Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1938. REARMAMENT AND ITS PRICE.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 April 1938, Page 6

Wairarapa Times-Age THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1938. REARMAMENT AND ITS PRICE.

PREDICTIONS that rearmament and its costs would be the dominant features of the British Budget were borne out to the fullest extent in the statement and proposals which Sir John Simon laid before the House of Commons on Tuesday. These predictions, indeed, merely stressed the obvious and much the same is to be said of the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. R. Attlee) that Britain “is entering a world armaments race.” It is perfectly true that Britain has entered a world armament race, but this is not a new development. It is, on the contrary, one which the Labour Opposition in the House of Commons has watched for a’good many months without making any very emphatic protest and with some indications of what might well be regarded as tacit approval. There.is a good deal in the recent history of the Labour Party in Britain, and for that matter in the recent demeanour of Mr Attlee and his colleagues, to suggest that many of its members share the view widely held that Britain is simply making the best of a bad job—in other words is acting on an opinion that it is better in a world gone mad, to build up formidable armaments than to remain relatively defenceless and helpless in face of aggressive dictatorships. There is every reason to fear a tragic, if not a catastrophic outcome of what Mr Attlee justly called a world race in armaments. The nations of Europe are armed to the teeth as they never have been before and in some instances are almost literally starving themselves in order that they may build up further armaments. This blight of destructive and menacing effort and frightful waste has descended not only on the great competing dictatorships, on their prospective or possible enemies and on the satellites of both groups, but on the Scandinavian and other minor States of Europe which have long set an excellent example of good government and peaceful progress. Everywhere resources that might be turned to vastly better account are being concentrated on the production of increased armaments. It is impossible to do anything else than. abominate this state of affairs, and the fate of modern civilisation very possibly may depend upon a decisive reversal of the present trend. It has yet to appear, however, that any responsible party in Britain is prepared to say that the programme of rearmament ought to be abandoned. Few things are more certain than that Labour or any other party going to the country on that policy would meet overwhelming defeat at the polls. The weight of opinion plainly is that Britain is bound to arm as formidably as possible in face of existing dangers. The Government now headed by Mr Chamberlain did not take up rearmament as something that it approved, but rather as something that could not be avoided or escaped. If rearmament is essential, its cost must be met and that is the justification of a Budget which increases the immediate burdens imposed on the British people and brings still greater burdens into prospect. Setting aside standards of true progress in order that an imperative emergency may be met and dealt with, the Budget admittedly has its part in imperilling the economic and social future of the nation. The danger of a .slump, to which both Mr Attlee and the Liberal Leader (Sir Archibald Sinclair) referred, perhaps is more likely to arise if and when it is found possible to taper off the rearmament programme than while that programme is being expanded. There are substantial grounds for believing that should the ultimate calamity of world war be averted, the end of rearmament will bring great and perplexing economic problems into the’ forefront. It overshadows all such considerations, however, that in the existing state of the world Britain cannot afford to deprive herself of any attainable means of defence. To .subject the Budget introduced by Sir John Simon to criticism based on normal financial and economic standards would amount simply to turning a 'blind eye on the facts of the position that really matter.