The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1930. THE SUBMARINE.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 February 1930, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1930. THE SUBMARINE.

'I no submarine was one of the most doadly instruments of destruction in al! the war. When Germany decided on the whole.salo use of the submarine, it played Its trump card, and the world has perhaps never adequately realised how near Germany went to the iinal victory. Germany made its first big mistake in submarining tho Lusitania, and sending so many American lives to a watery grave. That act was tbo mainspring to bring America into the war, and the help of America was most useful eventually in combating the submarine. Rut it was a tremendous task. Germany took heavy toll and imposed an enormous expenditure on the Allies to fight the unseen foe. Since, then there has been a desire to remove the submarine from the category of war ships. As was expected, the 'debate at the Naval Conference on the proposal to abolish submarines resulted in a division which leaves the present position virtually

unchanged. Britain moved for “the total abolition of underwater- craft,” and our First Lord of the Admiralty was supported strongly by the head ot the American delegation, Mr H. L. Stimson. It should not be forgotten 1 chat in 1921, at 'the Washington Conference, Britain proposed the abolition of submarines, but secured only iimited and conditional support from the United States, To-day the American and British Governments are practically agreed on this question, but France and Japan hold out obstinately against them. Italy is reported to ibe “more disposed towards the abolition of the craft than their retention”; and so for the time being the Powers seem unable to reach any conclusive decision, The ease against the submarine, says a contemporary, was stated with admirable clearness and force by Mr Balfour at Washington more than eight years ago, and Mr Alexander and Mr Stimson have revived most of his arguments for the purposes of their present discussion. Briefly it may be said that for purely defensive purposes the submarine is of small value while, if employed in offensive warfare, it is practically impossible to take effective precautions against its misuse in such a way as to conflict with the principles of international law and the dictates of humanity. M. Leygues, speaking for France, did his best to blunt the edge of these arguments. Re maintained that the submarine is a warship, and that it is thus a permissible weapon the Powers, though they may regulate it, cannot abolish it. Further, the submarine is useful not only against merchant vessels, but also against warships, which it may either destroy or immobilise. As to the claim that submarine warfare is essentially barbarous, M. Leygues rather neatly countered this by reminding Britain that she herself used submarines throughout thA Great War in a perfectly legitimate way, and this proves the possibility of regulating “under sea” warfare. But M. Leygues rather weakened his case by his mildly cynical sophistries, which entirely ignore the moral aspects of the question. The real strength of France’s claim to retain submarines lies in her position in the Mediterranean and the necessity of maintaining her 'naval connection with her oversea dependencies. But even if France and Italy should finally agree to do without, the submarine, there is still the opposition of Japan to be considered. For the Japanese, in view of their insular position, their dependence on sea-borne trade, and their relatively resources, regard the retention of the submarine, as essential to the national safety. However, at least one important step has been taken towards an international agreement on this point. For Mr Stimson has stated that the five Powers have now reached a definite decision to- regulate the use of submarines against merchant shipping by the rules that apply to surface warships; and in his opinion “this single incident is worth the visit of the American Delegation to London.”