SUBMARINES.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 December 1921, Page 7

SUBMARINES.

ABOLITION PROPOSED. BRITAIN'S CASE PRESENTED. AT WASHINGTON CONFERENCE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Washington,, Dec. 22. The representative of the Australian Press Association states that the afternoon’s session of the full committee was devoted entirely to the discussion of the abolition of submarines. Lord Lee opened the British case with a speech, described by the American spokesman as a masterly, powerful and comprehensive statement, reviewing the question from every aspect. It is understood that he will further develop his arguments at the plenary sitting, when it is held.

M. Sarrant (France), Signor Schanzer (Italy), and M. Hanihara (Japan), opposed the abolition, while expressing their detestation of savage methods of using submarines, as Germany had done in the late war. M. Sarrant asked for further time for consideration, and promised to speak at greater length to-morrow, though he declared France would not consent, either to abolition or limitation. Mr. Hughes, for the' United States, w r ould not express an opinion, though he read the full report of the American Advisory Committee advocating the use of submarines, and foreshadowed the eventual governing of submarines by international rules arising out of this conference. THE BRITISH VIEW. The British, spokesman to-night was careful to make it clear that Britain was not going to resist any suggestion for the curtailment of submarines, if she did not win the point for their abolition. He said it was evident that opinions around the table showed some change as the result of the discussion, and he hoped they would show a further change after more light had been thrown on the subject. The British spokesman emphasised Mr. Balfour’s contention that the nation which found itself pushed against the wall was not going to respect any rives of warfare framed in peace time. He thought no country proof against that temptation, instancing the German use of gas and the bombardment o p open towns y both of which were forbidden by the previous rules o-f war. He made the significant admission that Britain had tested the views of other Governments on this question some time ago, and he had reason to think that such views were changing. The only sure remedy against a nation breaking the rules of war would be for a group of nations to enter into an undertaking that they would combinedly attack any Power so offending.

The British spokesman said 'that there was no hurry for the public session, indicating the hope that the British arguments might yet turn the scale in favor of their viewpoint. He acknowledged that the first thing to do was to come to some general opinion as to the value of submarines in the light of the arguments advanced in committee, in other words to find a common denomination before going before the public with the case for and against. It is supposed that Mr. Hughes sent M. Briand another cablegram appreciating the response to his first representations, but calling attention to what he regarded as the rather large French demands in relation to other craft. It is understood that this message was the cause of the French asking more time to-day, as they wished to revise the figures on" fresh instructions from M. Briand. The French declare that they are not receding from their demand for large submarine tonnage. A MASTERFUL SPEECH. A joint meeting of the committee on the limitation of armaments and the sub-committee on the limitation of naval armaments was held to-day. The chairman, at the morning sitting, explained what had taken place in the sub-committee on naval limitation. A general discussion followed. In the afternoon Lord Lee explained that he understood the present position was that there was one agreement between five Powers regarding the ratio of capital ships, but all the Powers were equally un-committal on the subjects of submarines,, small craft and auxiliaries. He agreed with Admiral Le Bon that it was justifiable to begin by making clear the question of principle in regard to future submarines. Lord Lee regretted that a difference of opinion had arisen on the submarine question. It was the only one on which the British delegation was out of sympathy with the United States proposals, perhaps also woth the views of France and of other Powers.

He felt it necessary to mention the following figures as the basis of his statement: —Existing tonnage of submarines: United States 83,500, Britain 80,500: Japan 32,200; France 28,360; Italy 18.250.

The* American proposals allowed a tonnage of 90,000 to the United States and Britain. 54,000 tons to Japan; France and Italy a proportionate amount. New building wr permitted under the prothis would be: United States 65,000 tons, Britain 95,000 tons, Japan 21,800 tons, and France and Italy in proportion. Lord Lee was bound to say it seemed strange to put before the Conference limitation or armaments proposals designed to increase a type of war vessels which, according to the British view, was open to more objection than surface capital ships. Moreover, it would be certain that, as a consequence, Powers possessing large merchant marines would be compelled to increase the number of anti-submarine craft, thus giving little relief to the overburdened taxpayer and providing scant comfort, for those who wished to abolish war. TOTAL ABOLITION. The British view was that what was required was not merely the restriction of submarines, but their total and final abolition. First, he would like to reply to the contention that the submarine was a legitimate weapon of weaker Powers and an effective and economical means of de- ' for extensive coastlines and maritime communications. Both could be contested on technical grounds, and it was clearly proved by recent history that attacks against an exposed coast-line could bp conducted by powerfully armed and swift-moving vessels fully equipped to’resist submarine attacks. There was no branch of naval research that had more closely engaged attention of experts than the coun-

ter offensive against the submarine. Methods of detection of the location and the destruction of submarines had advanced so much further than the offensive of the submarine that the latter had already been reduced in. value against modern surface warships. Germany had 375 submarines during the war, and no less than 203 had been sunk. The accomplishments of U-boats in legitimate naval warfare were insignificant. In the early part of the war a few obsolete vessels were sunk, but the British. Grand Fleet was not affected, and not one single ship had been hit or sunk in submarine action. Light cruisers swept all parts of the North Sea, undeterred by submarines.

The passage of troops across the Channel, to the number of 15 millions, was not prevented, and no man had been lost, except on hospital ships. The submarines had proved equally powerless against the passage of the United States troops across the Atlantic. BRITAIN’S VULNERABLE POINT. ’ If the argument was sound that submarines were required for the defence of coast-lines and communications no country wanted them more than the British Empire. Partly because experience had shown that they were ineffective for this purpose Britain w’as ready to abandon them, for the war made it abundantly clear that the greatest peril to maritime communications was submarines, and specially great to a country not possessing command of the sea on the surface. Hence it was in the interest of any such Power to get rid of this terrible menace. It must be remembered that the submarine has no value as a defence against, the submarine. Against merchant ships alone they achieved real success. Germany sank 12 million tons of shipping valued at a thousand million dollars. Over twenty thousand non-com-batant men, women and children had been drowned. It was true that this action was a violation of all laws, human and divine, but were we to assume that all other Powers would al waps be good? The menace of the submarine could only be got rid of by total banishment from the sea. Limitation was not sufficient, for so long as submarines were allowed and a trained nucleus existed in a fleet the personnel could be rapidly expanded in case of war. So long as submarines were allowed they would be the greatest .menace to the food supplies of Britain, which was by far the greatest anxiety to the British Government during the war. Some people said this vulnerability of Britain justified its retention, since by this means alone the Empire could be stricken down. But the Empire would find means, if ever there was another war, to secure itself from starvation. It had been suggested that the conditions of the late war would never recur, but could France aft ord the risk of disaster to her near neighbor, her only certain ally if the situation of 1914 ever was reproduced ? Answering the suggestion that other Powers not represented at the Conference might proceed with submarines, he said means could be found for bringing Nemesis to the transgressor. A WEAPON OF MURDER. It was said submarines were cheap, but surely the Conference did not desire to keep war cheap? When war was almost continuous, submarine warfare was cheap to the aggressor, but not the victim. Germany had never more than nine or ten submarines at sea at one time, but Britain had maintained an average of no less than 3000 anti-submarine and surface craft. Britain welcomed the proposal for curtailing capital ships. What would, it gain if the competition was merely transferred to submarines? Not much. But if subarines were abolished it could accept practically the whole of America’s proposals. The submarine was the weapon of piracy, and drowning of non-combatants. For offence it was only valuable when u ;ed against merchant ships. For defence it was merely inefficient , and its disadvantages exceeded its advantages except for war against mercantile marine. Tee submarine was the only class of vessel the Conference was asked to give permission to thrive and multiply. It would greatly disappoint the British people if he failed to persuade the Conference to get rid of this weapon. To show the e. rnestness of Britain ’.n this matter, Lord Lee pouted o «l thst Britain oossessed the most efficient submarine navy m the world, a id was pre pared to scrap the whole of this great fleet and disband the personnel, provided the other Powers would do the ■nmi That was the British offer to th? world. However, it was useless to be blind to the facts of the position. He hardly hoped to .carry with him all the Powers represented there, though he believed in the end all civilised nations would come round to the British view-point. In any event Britain did not intend the settlement of the capital ships issue should be affected by failure, and would welcome any suggestion for reductions and restrictions of submarines. In particular he would wait with the greatest interest the proposals of his French colleagues.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION. At the conclusion of Lord Lee’s statement the chairman, Mr. Hughes, said he did not intend to comment on it. He merely wished to interpolate a statement giving American figures of submarines built and building whereupon the proposals were based. The United States had 95,000 tons, Britain 82,464, France 42,850, Italy 20,228 and Japan 31,400. The United States was prepared to reduce slightly. M. Sarrant paid a tribute to Lord Lee. He profoundly disapproved the barbarous use of submarines in the late war, and recalled the fact that the question was dealt with at Versailles and by the League of Nations, and public opinion had been shown to be favorable to its continuance. The French believed the submarine was pre-eminently a defensive weapon. It could not be considered a dominating weapon, and it could be used under honorable conditions. Certain of these conditions should be examined, dis* cussed and formulated in such a way as to determine the laws of naval warfare. *

The French delegation felt called upon to give its approval to the use of the submarine under restrictions, but wished to point out that as submarines were subject to withdrawal from the service it would be necessary for a navy to possess numbers proportionate to the needs of national defence. The French wished, moreover, to observe that the use of large submarines was undoubtedly more humane, as they allowed the crew of a torpedoed vessel to be rescued. The French considered submarines with a large cruising radius necessary to assure the defence of their distant colonies as well as to maintain safely the lines ot communication. Signor Schanzer said the Italian experts still considered the submarine an indispensable weapon for defending coasts and protecting lines of communication. He was not Authorised to associate himself with the proposals for their aboli-

M. Hanihara said Japan uncondition. ally opposed all abusive uses of the submarine, but felt that its legitimate use was justified. Mr. Hughes said he thought one effect emerged clearly from ’ the discussion. There was no disposition to allow, on any plea of necessity, the illegal use of the submarine. There would be no difficulty in announcing to the world a statement of the intention of the nations at the Conference that submarines must observe well-established international usage. He understood the crux of the controversy was as to the use of the submarine as a weapon of defence. He could not agree to the same position with submarine as with capital ships. With the latter they were dealing with the potency of competition, whereas submarines were cheaper and could be made by other nations not represented at the Conference. The report of the American Advisory Committee reviewer! the conditions of submarine warfare against merchantmen in the late war, and declared that unlimited submarine warfare should be outlawed. Laws should be drawn up pre-) scribing methods of procedure. It approved the use of submarines against combatant ships, also as scouts and to attack raiding enemies. Submarines were particularly the instrument of weak naval Powers. The United States was weak in cruisers, and submarines could greatly assist them. The United States needs a large force of submarines to protect her interests, especially her outlying possessions. Mr. Hughes promised that he would consult the naval expert on Lord Lee’s address. FRANCE OBSTINATE. Paris. Dec. *3. M. Briand conferred with Admiral Guisthau on the question of submarine tonnage. The Matin says that M. Briand refuses to reduce this service beyond what is compatible with France’s security, and which is very far removed from the American figures. M. Briand wishes, hovrever,. that dissension on this point should not cause a deadlock in Mr. Hughes’ naval disarmament programme.