ACTION AT SEA

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20057, 2 October 1939, Page 9

ACTION AT SEA

METHODS COMPARED SUBMARINE OUTRAGES BRITISH PATROL PLAN POSITION OF NEUTRALS (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (British Official Wireless.) Reed. 9 a.m. RUGBY, Sept. 29. Tire Chief of the German Naval Staff, Admiral Racder, recently gave an interview to a correspondent of a Dutch newspaper, purporting to explain the German method of submarine warfare and seeking to persuade neutral «ations that it was less damaging to their interests than the British methods of contraband control. But the distinction between British and German methods of conducting war against commerce is 100 clear to be easily confused by the special pleading of Nazi propaganda. The difference is fundamental and turns upon the use of the submarine. In the British view, the submarine is a weapon entirely unsuited to com-merce-raiding purposes, since it can only, with difficulty and under exceptional' circumstances, be so employed as to conform with accepted rules of war. It follows that a belligerent Power seriously desirous of conformity with these rules will riot normally make use of submarines for this purpose, and the fact that Germany does so habitually and on an extensive scale must, in itself, raise doubts as to her good faith and intentions.

Nor are these doubts in any way allayed by what has occurred. Many innocent lives have been lost as a result of U-boat actions. It is true in certain eases that German U-boat commanders have treated the crews of sunken ships with outstanding care and humanity, but these cases only throw into relief those in which the crews have been abandoned in open boats far from land and in circumstances where rescue was problematical. Such acts are contrary to the submarine protocol to the London Naval Treaty which the Nazi Government itself voluntarily accepted in 1936. Contrasting Methods 'ln contrast to the German record, it can be said that no civilian loss of life has been caused by British action. Equally clear is the difference between the effect of the British and German methods on neutral cargoes in belligerent vessels. In general, no neutral property, except contraband, is treated by British methods. Tho British regulations are that an enemy merchant ship may be sunk only if she cannot be brought in and the officers are informed. Compensation may have to be paid for neutral non-con-traband cargo if enemy ships are sunk without due cause. The German practice, on the contrary, has been habitually to sink British and neutral cargo-carrying vessels, and it should be noted that the submarine is incapable of bringing in its capture. Germany has now started sinking neutral ships on the ground that they are carrying contraband to the British. As neutral ships are not, save in exceptional cases, liable to condemnation for the mere carriage of contraband, this practice is quite illegal. Not only is the submarine .incapable of visiting and searching a neutral ship to verify her nationality and so establish the nature of her cargo, but this practice, unlike the British, gives the neutral shipowner and merchant not a chance to plead his cause before the Prize Court, but condemns him to' the certain loss of both the ship and the cargo. The ordinary British course is to release the ship after the suspected contraband has been unloaded for judgment by the Prize Court. Britain’s Dual Purpose Britain's dual purpose in exercise of her sea power is to destroy warships of the enemy and, within the limits permitted by international law, to prevent acknowledged contraband from reaching the enemy. But the British desire is to prevent such maritime action from causing injury to neutral interests. Some dislocation is indeed inevitable, but neutral nations’ experience shows that it is far from being so onerous as the Germans seek to represent it. All cargoes contain-

iiig goods on the contraband list must be investigated, but on receipt of adequate assurances they are forwarded with a minimum of delay. It is false to suggest that the British contraband control involves the supervision of neutral trade. The British aim is to smooth out difficulties by agreement. It is essential in the interests of victory against the menace, which the Nazi claims and disregard of international obligations, constituted for the whole world, that anti-aggres-sion forces should succeed in preventing seaborne cargoes of contraband from reaching Germany. But the British desire is to achieve that essential objective with the least possible interference with neutral commerce