SUBMARINES.

Evening Star, Issue 22145, 27 September 1935, Page 10

SUBMARINES.

The submarine was almost a decisive weapon for Germany in the Great War. If more U-boats had been possessed by her when it began, and if she had been prepared earlier to use them “ ruthlessly,” against merchant ships, enemy and neutral, as well as warships and transports, in defiance of international conventions, she might have won the war by their means. One consideration on the other side stayed her hand. It was the fear of adding America .to the strength of her enemies earlier than she did. As it was, despite the great British Navy, the U-bpats brought Great Britain within six weeks of starvation. It is not surprising that in every discussion of (he subject of naval limitation since then Britain has been willing, and more than willing, to see the submarine abolished, and some other Powers have stood firmly for its retention. At the next naval conference, it has been intimated, the French Government will not in any circumstances entertain proposals for the abolition of this weapon, which it regards primarily as a means of defence. Britain will urge the case for its suppression, and America and Germany will agree if every other Power will take .the same course, but Japan is as firm as France .in her regard for submarines, and Russia would be most reluctant to give them up. Four years ago Russia had only fifteen submarines. For some time past she has had a building programme in hand, and in July it was reported that she had just laid the keel of her sixtieth, and that orders had been placed for ten more.

The division has been evident from the beginning. At the Washington Conference which followed soon after the war, when Britain urged the total abolition of the submarine no support whatever was received for the proposal. At London, in 1930,, the United States for the first time seconded the plea, while Signor Grandi said that Italy had no objection to abolition in principle if all the other naval Powers concurred. Unhappily, the opposition of France and Japan remained as resolute as ever, and the Naval Treaty which followed the London Conference did nothing in respect of submarines beyond limiting the size of new constructions to 2,000 tons. Two years later, at the Disarmament Conference, Great Britain again came forward. She then proposed that the size should be limited to 250 tons, which would have the effect of preventing submarines being used as commerce-raiders with an extended radius of action. But again no help was forthcoming from any single quarter for the British proposal. In the discussions which preceded this year’s Anglo-German naval agreement the Germans reaffirmed their willing-, ness to agree to the abolition of submarines provided other countries would do the same, but it was not judged advisable to insert a clause to this effect in the treaty. Actually the treaty gave Germany the right to a greater proportionate strength in submarines than in other weapons, though only at the expense of the others. As opinions, based on different conditions as affecting one country and another, are divided, a decision of a naval disarmament conference to abolish submarines must appear as a far-off prospect. And, in the light of recent tendencies, it is not surprising that the next naval conference, for which preparations have been so long in train, is expected now to be postponed till next year.