PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2747, 15 April 1916, Page 4

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Noteworthy ''facts, concerning German preparations for the attack on Verdun were supplied by a correspondent of the Petit PciviAitii_ a few days before the offensive opeiied which has since developed ou so gieas a scale. Apart from.its detail interest, the dispatch affords striking evidence that the Eraurh were in ro way taken by surprise. It is, of course, certain that the. facts known to a newspaper correspondent were not outside the knowledge of the French General Staff. In support of his opinion that the Germans, were making preparations for an attack on Verdun, tho. correspondent mentioned in the first instance the concentration of great masses of German infantry, the provision of huts and field hospitals and other details. It was, however, the artillery preparations, he went on to state, that were the most convincing signs that a big move was being contemplated. "A secret order," he wrote, "has been dispatched to certain commanders in Alsace-Lorraine to send to the French front a considerable portion of fortress artillery. Thus the artillery of StrasSurg, Neu-Brisach, and Metz was ready to be forwarded by January 7. On tho 4th eight batteries of 150 men and a great number of mortars of every calibre were massed on the Place le Notre at Stvasburg, while in the neighbourhood were 29 .batteries of four'guns each. All these cannon were to he entrained without teams." . Numerous 'emplacements for .Jjatterie's_ guns had been prepared in proximity to tfie German lines, and all these preparations had been completed by the systematic destruction of all the neighbouring steeples and other landmarks. Strikingly confirmed as it has been by events, the forecast of the Petit , Parisian's correspondent seems to make it clear that instead of attempting .a surprise blow at Verdun,' the Germans made their preparations for the offensive deliberately, and almost openly before the eyes of the French, and that the latter calmly awaited the onslaught. Equally as emphasising the immense scale upon which the Germans made their preparations and the determination of the Allies to play a waiting game, the details quoted are most impressive. It is a reasonable read* irig of the facts as they appear that the Germans felt confident of. either drawing a premature" offensive by the Allies or of launching so formidable an attack that it was bound to succeed. Events have already pretty thoroughly dissipated any hopes of tfrfs character the enemy may have entertained.

Something of a lull, .which presumably will not last, is reported at Verdun. At time of writing no event of major importance is reported elsewhere in the main theatres. I Various ' rumours are astir concerning prospective developments in the Balkans, but definite news is lacking. A German newspaper bases hopeful anticipations upon tho alleged conclusion of a commercial agreement of some kind between Germany and Rumania, but there is no other news of such a development. Either the story is moonshine or Rumania has made a decided departure from her past practice.

A claim by the Germans that 35,876 unwounded French prisoners were captured at Verdun during the seven weeks from February 21 to April 10 is challenged, and perhaps with good reason, but the figures- set in opposition to those given by the enemy do not look at all convincing. Experts point out, it is said, that the total stated by the enemy exceeds the total French losses in dead, wounded, and prisoners, and the number of the latter does not exceed 17,000. Accounts agree that the Germans have, lost, under all heads, < something" over 200,000--_men at Verdun, and it is simply incredible that the coincident. French losses have not been more than 35,000: A loss of 17,000 prisoners would in itself point to total French losses of much more than 35,000 men. _ As a matter of fact, the French issue no official returns of their war losses, and the statement credited in this instance to "experts" could be considered reliable only if it carried French official, or semi-official, authority.

Exceptional' activity, though no? upon the scale of a grand offensive, is reported on the Italian front. Further fighting is reported in the Lcdro Valley, in the south-western Trentino. The Austrians rushed Italian positions in this region, but only to be subsequently dislodged. Intense artillery activity is also reported along the whole Carso front, between Gorizia and the Gulf of Trieste,' and on some sections ,of this front the Italians have made bombing attacks upon the enemy trenches. All such activities are suggestive at this «tage of the war, since any moment may witness that renewal of tile Italian offensive which was recently foretold by General Cadohna. # * * * Critical as it is, tho position in Mesopotamia is by no means so bad, from tho British standpoint, as was alleged in a recent Turkish communique. The Turks reported that they had counted 3000 British dead in front of their position which was unsuccessfully attacked on Sunday last. Sir Percy Lake states thai the total British losses in killed and wounded were much below the figure named by the Turks. The terms of the denial imply, however, that tho British losses were heavy. The rest of the news is that there has been more bad weather, and that the floods, which so greatly hamper operations by restricting freedom of movement, are increasing on both banks of the river. As a wholo the position for the time being must be regarded as somewhat serious. Tho most hopeful in sight is that the British transport arrangements in rear of the fighting columns 1 arc apparently working, smoothly. That they are so wctrking is implied in Sir Percy Lake's statement that the medical arrangements are generally satisfactory.

The latest addition to the story of the recent British raid on airshipsheds in Schlcswig-Holstcin shows that the official report made at tho time by the Germans was Untrue. The report stated that three of tho British aeroplanes were brought down by the German anti-aircraft section. It now transpires that this was false, at least in rcferenco to the seaplane piloted by Lieutenant Reid. This officer was returning safely, after accomplishing liis mission, when he descended to assist a comrade struggling in the sea beside his machine. Both officers were taken prisoner because Lieutenant Reid could not make his seaplano rise again, but evidently he could himself have got clcar away by remaining in the air. The fact is brought out that two_' of the thrco British machines which were lost were manned each by a single aviator, and they German statement that the third was a battle-plane was very possibly an effort of imagination. -

Some figures are cabled to-day which purport to summarise the results of the submarine campaign to date.', Tho statement-that 66 ships (including 43 under the British flag) have been lost since March 1 seems to be short of the facts. . Detailed reports received during the last six Weeks would indicate that the actual total is 'greater by a dozen ships or more. The cabled statement is presumably not up to date. In any case, more importance attaches to the tonnage figures for a longer period, which are also cabled. Ships of a total tonnage of 2,201,823, it is stated, have been sunk to date, leaving 36,000,000 tons afloat, excluding enemy ships and those which ply upon'the American lakes. The total i of 2,201,823 tons is presumably that of British, Allied, and neutral merchant ships sunk by mines and submarines since the outbreak of war. .Even so, it represents an enormous volume of destruction, but except in this respect the true effect of the submarine campaign is not realised by comparing the tonnage ol j ships sunk during the period of tho war with that of ships afloat at a given period. It has to be remembered that the mercantile fleets which are subject to the depredations of German submarines are constantly being added to by new building. Thus far additions have much moro than made good losses by submarines .and mines. . For instance, in tho twelve months ending June 30, 1915. when the submarine campaign had been underway for four and a half months, and a considerable number of ships had been sunk also by the enemy raiding cruisers which were at large when the war'broke out, the total British mercantile tonnage, instead of being reduced, was increased by 229,019 tons. ? .<While Britain, her Allies, and neutrals have lost abdut two and a quarter million tons of shipping to date, Britain alone increased her mercantile tonnage in 1914 by 1,683,553 tons, and'merchant vessels aggregating 1,536,177 tons were under construction in the United Kingdom in 1915. A. certain amount of shipbuilding is going on also in Allied and .neutral countries, st) that it will be seen that Captain Perseus, the German naval expert, was on sound ground when he warned his countrymen recently that they must expect to see an increase in the tonnage of the mercantile navies upon which their submarines are proying. The raiders will havp to very greatly accelerate their present rate of destruction even to overtake the margin of new construction in the British, Allied, and neutral mercantile marine. .

No ucw fact is adduced in the statement of the Times naval corres pondent that the new Gorman submarines are not only larger and Bpeedier, but are fitted for mine-lay-ing. It has been known for months past that German mine-laying submarines are at work, and that they have'operated in areas as far away from their base as off the Spanish, coast. Mines may have accounted for the fate of not a few of the ships lately reported sunk. The point made by the Times correspondent that it is necessary to look beyond immediate facts and remember that the efforts of the U boats risc and fall' within well-defined limits, is sound in the light of past experience. Allowance must be made for the_ pos-sibility—it-is indeed a strong likelihood —that the present rate of- destruction has been achieved by making free use of resources in submarines and crows which have been accumulated over a period, and will only last under these conditions for a, limited time. These conclusions appear sound even if a material improvement in the, efficiency of the submarines is assumed. It must bo supposed that the number of submarines destroyed will in any case bo in proportion to the number sent out to prey on merchant shipping; ,