Submarines in War

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 895, 12 February 1930, Page 11

Submarines in War

POWERS DISCUSS ABOLITION

Needs of Foreign Defences

NAVAL CONFERENCE DIVIDED

THE five naval Powers are discussing in London the proposals of Britain and America to abolish submarines. Prance dissents, but she is willing to limit these craft. America’s reported demand for a super-dreadnought similar to the Rodney has caused speculation and criticism among Washington naval experts mainly antagonistic to Britain.

United P.A.—By Telegraph—Copyright Reed. 11 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. Nothing that has not already been foreshadowed occurred at the plenary session on the thorny subject of submarines.

The history of the recent war proved that the submarine was not used only against merchant ships. He quoted the naval losses due to submarines in wartime as follow: France, 82,000 tons; Britain, 191,000 tons; Italy, 20,000 tons. A total of Allied tonnage of 312,000. France had to protect her Empire of 45 million square miles, and her lines of communications to Africa, in which connection she relied on the submarine as a scout. It was pi’actically matchless for these reasons and the comparative weakness of her surface craft made the submarine indispensable from France’s viewpoint, which had not altered since the Washington Conference, when she accepted an inferior ratio of capital ships. He proposed the appointment of a committee to prepare an agreement, open to signature by all Powers, forbidding submarines to act against merchantmen, otherwise than in strict conformity with the rules at present and in future observable by surface warships. ITALY FOR PEACE Signor Grandi said Italy was determined to uphold the cause of disarmament. She appreciated the viewpoint that it was a weapon of the smaller Powers against the capital ships of larger Powers. He was glad to see the abolition of the latter being discussed. Was not a solution possible along the lines of abolition of both? Italy was ready to renew her undertaking to restrict the use of submarines and merchantmen. Mr. Takarabe, expressing Japan’s objection to abolition, mentioned that aircraft could offer a greater menace to defenceless lives. Japan needed submarines to defend her island kingdom. She was eager to adopt the Root formula bringing them in strict circumspection with the law, and he supported the French motion. Mr. J. E. Fenton (Australia) briefly agreed to the observations madq by Mr. A. V. Alexander. Mr. T. M. Wilford similarly spoke, adding that New Zealand had arrived at 'a conclusion for the different reason that unless a submarine was offensive it could not be defensive. Mr. Te Water (South Africa) regretted he could not wholeheartedly agree to the reasoning of some delegates, but South Africa, if abolition were unattainable, favoured limitation. At Mr. MacDonald’s suggestion the conference remitted to the first committee the French motion, and also an American motion urging the creation of a committee to report first on the abolition of submarines, secondly on the regulation of their use under the laws governing the use of surface vessels, and thirdly regulation of the units and the size of submarines.

The Powers ranged themselves as expected. Britain and America were whole-heartedly for abolition, and France and Japan for retention for defence under strict conformity with international law. Italy is more disposed toward abolition than retention, but as Signor Grandi said, she is maintaining an open mind.

The Dominion representatives very briefly ranged themselves on the Anglo-American side, though nobody knew what was behind Mr. Te Water’s (South Africa) cryptic phrase about “disagreement with some delegates’ reasoning.” The framing of the United States motion rather suggests that the eventual outcome will be a strict reduction in size and numbers and the stricter outlawing of frightfulness. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who presided, announced that the global and category experts had submitted their report to the first committee, which, judging from appearances, would make an early report to the plenary session. Mr. A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, in submitting Britain’s proposal for the abolition of submarines, said it was not suggested that those desiring retention anywise intended to employ submarines contrary to the laws of war, but they regarded them purely for defensive purposes. In this connection Britain’s experiences during the war of shelling of her coasts had convinced her that they were a failure when used for defence. On the other hand, she had the experience that their offensive value was repulsively inhuman. There was always a danger that an unscrupulous enemy would again penetrate through her defences. BRITAIN’S GOOD FAITH Though Britain had lost the heaviest merchant tonnage in the war, she could still claim the greatest tonnage and lines of communication needing defence. Yet she was willing to abolish the submarine. It would save not only the cost of 400 submarines projected, hut a contingent saving necessary in destroyers and anti-submarine units. It would also relieve brave seamen of an unhealthy existence under which, since the war 570 had perished in disasters. Failing the abolition of submarines, Britain advocated the lowest limit of numbers and tonnage and a revival of the Root Resolutions of 1922, limiting their activities to the standards of international law. The use made of the submarine in the Great War revolted the conscience of the world, and finally determined America’s entry. Would they be justified, in the light of wartime experience, in continuing to build such a weapon? They should brush aside purely technical considerations and carefully study the possibility of eliminating the whole problem. Mr. H. L. Stimson said the United States was not seeking to carry the proposal to abolish submarines from emotional grounds, but she looked upon it as a practical and common-sense measure in line with the reduction of armaments, which the peoples of the world were demanding. FRANCE’S REQUEST M. Leygues, France, considered the submarine warship, like others, a defensive weapon which all naval Powers could not abolish. Its use could and should be regulated like others.

AUSTRALIA ANXIOUS

REDUCED SHIPS AND SINGAPORE BASE Reed. 10.10 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. In the House of Commons Lieut.Col. C. K. Howard-Bury (Conservative) asked: Did the Government consult (he Commonwealth of Australia before the announcement of the latest reduction in cruisers and destroyers? The Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; No, but the Commonwealth was kept fully apprised of the conditions upon which the decision was based. Lieut.-Col. Howard-Bury: Are you aware that there is considerable anxiety in Australia regarding the Singapore base, and the cutting down of cruisers and destroyers? Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that the exact opposite is the case.

AMERICA DISPLEASED

SUPERDREADNOUGHT OPPOSED WASHINGTON OPINION .iecd. 10.55 a.m. VANCOUVER, Tues. Mr. F. A. Britten, chairman of the House Naval Committee, predicted on Tuesday that the super-Dread-aought proposed by the United States at the Naval Conference would never be built, and would be held up as a sop to American naval enthusiasts. If the American delegation was going to play into the hands of Britain, it would be well for them to pack their trunks and come home. He would oppose the proposed construction of 11 six-inch gun cruisers as they were not adapted to American needs, but they are just w'hat England wants and needs. “The best expert advice in the United States Navy has indicated that our strength will depend on a uniform type of ship,” he said. Senator Borah, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also expressed opposition to the construction of a super-dreadnought.

UNDER-SEA CRAFT

STRENGTH COMPARED Reed. 11.20 a.m. RUGBY, Tuesday. The present submarine strength of the five Powers represented at the conference are:—United States, 121 built and five building—total, 127; France, 52 built and 47 building—total, 99; Japan, 64 built and seven building —total, 71: British Empire, 53 built and one building and three projected—total, 57.