The Daily News. TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1914. NAVAL SUPREMACY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 253, 24 March 1914, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1914. NAVAL SUPREMACY.

Tlie most remarkable thing about Mr. Winston Churchill's latest statement regarding naval strength is the disclosure of the fact that Germany's naval development is not proceeding as rapidly as was anticipated. This retardation, caused by the difficulty experienced in manning the additional warships, has cnablod Britain to postpone tlie realisation of the naval programme agreed to in 1912. The aim of the British programme was to establish a 60 per cent superiority in Dreadnoughts over Germany and this policy is still being adhered to. While, therefore, there has been no formal undertaking to observe a " naval holiday," or to limit the expenditure on armaments, Britain and Germany have in practice curtailed their construction policy. This is a gratifying state of things, more especially as the bellicose Germans have been "the first to modify their plans. When the German naval estimates were under discussion in the Reichstag last month, Admiral Von Tirpitz, Secretary of State for the Navy, made a very conciliatory speech,,\in the course of which he stated thai the ratio of sixteen to ten offered by Great Britain was still acceptable, and'that though no positive proposals had yet been made yet if such were made, they would bo examined in a spirit of goodwill. He went on to allege that the increase in the Naval Budgets of different powers during the past five years had been much greater than in the case of Getmany. He said that the expenditure of Germany in the past five years had increased by £2,750,000, while that of Great Britain, which already had a fleet twice as strong as that of Germany, had increased by £10,800,000, or fourfold, not to speak of the £3,000,000 which it was expected would be included in the Supplementary Estimates. Futhermorc, the naval outlay of France had increased by £6,700,000, two and a half fold, and that of Russia by £15,100,000, or five and a half fold, and that only exclusively for the Baltic Fleet. These figures may he accepted as correct, but they are far from showing the real iposition of affairs. If the Admiral had covered a longer period in his statistical comparison, he would have seen that Germany's naval development had been much' greater than was disclosed by the figures lie quoted. Tf wc take the twenty-five years that have elapsed since the present Kaiser ascended the throne we got a more corrct tiew of the matter. In 1888, the strength of the German Navy was 180,1,36 tons, with 182,470 horse power, and crews of 15,573 men; by 1913 these figures had grown to 888,760 tons, 1,505,460 horse-power and 73,119 men. In the same period, the land forces of Germany were just about doubled, whereas her naval power was multiplied five-fold. It is well that the naval growth has now been checked; but it is only fair to add that tlie check is not due to any decline of German ambition, but solely to the indexible determination of Britain to maintain her supremacy at sea. It has seemed to beam! no doubt was—a mad and wasteful policy, but the results have justified it, by proving that Germany has apparently been convinced of the utter futility pf attempting to wrest the Empire of the sea from Great Britain.