THE HIGHER POLICY OF DEFENCE

Grey River Argus, 13 April 1911, Page 2

THE HIGHER POLICY OF DEFENCE

A SLASHING CRITIC. In February "The Times" military correspondent forwarded his journal a lengthy letter on British defence, which he stated he had received from his 'good friend "'Colonel Donrierund Blitzen" (Colonel Thunder and Ligrhtningr) of the German Army In the course /of , a -slashing- criticism of British defence policy, the Colonel said: — "I have already shown that your naval strategy is based on a double misconception; first, that the. present numerical superiority of your navy will be maintained, and, secondly, that your enemy will do all the stupidest . things irnagjinaible, (and will leave undone those things which sense and reason dictate. The history of the wars which we Germans have (fought during the last halfcentury scarcely authorises the assi umption that we should hie either stupid or inert. . . ... .But it is strange that none of your seamen appreciate the difference between the initiative and the want' of it, and this notwithstanding Port Arthur : and the obvious lessons f.rom the surprise of the Russian Navy, which, like yours, also declared invasion to ibe impossible, but found that its theory could not endure the, test of war. If the initiative is ours, what, then? Navies within easy strLkingi distance of the shores of an enemy are peculiarly vulnerable to surprise attacks, and the balance of naval power may be altered in a night. It is nine chances in ten that we shall- have the initiative in war with you. THE INITiTATIViE I|NT WAR. "You dare not assume the initiative against us at sea. Why? Because any act of aggression committed against us automatically produces the 'casus foederis' between us and our allies You have no allies in Europe, and the initiative taken at your expense compels nobody else to march. This is your weakness, which we shall certainly exploit. . . .Moreover, in no distant sea can your Navy intervene eeffctively without uncovering your home territory. You dare not uncover your islands because 3 r our people are not trained to arms. They arc taught to take from the State all they can .get and igive it nothing. Consequently, your ?Navy.is a Home Coast-guard and nothing more. It should figure in your army list as part of 'the Territorial 'l^orce^ for whose numerical inadequacy it endeavours to atone. You are 'good souls you English, but you must keep the story of your sea supremacy from your Marines." THE LAiNiD FORCES. Turning to the question of land defence, the writer proceeded :— "To defeat 70,000 good foreign troops — the responsibility for the figure rests solely with your Committee — and to defeat them "under all circumstances" means to defeat them when your 'Regulars are abroad and and your special Reserve largely absorbed into .them. This' is made clear by .Lord Crewe's speech above mentioned, in whi*:h it is said that you had 'to assume, that things were at their worst both in regard to the absence of the. Army and in regard to matters of good management and good fortune. 1 in other words, you accepted the 3uty of defeating 70,000 invaders . with Territorials. If II deduct only- 70,000 for recruits, sick, . absentees, and emigrants, I am certainly generous. Islands liable to attack require large garrisons and preliminary dispersion, because you do not know- where, nor in how many places, the enemy will land. You require nearly 300,000 men for .obligatory garrisons and local mobile defence,, including Ireland. You need besides over 200,000 for a Central -Force to defeat the 70,000 invaders on the assumption, which may be right or wrong, that three Territorials equal one trained soldier. This means 500,000 territorials, and to provide this number of effectives your establishment .should be, 600,000 and the strength to correspond. You may have been told times out of mind by everybody in your country who knows anything of war that you need an .establishment .of 600,000 Territorials. Why, so you do, even to carry out the optimistic policy of your Defence Committee. (Do you care? Are you igoing to •do anything ? Not you!"