PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2950, 9 December 1916, Page 8

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Apart from the fact that the fall of Bucharest is now definitely attested, no strikingly new development is disclosed in Rumania or elsewhere in the south-eastern theatre. Besides occupying Bucharest, the enemy . has captured the commanding railway junction of Ploesci, north of the capital.' A critical stage of tho retreat has ended, but in precisely what |circumstances is not yet known. " Heports from Petrograd take tlie hopeful view that the Rumanian army has retired intact upon pre-arranged positions, where the Russians are concentrating. It is stated also that the abandonment of/Bucharest was delayed until artillery' and supplies of provision's arid munitions had Tieen removed. As ha 3 been previously remarked, tho refusal of the Rumanians to defend Bucharest as a fortress gives no occasion for surprise. The lack of heavy artillery, which has been their" undoing, for the time being, in the field'-ca-mpaign made the defence of the'-' iortress v hopeless. Had the Russo-Bumanians been provided with artillery equal to coping with that of the enemy the question of defending Bucharest would still not have arisen, for in that event they would- have Deen able to hold their own'"in : field battles. The abandonment of Bucharest is simply another- demonstration of the fact that under modern conditions the fortress affords no refuge to an army at an inferiority in the factor of artillery.

From every point of view the position in Greece is grave. -The blockade instituted by the Allies is a step in the right direction, but there does not seem to be any good reason why it should have been delayed for a week, and in any case it is not by. any means certain that a blockade alone-will dispose-of tho danger of a treacherous attack by the Greek army upon the. rear*' of the Allied forces . in Macedonia. Athens is ' beilagged in celebration of the fall »of Bucharest," and we must assume that Co'nstantine is simply awaiting an* opportunity which quite possibly may arise. With the Russo-Rumanians in the south-eastern theatre defeated and thrown back on the defensive, nothing is more likely than that the Austro-Germans may strike their next blow on tho Macedonian' front, and to leave Constantink in a position to co-operate in such an enterprise can only be regarded as inviting disaster. The outlook is made very much worse by a message in which Mr. Ward Price, a correspondent of established reputation, makes the staggering statement that the" Allied offensive in Macedonia is being carried out with forces much inferior to those of the enemy. Asfar as is known, General Sarrail has, or had ,until recently, a force of something_ over half a million men' under his command, and it is difficult to believe that with any smaller force ho could hold his present front of 250 miles. The Serbian army, when the offensive began, numbered 130,000 men, and it is operating on a comparatively small, though - -important-,, section of' the front. ■ Unless the Allies have at least half a million men in Macedonia the position in that quarter is'' undoubtedly precarious, and would be precarious even-if it were not complicated as it is by the visible danger of a Greek attack. Strong measures in Greece and' action in the main theatres are manifestly demanded if the -position in .Macedonia is to be made secure.

A rather- startling decrease in the tonnage of shipping arriving at British ports is disclosed' in some figures transmitted to-day on the authority of the London Times. The "tonnage entering British ports, last month, according to the Times, showed a decrease of 1,385,625 tons, as compared with November, 1915, while incoming tonnage during the period of eleven months which ended last month decreased by 3,250,000 tons, as compared \v,ith the corresponding period of 1915, and by 12,250,000 tons as compared with the corresponding vicriod of 1914. As is remarked by tho City editor of .the Times, these figures 'strikingly reveal tho gravity of the shipping problem, and the drop for the month of November last, in particular, is extraordinary. It should be noted, however, that these figures afford no definite index of tho extc.nt to which the amount of. shipping.avail-' able has been reduced by submarine attack, and have not necessarily any close bearing upon the destruction of shipping by submarines. Destruction by submarines is only one of a number of factors which reduce the amount of shipping available for convoying supplies to Great Britain, and the extent to which some of theso factors affect the position can .only be guessed- at. This is particularly true of the requisitioning and chartering or ships for transport and related scrviceS, a factor which certainly affects the shipping position to a vastly greater extent than anything tho submarines have accomplished. •

That tho shipping figures pro* scntcd by the Times have no definite bearing upon the progress of tho submarine campaign is capable of demonstration. For tiio period of eleven months ending November HO, 1916, the number of ships entering British ports decreased by ."3,250,000 ions, .as compared with tho corresponding period of 1915. The amount of shipping destroyed by submarines in the first eleven -months of the present year lias not icon officially disclosed. But the reduction in ingoing tonnage for this period is only a little over a third of tho reduction which occurred'in the first eleven' months of 1915, as compared with tho corresponding period- of 1914. In these eleven months of 1915, the reduction in the tonnage of ships entering British ports was certainly not accounted for by submarine depredations. It is true that in 1915 a large number of British and foreign merchant ships were sunk by submarines. But in 1915, after more than twelve months of war, the tonnage of the British mercantile marine—and to consider British' mercantile tonnage in this connection is to cover most of tho ground—showed an increase of 343,646 tons over pre-war figures. In the same period French mercantile tonnago was reduced by only 12,574 tons, and Eussia and Italy both increased their tonnage, though in the case of Eussia

the'increase-was'small; These particulars were given by Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge, in/ a recent communication to -the .London Times. He docs nob slate how far neutral countries made good their losses by submarines up to the end of 1915, but the known position in Allied countries at that date suggests that the balance to the bad in neutral countries was probably not great. Since a reduction of nine million tons in shipping-eutering British ports occurred in a period of eleven months, which witnessed either an "increase, or at worst a very small reduction, ..in. the total amount of shipping available, there is no reason to suppose that tbe further reduction 'of ingoing shipping by 15,250,000 tons during the last eleven months is mainly due to submarine activities. The figures point rather to an increased diversion of ships to service which takes them away from British ports, and the same cause probably accounts largely 'for the; abnormal drop in ingoing , tonnage during last month. Tbe November figures, indeed, suggest that some big military development is in train which has involved a quite abnormal diversion of shipping.

Though.,, tli6. enemy . submarine campaign is nob the chief factor accounting for the shipping problem bywhich Britain is faced, ..the destruction of ships by submarines of course aggravates the problem to a serious extent.' "With some fluctuations the underwater campaign has been in activc progress for several months past, and' in recent days the list of losses has .been heavy. - These months have probably witnessed the most sustained effort by the tubmarines, and the greatest destruction of shipping in a given time, since, .the war began. There, is the more reason to believe that' the present phaise of activity will before very long fado away. " Past experience has been that by accumulating submarines Germany, has more than once been able to enter upon a fairly prolonged campaign'■ of destruction. But she has done it at a cost in submarines, and in officers and crews probably harder to replace than the lioats they man. Hitherto the antisubmarine measures taken by the Admiralty have in the end prevailed.

There is no. ..reason ,to supposo that the conditions of the contest between tlio submarines and their hunters "have undergone any essential ohange, and unless theyhavo been transformed tho present submarine activity will' die .away, as has happened in tho past.. In nor■jnal course, assuming that the ruling conditions of tho contest are unaltered, Germany will presently find herself reduced to comparative inactivity ia_ the campaign against merchant shipping, until she has had time to provide and man fresh flotillas for a, new effort. She is-at present threatening" to begin "a most ruthless campaign" on January 1, and is inviting neutral nations to makq her concessions,.with a view to obtaining comparative immunity. It is possible, of course, that she has so far expanded her resources in submarines and personnel as to. givo weight to _ the threat. But it is at least as likely that she foresees the impending of her present effort, and is seeking.. to make the fnost of it in every possible, way before it decline's. .. '

How far the submarine campaign in its present 1 stage_ of activity has cut down the shipping'available to the Allies is a matter of conjecture, since 'explicit information is lacking both in regard to the amount of tonnage destroyed, arid to the progress of new construction.'! However, taking as a guide what is known about shipping losses and replacements up to the early part of the present year, it is likely that the underwater craft have not to any. very/ serious extent outpaced new 'construction. Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge states' that-up to March 23, 1916, the losjr on the steam shipping of the British Empire amounted to less than four per cent, of the number of vessels, and a little more than per cent, of the tonnage. For the same period the French loss in steamers amounts to a little more than four per cent, in number, and to rather more than seven per cent, in tonnage; the Russian to less than three and three-quarter per cent, in number, and less than five per cent, in tonnage; the Italian nearly three and a quarter per cent, in number and over four and a half per cent, in tonnage. - These losses irrespective of the new construction bywhich they were largely made good. The same authority has been already quoted as stating that up to the end of 1915 British shipping showed an increase qf 343,616 tons (88 vessels)- on pre-war figures, while the tonnage of the French. mercantile marine at that period showed only a j ti i decline, and both Russia and Italy had increased their tonnage. '