NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16225, 4 July 1918, Page 8

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

We have to record tb-day the loss of another hospital ship, which was torpedoed last week off the Fastuet llock, which is a few miles south-west of Cape Clear, on the south coast of Ireland. From tho fact that she is reported to have been carrying Canadian doctors and nurses, while no mention is made of any sick or wounded being on boaid, it may be assumed that she was on her way to Eng.aud, and those on board, having sighted the Fastnet light, which guides tne homing liners to Queenstown, might reasonably have hoped to roach shore in safety. The steamer, the Llandovery Castle, was presumably one of the famous Union Castle line, which in pre-war days used to run to South AfricH. The Union Castle vessels appear to be well suited to the purposes of hospital ships, and, unfortunately, the Llandovery Castle is the .sixth* of them that has been attacked, and the fifth to be sunk by the U-boats during the war. The one that escaped destruction was the Guildford Castle, which -was attacked in the Bristol Channel on March 10th, with 430 sick and wounded from German East Africa on board, and was uninjured, because one of tho torpedoes fired at her missed its mark, and the second failed to explode when it struck her amidships.

The earlier attacks on hospital ships during tho war aroused the amazed anger of tho civilised world, which, though compelled to believe much that was almost incredibly bad of the enemy, hesitated to think that ho intentionally waged war on sick and wounded soldifers at sea. But it became only too evident as the war went on that the Hun was absolutely unhampered by tho faintest considerations of humanity. In an attempt to "save her face," Germany asserted that British hospital ships were used for the transport of munitions and soldiers on active service. Tlit assertion was, of course, grossly false. Then a formal agreement was made, through the King of Spain, that hospital ships bearing the usual marks designating their use as Red Cross transports, should not be attacked. That agreement was treated by the Hun as another scrap of paper. Hospital ships continued to be sunk, but now the enemy began to claim that the destroying agent was not a German submarine, but a floating mine laid by the British thomselves. That, of course, was a matter which experts could easily decide, if the cause of a ship's tfate, were ever in doubt, and in every case where tho mine theory has been advanced by Germany, it has boen disproved by British experts.

In April, however, a German paper, the "Deutsche Tageszeitung," threw off all disguise, and virtually announced that hospital ships were to be regarded a3 the prey of the submarine. It criticised in abusive terms Sir Eric Geddes's statement to the House of Commons regarding British mercantile losses, and continued: "Lloydl George and Geddes falsify tho losses of ships plying in the military service, ignoring so-'raJled naval losses, auxiliary cruisers, guardships, hospital ships, and very probably also troop transports and " munition steamers, that is to say precisely that shipping space which is particularly exposed to and attacked by the U-boats."

It is not likely that any finality will be reached in the discussion regarding the Austrian and Italjan losses in the recent fighting on the Italian front. Dr. Wekerle, the Hungarian Premier, is unfortunate in being contradicted not only by the Italian authorities, but by Vienna. His estimate of the AustroHungarian losses as only 100,000, while he assessed those of the Italians at 150,000, of course, simply invited contradiction from Italy, and a semi-official message from Rome remarks that Dr. Wekerle was trying to soothe public opinion in his country by. halving the Austrian and doubling the Italian losses. Vienna announced officially that the Hungarian Premier was wrong, and that Austria-Hungary's losses were less than those suffered on the Isonzo, where they were 80,000 or 100,000.

We must admit that we do not quite follow the arithmetic of the disputants. Dr. Wekele spoke of seventy regiments being engaged, though reports issued during the battle referred to 70 out of the enemy's 92 divisions having been identified in the offensive. Austrian prisoners are now quoted as saying that 42 divisions were engaged in the battle, which the Rome message explains as meaning that the enemy forces numbered 4ti0,000. But that gives barely 11,000 men to a division, whereas we were told that each of the enemy divisions was 50 per cent, stronger than the • German divisions, each of which is understood to be from 10,000 to 12,000 strong. That gives the enemy, by their own calculations, some 700,000 men. The British Secretary of State puts the number of enemy killed and wounded at 180.000, a number which agrees with the figures given in an Italian communique last week, and is probably much more accurate .than either the Hungarian or the Austrian estimate. The total represents a very heav- loss, but jt is by no means improbable considering that the enemy were in the first place the attackers, and in the second that in their retreat they were caugnt between the advancing Italians and a ijlooded river with very few bridges left standing.

The Italians have been busy in Franco as well as in Italy, Monday's French communique containing a reference to their taking a prominent part in driving back enemy detachments which had gained a footing in advanced positions in the Mont GendeBligny sector. It is only a little more than a week since ttie official report of a German assault on Bligny Hill told us where the Italian troops on the French front were situated. Bligny lies between the Marne and Rheims, about 8 miles to the south-west of the city. In the May fighting it was held by the British, who held up there the enemy's advance between Soissons and Rheims, and on one occasion lost their position only to regain it by a vigowus counter-attack. Later on, that part of the front was allotted to the Italians, instead of the extreme right of the French line, in Lorraine, as was expected. As we mentioned some days ago, the Italian force that was sent to France was reputed to be a quarter of a million strong, but it may be whether, in view of the impending Austrian offensive, so many would bo spared from the Italian front. The reduction in the rations of the German army, noted by the correspondent of "The Times." includes, it seems, the elimination of all fats, "despite the cold nights." That is rather a curious comment, for the nights in July should not be very cold in Flanders and France. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the reduction has been made. Germany is unquestionably much shorter of food than Great Britain, and some of the increasing dissatisfaction that is said to have been evident in the German ranks was due to the scarcity and inferiority of the rations, which, we are told, now consists of less than 12 ounces of bread daily, very little meat, "coffee" made from roasted acorns, and barley, and "tobacco" which is a mixture of dried

oalc-leaves and birch bark. Soldiers can stard many discomforts and hard knocks if they "are w ell fed, but though Germany has done the best she could for her men, she cannot supply them with food that she does not possess. Even as it is, the German in tho trenches is much better fed than his brother in the munition works.

It is always well to know the worst, and one welcomes therefore the issue by Count von lioon, a prominent member of the Pitissian Upper House, and we should think a super-Junker of the "twelve commandments of Pan-Ger-manism,'' or, in other words, the PanGerman idea of the peace terms tjjat must be imposed on the Allies. We have read documents to the same purpose before, but this one combines almost all the demands that have everbeen put forward by irresponsible German jingoes, and adds several more. We miss from the list the annexation of Australia and New Zealand and the occupation of India, which have been advocated by some foolish hot-heads,! but possibly the Count thought that Britain, after surrendering all her coaling stations and her Navy to Germany,- would be in no position to defend her oversea possessions, which could be captured bv Germany at the latter's leisure. Banquets are comparatively uncommon in Germarjv today or one might think that Count von Roon's peace conditions drawn up at a late stage of some festivity. Tho only alternatives to that conclusion is that Pan-Germanism itself is violently intoxicating. It is of interest, by the way, to note that Hindenburg is now crnfttert with recognising a German victory is not attainable on the West front. And if aot there, where is it even faintly possible?