli of .armaments. The sub-eommittees investiga.fi ng ihe subject were cmifronted to hegiu with by the diffjculty of determiuing what constitutes armaments. Jf the aim be, as it is, to reduce or limit tlie armaments of all nations 01.1 a uniform scale, and to put them in a precise and definite relation to one another, there must be absolute agreement a 10011 g all tlie States as to every technical term and every unit oi measurement. Suppose, for example, it is decided that two States ought to have navies approxi mately equal, but it is disoovered that one of them has more cruisers than tlie other but fewer submarines, more battleships but fewer destroyjers, how are the two to be aecurately oompared with eaeli other, and at the same time kept in their relation to the fleets of other nations? In the meantinie, at yesterday's session of the- Preparatory Committee, two statements were put in, one by the F'rench, who believe tliat a certain degree of supervision is possible, and another by the Italian.s. who consider that reliance should be plaoed 011 the publicity provided by ,the Armaments Year Book, puhi i shed by the League. Rear-Admiral Jones, the United States naval representative, read a strongly-worded deelaration to the effect that the United States would in 110 circumstances accept international supervision in any shap© or form. It was decided on a vote to take the French statement as a basis of discussion. No- clear tendency, however, manifested itself in the opening debate. Tlie British delegation voted in favor of the Ita.lian statement as more in accordance v ith its own attitude, and Germany, Holland, Sweden and Czechoslovokia abstainecl from voting. Naturally, oue would like to know what exactly at this moinent of speaking is the state of affairs in the different nations. Surtprisingly

enough, Russia is ihe one country whicli is armed on a scale of nnything like pre-war dimensions. The following summary of tlie position gives oue the oppoi'tunity of seeing what the problem is tliat this committee has set itself to study. There lias been a reductioii of a million and a-half men serving with the armieSj of Europe in the past three vears. The Scandinavian nations have made very substantial "cuts" in their armies, partly owing tio the fact that they have generally adopted the militia systeni of Switzerland, under which tlie men are not kept in barracks, but are called up for training for a iimited peridd. Accordinglv, Sweden has reduced her permanent establishment from 120,000 in 1922 to 35,912 111 1925; Norway from 60,000' in 1922, to.4405 in 1925; and Jleumai k lrom 33,000 to 9095 last year. These fi'gures exclude the men that are trained 011 a militia basis, for the only permanent soldiers needed under such circuniistanoes are those required for instructional .and organisation purposes. Contrary to general opinion, France has made a very decidecl ste.p in the limitation of armaments, and the number of Frenchmen serving is 300,000 less than in 1913. There is, indeed, a. bill before the French Chamber with the object of reducing service in the lnfantry to one year, Should this sclieme be adopted there will be serving in the foreign army of France only 97,000 white troops and 100,000' native troops. In Great Britain. there has been a decrease of just over 2000', but a ve^v substantial reduction in the number of soldiers in India. On the other hand, our Air Forces has, of course, substantiallv increased. Belgium, too, has reduced her peace establishment from 118,969 in 1922 to 81,720 in 1925; Spain, in spite of the Riff wai', and the consequent increase in serving troops, hias reduced her peace establishments from 215,940 to 123,851. Italy shows an increase from 210,000 in 1922 to. 259,848 in 1925, but this represents a decrease of over 30,000 if pomparison is made with the army in 1913. In the Balkans and Cent ra I Europe .a eimilar tendencv is manifest. Ger-

manv has her establishment lixed at 100,600 by treaty; Austria at 30,000, .and Hungafy at 35,000; and Bulgaria at 33,000. In fact, surveying the armies of Euroipe, it may truly be said that only in the Eastern port.ion oi' the Oontinent is the hurdon of military service substantially higher than it was in pre-w.ar years. The re,'publics of Lithuania, Latvia and Poi and have increased their armies because they are afraid of thcif neighbor across the frontier, the Soviet Repuhlics of Russia. The absence of official and relinhle figuros from Moscow make it imjpossible to give an accura.te oomparison, Imt it would appear that to-day, with tlie possible exeeption of Fr.anoe, Russia has far and away tlie largest peace establishment.