The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1929 THE MORALS OF SOLDIERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 770, 17 September 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1929 THE MORALS OF SOLDIERS

HAS the time come in New Zealand for the abolition of compulsory military training? This question was discussed by the Council of Christian Congregations last evening and answered wistfully, rather than affirmatively, in the form of a resolution expressing a wish that the Act might be abolished in the best interests of the Dominion and in fulfilment of this country’s obligations as a member of the League of Nations. Whatever individual opinions on the controversial subject may be, the earnest churchmen representing Christian congregations in Auckland did the right thing in bringing it forward for a non-military review of the necessity and value of the Dominion’s system of conscriptive military training. Parliament and the people must face the vital obligations involved, and come to a decision sooner or later as to whether conscription for defence should go or remain as an expensive method of training youths for possible war. There is wide scope for a diversity of honest opinion on the question. To tens of thousands of eminently patriotic citizens, New Zealand’s adherence to compulsory military training looks like an extravagant anachronism, almost a provocative waste of public money; to quite as many levelheaded loyalists to everything that is for the good of a nation, the system appears to be a desirable method for teaching you!!i the moral value of discipline, and for giving no fewer than fifty thousand boys and young men every year the invaluable benefit of physical fitness.

All over the world these days there is a great deal of talk about the fantastic mockery in the conflict between the international movements toward disarmament and world peace and the appalling bulk of international expenditure on maintaining means of defence and preparation for war which, at the moment, is obscured in the mist of remote possibility. It lias been pointed out, for example, that Great Britain alone is spending £2OO a minute on armaments as against about 2s 6d for peace, apart from the other purpose of the League of Nations. This apparent mockery “applies with the same terrific satire’ to America and to every great nation in the world except Germany.” There is no cause for praising Germany and decorating it with a unique virtue. The German Republic had to be compelled at a horrible price to accept compulsory disarmament, but Germany is neither so defenceless nor so innocent as she appeal’s among the nations. It is right that all these contradictions should be known and considered before any country yields in an expansive mood of optimism and piety to the’ benign idealism of disarmament and glorious universal peace. There can be no doubt that New Zealand spends heavily—none may go so far as to say profligately—on military and naval defence. Including the annual contribution to the construction of the Singapore Naval Base, this, country is spending over £1,000,000 a year. On a population basis, the sum is anything but prodigious. Perhaps it might be spent to better advantage, but that yiay be left to the wisdom of politicians for decision. The Council of Christian Congregations was rather more concerned about the moral phases of compulsory military training. It declared impressively that conscription was against tlie genius of the British race and noted, as a striking tiling, that there is no compulsory training in Great Britain itself. Quite true within marked limitations, but Britain still spends £2OO a minute on armaments as against about 2s 6d for peace. It is difficult to reconcile with actual facts a statement by tlie Rev. D. C. Herron that New Zealand “really was dishonouring lier promise given over lier signature to the League of Nations.” Where is this alleged dishonour, and in what way is it practised? The majority of national members of the League not only maintain armies, navies, air forces, and nurse the knowledge which at any time could take the deadly form of poison gas, but practise military conscription. Today, they are welcomed at Geneva. As for the allegation that military camps demoralise vouthful trainees and train them to swear as their fathers did in Flanders, the best remedy for that defect of morality would be to dismiss the officers who cannot cope with bad habits. But would there be any less vile language and bawdy stories if there were no compulsory military training and youths allowed to slouch on street corners?