PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 157, 22 March 1918, Page 4

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

A very important statement'by Sir Eiuc Geddes on. the shipping situation is somewhat briefly reported at time of writing, but even in this form it is one of tho most comprehensive made since tho inception of the submarine campaign, and at tho same time one of tho most encouraging. It will be seen that tho First Lord's figures ■bear out, by inference, the statemont lately,-made by the American Secretary for tho Navy that the world's construction of new shipping now exceeds destruction by submarines. In the last quarter of 1917, d,200,000 tons of shipping were lost by submarine attacks, and 930,000 tons were constructed in British, Allied, and neutral yards. Allowing for a progressive increase in new construction and simultaneous decline in losses it might have been assumed from these figures, oven if no explicit statement on tho subject had been made, _ that the construction of now shipping has now overtaken and, passed destruction by submarines. Tho most 'encouraging statement made by Sir Eric Geddes relates to new construction. It IB well within the compass of Allied yards, ho deqlares, or even of British yards, before very long, with a proper supply of material and man-power, to replace entirely the world's losses on the present figures. This is a more favourable pronouncement _ than could have been expected in view of some observations which have ' recently boon baaed upon less comprehensive particulars of the submarine campaign than are now available. Incidentally it suggests that British construction yards will be capable before long, provided labour problems are solved, of turning out new shipping at the rate of between threo and'four million tons .% year, and that Allied and neutral' yards will be capable in tho aggregate of constructing shipping at considerably more than twice tho rate at which it is now being destroyed by enemy submarines. Precisely how long it will take to reach this position 'is meantime uncertain, but tho existing position, as it is disclosed by the First Lord, amply warrants a statement that the submarine campaign has utterly failed to achieve the results which were hoped for by its promoters, and that the shipping problem is serious from . the Allied standpoint, not because there is any visible likelihood of these results being even approached, but because, the Allies need an enormous amount of shipping to satisfy their domestic requirements and develop and uso their military power with full effect. As "it hinders and delays the satisfaction of these demands, submarine piracy is still a factor of grave importance, but it has fallen .a long way short of the objects at which it aimed—the starvation of England and the crippling of the Allied sea communications—and there is every reason to believe that it will bo a factor of declining imporfcanco as timo goes on.

Such particulars as are now supplied of tho trend of the submarine campaign, though they arc of good promise, are, of course, as far <is possible- from affording ground for unreasoning optimism. Every ship that is sunk, whether or not a loss of gallant lives is also entailed, is a serious loss to tho Allies. But it is now conclusively demonstrated that the submarine is a factor of declining power and importance, and that the forces organised to dofeat it arc rapidly expanding. The underwater craft, nevertheless, have been responsible for an enormous volume of destruction. According to Sir Eric Geddes, shipping of all nations was sunk last year to an aggregate amount of 6,000,000 tons. Prior to 1917 (though , this is not stated by the First Lord) ' the Allies and neutrals lost slightly over 5,500,000'" tons by submarine agency and other war factors. A total destruction or capture of approximately twelve million tons of Allied and neutral shipping during the war period is thus indicated. These enormous losses have to a considerable extent been made Rood by new construction and by the capture and seizure of enemy shipping. As the cablegram reads,. Sir Eric Geddes stated that the world's shinping had been reduced during the war period'by two and a half per cent., but it is likely that he is here incorrectly reported. At the outbreak of war. the various nations of the world owned approximately 49,000,000 tons of sea-going shipping, including 3,686,000 tons of sailing vessels. The total included some five million tons of enemy ships.' Even if it is. assumed that the First Lord was speaking of a reduction in' the 44,000,000 tons of Allied and neutral shipping, and allowing for the fact that about two million tons of enemy shipping have been transferred to Allied use, it seems unlikely that the reduction amounts to only two and a half per cent., or a, little over one million tons. It seems more likely, in light of available information, that the aggregate vplume of Allied and neutral tonnage, in spite of the gain of enemy ships, has been reduced by some three or four million tons. British tonnage, which at tho outbreak of war constituted 42 per cent, of the world's total, has been reduced by 20 per cent., but the pro-portion of loss in the total volume of Allied- and neutral shipping is, of course, much lower. This both because Britain has been a very heavy loser and because America and other nations have very largely increased their shipping tonnage during the war period. The point in-regard to the net losses of Allied and neutral shipping during.the war period will no doubt soon be cleared up. .Obviously, if the aggregate tonnage 'has been reduced by no more than two and a half per cent., the Allies have been even more successful in replacing losses than had been supposed. !

Holland, it is now stated, has ac ; cepted the Allied ultimatum in regard to the seizure of her shipping, and although Germany is adopting a bellicose- attitude it seems at present unlikely that she will go to extremes with Holland, or that she is capable of effectively countering the Allied action. It is reported<that she has seized Dutch canal boats and inland craft in Germany and Belgium, but action on these lines, or any interruption of trade between Germany and Holland, would of course be a gain instead of a loss from the Allied point of view.