DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA.
TWO NAVAL OPINIONS. SUBMARINES NOT SUFFICIENT. NORTHERN BASE URGED. London, Feb. 1. Two opinions on naval policy, in. particular relation to the defence of Australia, were obtained by an Australian press representative in interviews with Admiral Sir G. F. King-Hall, who was Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Naval Station from 19*10 to 1913, and Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, who, at the invitation of the Commonwealth Government, visited Australia in 1910-11 to advise regarding the establishment of an Australian navy. Both were asked if they concurred in the view of Admiral William Henderson that the existing type of battleship is obsolete. Admiral Sir G. F. King-Hall said:—“l totally disagree with Admiral William Henderson’s statement that the existing type of battleship is obsolete. Battleships, however modified, will always be the final arbitrament in war. However aircraft or the torpedo develops, the gun will remain the final champion of war. Most of the flag officers were engaged on the narrow waters of the North Sea and the Mediterranean, where the submarine and aircraft had advantages which they cannot maintain on wider waters of the world. We must not generalise for a great world empire from too narrow premises. EVERY CLASS OF VESSEL NEEDED. “As an instance take Australia, with its thousands of miles of coastline, heavy gales, tempestuous seas on the southern coast, and tropical conditions on the northern coast. When I left for Australia to take command, ‘Jackie’ Fisher urged me to try to get the Australians to rest their security upon sub-
marines, and have hundreds round the coast, scrapping other programmes. I was taken aback, and did not attempt to do so. I now ask anyone what would have been the result had the policy been adopted. I say now emphatically that submarines and aircraft alone for Australia would mean that she would be the prey of any strong Eastern Power, and a very easy one, too. Australia needs every class of vessel. Great Britain, as the heart of the Empire, needs the same, in order to be able to send battleships and cruisers to any part of the Empire needing protection or reinforcements.
“Generally I favor Lord Jellicoe’s plans, and see no reason for modifying them at present, except on the grounds of expense and exhaustion. There is no doubt that the battleship will be modified. It will be the same as in the Napoleonic wars, in which huge threedeckers were the exception, and handy two deckers formed the backbone of the fleet. The projected leviathans will be found too costly and cumbrous, and probably as vulnerable as smaller armored vessels. “The Australian base should be as near to a foe as possible. There is no likely foe southward, but there is north-
ward. The main base should be at Port Stephens, with a strong subsidiary Base in the north-west, and lesser bases in the south. But until funds are available Sydney seems the best base.” VALUE OF MERCANTILE MARINE. Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson slid: “Regarding the existing typns of battleships I generally agree witn the views expressed by Admiral William Henderson, and think them sound, but as long as surface ships are used for commercial purposes and for carrying troops, surface warships will be necessary to protect them. It is certain that capital ships of sorts and -the most modern type will be evolved by the Power or Powers seeking the mastery of the sea. “The reasons against the present type are its enormous and prohibitive expense, its great vulnerability, and its comparatively small radius of action, with tremendously expensive and difficult requirements as Regards docks, equipment, and defences, besides a protecting force of light cruisers and destroyers. I have not sufficient knowledge of modern submarines and aircraft to talk about them, but I think that submarines are approaching the limit of their destructive and defensive power, and that their strong advocates neglec: to take into consideration the power of human endurance in. service on them, especially in extremely hot climates anl on bad weather stations. “I am inclined to think that the future naval policy of the Commonwealth should be governed b£ the decisions arrived at at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, which will embrace the Empire’s strategic naval policy in the Pacific and according to their scope and extent will largdly affect Australia a»d New Zealand. The chief bases for a naval force should be, I think, in Australia, with all its great reserves, and Australia should be the centre of effort also in this direction, but I hope before long that some agreement will be reached among the principal naval powers as regards naval armaments. At any rate, I hope we shall not be led into competitive battleship building against Japan, which we cannot afford, and which would cause mistrust and enmity. I do not myself believe that there will be a serious naval war for many years. “I think Australia’s policy in the main should be the development—first, of the communications along all parts of the coast by rail and road; second, of her mercantile marine, with all requirements, including co-ordination in the Australian navy; and third, of her fisheries, with attendant population.” WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY COMMENDED. Mr. Freeman Murray, secretary of the British Empire League, in a letter to the Times, declares that if Australia were attacked the whole Empire would defend her, whether the British Government was coalition or Labor. Any other view was unthinkable. In the meantime a departure from the policy of a white Australia would not assist the defence while it was easy to conceive circumstances whe/ein it would undermine it. Mr. W. H. Kelly, a former member of the Commonwealth Parliament for Wentworth, New South Wales, in a letter to the Times, states that the questions agitating Australians regarding their new position in the Pacific are:—' (1) After completion of the Japanese programme, could Britain keep up a fleet .in the Far East sufficient to preserve' Australia and New Zealand? (2) Would a British Labor Govern- . meat ua<» auftk & fic«t to uphold a doc*
trine with which British Labor, especially the internationalists, show little if any sympathy? (3) Would the United States come to her assistance promptly enough to save Australia ? Mr. Kelly says:—“The United States suspects the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and therefore, unless Japan is influenced to suspend her programme, or the Alliance is dropped, or modified to include the United 'States, the Pan-American competition will intensify, adding to our insecurity- Meanwhile Australia remains exposed. She is aware that her policy of self-preservation offends a great people for whom she has nothing j but respect, but she is hoping against jhope that the White Ensign and White [Australia may not fail, but flourish tofor
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19210312.2.73
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 12 March 1921, Page 10
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,117DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA. Taranaki Daily News, 12 March 1921, Page 10
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.