ARMAMENT COSTS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 23 February 1939, Page 7

ARMAMENT COSTS

MAY BECOME IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN But Time Not Opportune for Conference on Limitation BRITISH PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH HOUSE OF COMMONS DISCUSSION (British Oflicial Wireless.) RUGBY, February 21. In his speech in the House ,of Commons reported in part yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr Chamberlain) drew the serious attention of the House to the financial consequences of progressive rearmament. He referred to a suggestion made in yesterday’s debate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to increase still further the borrowing powers for defence, and observed that the suggestion might possibly prove right. In addition to the cost of creating mighty armaments, they would in future have to provide for greatly augmented annual maintenance. While not venturing upon a prophecy, Mr Chamberlain raised the question whether the annual cost of the maintenance of these increased armaments, together with interest and sinking fund for defence loans, might not become more in the future than it would be possible to extract from the taxpayers out of current revenue. That, was a serious .prospect to which no one could look forward with a. light heart, and in his view it reinforced the fact that it would be criminal to allow the arms situation to go on developing without making some determined effort to put an end to it.

As to a suggestion for calling a conference on limitation or reduction of armaments, Mr Chamberlain continued, the difficulties were for the present toe great. “If I could believe such a conference would produce effective results at this moment,” he said, “I would not hesitate to call it, but a conference which failed would be worse than no conference at all, and I feel that before it is possible to anticipate success from such a conference we must be sure that those who come to it would come with goodwill and with determination to produce the desired results. I do not feel that we have this confidence established yet to make that conference a practical proposition at this moment.” MUNICH CONFERENCE. To Mr J. Maxton, who intervened to ask Mr' Vhamberlain if the spirit of goodwill which he considered necessary for the success of a conference had been present when he went to Berchtesgaden. Godesberg. and Munich peace efforts by the Premier for supporting which Mr Maxton incurred the criticism of his Independent Labour Party Colleagues—Mr Chamberlain replied. — “I think those who went to the conference at Munich went there with the intention of making that conference a success, and if I could think that a conference for disarmament would come to the same satisfactory conclu- ’ sion now I should be the first to advocate it, but we have to be a little advanced in confidence before the time for such a conference has arrived.” This brought the Premier to his appeal for less suspicion at home regarding foreign countries. Amid Ministerial cheers, he continued: "Perhaps it would ' not be a bad thing if we ourselves were to show a little more confidence' and not allow ourselves to believe every tale that comes to us about the aggressive intentions of others.” The Premier added that he was making an appeal to the House as a whole. He was not making accusations against the Opposition , which he had never thought wanted war. BRITISH REARMAMENT. In passages devoted to the progress of rearmament, Mr Chamberlain said that the long effort of preparation and organisation was now at last beginning to bear visible fruit. In the last few months the output of weapons, equipment, and munitions of fell' kinds had shown a marked increase Civil defence, which .had been behind, ■ would catch up before Jong under the direction of Sir John Anderson. The Premier also paid a high tribute to Lord Chatfield (the new Defence Minister) observing that everyone would feel an added sense of security in the knowledge that a man with his particular gifts was installed at the very heart of the national defence system. Mr Chamberlain went on to inform the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr W. S. Morrison, was now chairman of the principal Supply Officers Committee, and interpolated a claim that events had now shown the superiority of this system over the proposed Ministry of Supply. “FAILURE OF THE LEAGUE.” | In another part of his speech, Mr Chamberlain sought to infer from the Opposition speeches that the Labour Party had abandoned the doctrines of collective security and suggested that they had come to realise the futility, in the present circumstances, of an appeal to the League of Nations. The League had failed, he argued, because an attempt had been made to impose upon it a task completely beyond its powers, and he further de-. dared that, in his opinion, the only chance the League had of becoming an effective factor in the preservation of peace, was when it had abandoned the idea that peace could be imposed by force. Speaking of the character of the debate, Mr Chamberlain indicated that he saw signs of the House being in better heart. There was absent from yesterday's proceedings those symptoms of anxiety which he had noticed in earlier defence debates. MR ATTLEE INDIGNANT. Speaking after Mr-Chamberlain, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr C. R. Attlee, repudiated the “seasoned effrontery” of the Suggestion that his party had gone back on their advocacy of League policy. If the collective system . was.in ruins he indicated the policy of the National Government as the chief contributory cause and suggested that the time for the Premier's concern about disarmament was seven years ago. The present scale of armaments was : a measure of the culpability of the policy which had allowed the disarmament conference to fail. Mr Attlee

wanted to know if the defence plans and programme had been brought fully up to date. The original plan was drawn up when the collective system still assured them of being associated in defence with nearly 50 friendly nations, but now they were reduced to a single ally. He criticised the Government’s food plans as inadequate and again urged the creation of a Ministry of Supply. Finally, he contended that the full strength of the country in manpower and service was not being enlisted because so many were discouraged and hesitant, feeling that the Government was incapable of making a stand for the things they believed Britain should stand for in the world. Mr Attlee said that the Labour Party’s motion to reduce the' amount by £1,000,000 resulted from the belief that the Government had neither ensured a peaceful world nor adequately defended Britain from the dangerous world which the Government had created. MR CHURCHILL’S VIEWS. Mr Winston Churchill (Conservative), who . followed Mr Attlee, also complained of what he called the rather high torib of the Premier’s remarks about the League and recalled that the National Government had fought a general election on a manifesto pledging itself to the League policy. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon, on his handling of the immense financial task and approved of the policy of using the powerful weapon of British credit to gain the advantage in the period of “bloodless war” through which they were passing. Admitting that they were reaching at long last a stage of output which he had wanted to see achieved much sooner, Mr Churchill nevertheless renewed his plea for a Ministry of Supply. They must continue on the road of achieving strength and multiplying deterrents against aggression so that war could be avoided and, from a position of strength, they should be able to negotiate a general peace, including disarmament. He advocated further defence conversations with France and public affirmation that the full support of British arms would be forthcoming in the event of war. Mr Unurchill, in welcoming Mr Chamberlain’s declaration of FrancoBritish solidarity, added that he gathered that it was not deprecated by the Dominions and it was certainly welcomed throughout the United States. It was a major deterrent to violent action at time when pressure was rising and must continue to rise. He urged new staff talks with the French authorities. Mr Churchill went on to say that the British Empire, once engaged in a life and death struggle supported by the conscience of its people, would hold nothing back from the common cause. In another world war Britain and the Empire would engage, not only with naval, air and military force, but with all the manhood of the British Empire and, if that were known beforehand, it would be a strong deterrent against the dangers which they wished to avoid. Britain ought, he thought, to have available in the first few months of a war a military force larger than any- | thing of which they had yet heard, with behind it all the necessary munition supply arrangements. What was to be done with the force was another matter. SUBSTANTIAL RESERVE NEEDED. Mr Leopold Amery (Conservative), who spoke later, supported, Mr Churchill with the suggestion that there ought to be developed as rapidly as possible a substantial reserve of 200,000 men with at least six months’ training. For the Liberals Mr Ma'nder contended that till the Government returned to the League policy there was not hope of international unity. Mr A. V. Alexander (Labour) wound up for the Opposition. He said that the country was asked for a financial . sacrifice which would put the nation in bondage for three generations and it had been brought to that position by the moral cowardice of the Govern- ' ment in the seven years it had had control of foreign policy. He complained of the profits being made by 1 I the aircraft firms. ' Mr W. S. Morrison (Conservative), ] replying Tor the Government, stated <

that the conversations already begun between the British and French Governments were being continued. The Government fully agreed with Mr Churchill that once involved in war Britain could not proceed on the principle of limitation. All the country's resources would have to be thrown in. The only question that could arise would be how they could be used. The Labour amendment to the financial resolution was defeated by 310 votes to 127. BERLIN COMMENT. ALLEGED FAIRY TALES. (Independent Cable Service.) BERLIN. February 22. The “Boersenzeitung,” commenting on Mr Chamberlain’s House of Commons' speech, says that he showed a desire to put a distance between himself and those in England and America who arc attempting to produce a catastrophic atmosphere by the aid of fairy tatlcs about the aggressive intentions of others.