Taranaki Daily News. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1021. SUBMARINES.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 December 1921, Page 4

Taranaki Daily News. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1021. SUBMARINES.

The question of abolishing submarines is one which, in the light of their gross abuse by Germany during the war, might have been expected to have evoked, at least in principle, an almost unanimous assent by the delegates at the Washington Conference. There is, however, evidently a disposition on the part of the smaller naval Powers to endeavor to make up in fighting strength for their smaller number of capital ships by creating as large a fleet of submarines as possible, thereby defeating the main object of the Conferencedisarmament. It will be remembered that,'at the end of 1916, the German Government determined to wage a more ruthless submarine war on Great Britain as the sole means of defeating her, and the German Admiralty pledged itself that within six months Great Britain would be forced to sue for peace. What the smaller naval Powers have seemingly failed to keep in mind is that not only was this boast completely falsified, but I the effect of the campaign was fatal to Germany, as it led Amer- | iea into the war. When fixing the tjerms of the Peace Treaty, Ger-

many was not allowed either to retain or build any submarines, and it may reasonably be argued that such a prohibition went further than to mark condemnation of abuses; rather was it the definition of a deliberate principle that such instruments of war could not be tolerated. Even allowing that it was the abuse of submarines that made •civilisation stand aghast at the horrors committed during the campaign, the ease for theijr retention and legitimate use depends solely on their ability to destroy commerce and not as constituting an effective fighting element in naval engagements. In the course of their depredations, German submarines exacted a heavy toll of shipping and human life. It has always been admissible to attack an enemy’s merchant service, claimed Admiral de Bon (the French delegate), when reviewing the arguments advanced by Lord Lee, but he had to admit that if this kind of war was allowed it must be confined within the limits rendering their Use legitimate. p If all the delegates had approached this question of abolishing submarines free from a pre-conceived determination, they could not have failed to be convinced by the arguments and logic wherewith the British ease for abolition was submitted. So complete was the reasoning of both Lord _Lee and Mb - Balfour that it covered every phase of the question—for and against. It elicited from Mr. Hughes the expression of a deep sense at obligation for the spirit of which the British proposal gave

evidence, “which had been maintained against apparently hopeless odds.” More significant still, Mr. Hughes asserted that if Mr. Balfour’s arguments could be answered, that answer was yet, to come. In other words, they were unanswerable. But for the wide divergence of views on this matter between Britain and France, in all probability submarines would have been abolished, so far as a resolution by the Conference is concerned. Again, France has displayed a spirit unworthy of her status, the underlying factors being jealousy and pique. Mr. Balfour went direct to the source of the trouble when he stated that France, having been the cause of the abandonment of all idea of discussing at that Conference the question of land disarmament, had proceeded to develop her sea policy, embracing a vast submarine fleet. France has been unduly straining the patience of her friends among the nations. Seemingly she wants a free hand in every direction while the other Powers Conform to limitations agreed upon, but such a policy is too absurd for comment. Under tl/e naval agreement made by the Conference, her fighting force on sea is restricted, so she insists on having as large a fleet of submarines as she wishes, hence the wrecking of the humanitarian proposal to abolish submarines. The arguments used by Mr. Balfour, who rightly contended-that if the Conference decided to condemn submarines “as a weapon inconsistent with civilisation,” it would have a great moral effect, even on the nations unrepresented at the Conference. The only reason advanced by the opponents of Britain’s proposal was that submarines were an effective weapon of defence, and that their uses should be defined. Nothing could be more futile than to frame rules of conduct for submarines. The most Mr. Balfour could do was to place on record Britain’s views in favor of the abolition of submarines, and this he did, urging the nations to unite in forbidding the use of such engines of destruction. .That the question will have to be faced in the future appears certain. There will, however, be much regret that it was not decided at the present Conference, but sooner or later there will be an agreement, and then one of the worst forms of warfare will come to an end.