While Britain supports the general idea, and applauds it, we also share some of Germany's valid concerns.
although the need is generally (thankfully) not frequent, natural disasters such as hurricanes and cyclones happen yearly and such an air service would probably see sporadic but continual use. Even so, many smaller local disasters can be handled by the nation's own Air Force assets. The bigger question is what would the S.A.H./H.A.S. do in day-to-day activities to maintain the fleet, flying hours and generally remain active? Could the League justify operating a primarily non-profit cargo operator 365 days a year? Whose cargo would it shift beyond emergency aid work? Given the enormous distances involved in global flights this suggests basing would need to be regional with a base in Europe, America, Africa and Asia which suggests either a bigger than ideal force or smaller outposts with a couple of aircraft each to be reinforced by a European reserve park.
Britain suggests it might be better to secure Red Cross/Red Crescent involvement to provide immunity to all these aircraft and remove any national involvement. The aircraft could then be used on lifesaving flights across the world all the time. The League could offer to fund and equip such an international Red Cross/Crescent Air Service cheaper and more effectively, and it could use civilian aircraft with minimal changes rather than expensive military types.
Britain pledges to support any final organisation financially and materially if desired.
Also, I read the
Das Andere Deutschland, Britain reads
everything German!
I enjoy both Bruce's and Brock's editorial comments. An idea I might steal myself.