NAVAL ARMS RACE

Auckland Star, Volume LVXIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1937, Page 18

NAVAL ARMS RACE

FEVERISH POWERS. MANY SINISTER ASPECTS. JAPAN'S ISOLATION. (By HECTOR C. BYWATER.) LONDON. Two treaties which for the past 14 years have more or less put a brake on the expansion of naval armaments come to an end at midnight on December 31. After that the lid, so to speak, will be off, for the London Treaty of 1936— not yet ratified and possibly doomed to be still-born—imposes no quantitative check of any kind. Everything, therefore, points to the development of a naval race no less intensive and even more dangerous than that which preceded the World War. In those days Britain and Germany were the only two serious competitors for the trident of Neptune. To-day no less than seven Great Powers are working feverishly on naval construction and no one can foresee the effect on the balance of fighting strength afloat a few years hence.

The Pacific, the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean are the three arenas where the as yet silent struggle for supremacy is l>oing fought out. In the Pacific the English-speaking Powers have much the same interests, which centre on the maintenance of the "open door" in China and the integrity of their respective territories—for the United States has still a long period of responsibility for the defence of the Philippines before hej. In this "shadow alliance" Holland, by reason of her East Indian Empire, is also a partner. Russia, too, is again becoming a factor to be reckoned with in the Pacific naval situation, particularly as she is perhaps the only Power whose geographical position enables her to challenge the Japanese at their own doorstep. - -«»«» vr America in East.

Japan, on the other hand, stands alone, for whatever degree of military aid she may expect as a result of her anti-Red pact with Germany, there is no immediate prospect of a German fleet reappearing in the Pacific. Japan's steady encroachment in China, coupled with her forward policy in the South Seas, may eventually align against • her all the other Powers which have interests in the Western Pacific. It is because she recognises this possibility that she is now spending 47 per cent of her national income on armaments, the navy taking the lion's share. In recent years the strategic outlook in the Pacific has become far less advantageous to Japan. This change is due mainly to the rapid but systematic expansion of the United States navy, accompanied by a bold and apparently successful effort to overcome the physical obstacles which had hitherto barred the U.S. fleet from operating in Far Eastern waters. The Pan-American air route from Hawaii to Manila may prove to have blazed a trail for the U.4S. battle fleet.

Even five years ago most students of strategy would have .predicted a naval stalemate in the event of an AmericanJapanese war, because of the lack of American bases west of Honolulu. Soon, however, it is possible that the full weight of American naval power will be capable of being brought to bear, if necessary, in Japanese waters. And apart from the American navy's numerical preponderance, there is little doubt as to which fleet is superior in material, equipment and organisation. ' A Welcome Growth. To the British Commonwealth the growing strength of the U.S. navy and the development of its strategic freedom in the Pacific cannot be other than welcome. Indeed, the trend of world events in the past ten years has completely altered the naval aspect of Anglo-Ameri-can relations. On the British side, at any rate, all idea of rivalry has disappeared. "Parity," once an apple of discord, is now acknowledged to be the common interest of both nations.

Turning to Europe, the Powers intensively arming at sea are Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia. This year Britain has laid down 200,000 tons of new warships, a fivefold increase on the figure for 1933. On New Year's Day' she begins construction of the two most powerful battleships yet designed, and in March next Parliament will be asked to authorise a second pair of these mastodons. Older battleships are being renovated at a cost of over 10.000,000 dollars a ship. On January 1, 1937, the following other war vessels will be building: Three aircraft carriers, Iβ cruisers, 34 destroyers, 13 submarines — and Another big programme is being drafted for submission in the spring. As a further earnest of her determination not to yield the trident Britain has invoked the escalator clause of the 1030 London Treaty and retained over 200,000 tons of cruisers and 40,000 tons of destroyers in excess of her agreed quota.

There is, however, one awkward snag in the channel. For every 100 tons that Britain adds to her fleet, Germany is empowered by the bi-lateral treaty of June, 1935, to add 35 tons to her fleet, and she is taking advantage of this right. Thus, in a very few years, a powerful and absolutely up-to-date German fleet will be cruising in the North Sea, and since Britain is never likely to be free to concentrate more than half her Navy in those waters, the North Sea may become once more, as much in fact as in name, the "German Ocean." No doubt (iermany hopes, when that day arrives, to find Britain more willing to discuss the return of the former German colonies. Italy Amassing Armaments. In the Mediterranean, Italy is literally piling up ssea and air armaments. Never a party to the limitation clauses of the old treaties, she has built up an entirely new navy in ten years and now possesses the fastest cruiser fleet and the largest force of modern submarines in the, world. Of the latter she has no less than 88, four more than the French total, and until this year France was supreme in underwater craft. There is nothing to prevent Italy from massing her entire naval and air armadas in the central Mediterranean directly astride Britain's main highway to the East. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that British strategists should be considering the wisdom of diverting, in war time, all their eastern trade via the Cape of Good Hope, to leave the Mediterranean free for the fierce dog-fight that must ensue if Britain were to keep her hold on Malta. Egypt, the Suez Canal, Cyprus and Palestine. Unfortunately for her. anv war in which she might be involved would probably have to be fovght on two naval fronts, separated by thousands of miles.

The enormous amount of naval tonnage now being constructed in the world must seem inexplicable to those who have been taught to believe* that the development of air power has made navies superfluous. The doctrine, however, has never appealed to the admiral-

ties of the world, who know that the aeroplane is quite incapable of playing any part in oceanic warfare unless it is conveyed by ship to the scene of action. In fact, no nation, however well equipped for lighting in the air, could make its air arm felt overseas without the support of a strong navy. It is to the credit of those responsible for the defence of tl^ . United States that they grasped this truth at the outset and have ever since held the lead in the parallel development and co-ordination of naval and air power. Economically and Politically Disastrous. The worldwide naval race now in full swing promises to be as economically disastrous as it is politically dangerous. The two countries best capable of standing the iinancial strain are the United States and Britain, though even they will find it severe. For Japan, France. Italy and Germany it may well prove ruinous, coupled as it is with a corresponding expansion of their land and air , forces. Herein lies a fresh peril, for it is conceivable that a totalitarian State, faced with the alternatives of bankruptcy or a decline into military impotence if the race continues, may choose to strike while the iron is hot.

At no time since the war was a new arms limitation treaty more urgently needed, and at no time has there been less chance of making such a treaty. So it looks as if the mad race must continue until either the world returns to sanity or the armaments now being piled up are cast into the melting pot of war.

As a check on naval armament the treaty signed in London last March is not likely to be very effective. So far it has been signed only t)y Britain, the L'nited States and France. Italy shows no inclination to eouie in, and Japan is definitely out. Consequently thoee two Powers are under jio» obligation to disclose their naval programme, the scope of which therefore remains shrouded in secrecy. Japan has gone to the length of decreeing that even the Diet, which the money, must not be told how many ships and what types are to be built. Thus, the main purpose of the new treaty, which was to remove from I naval preparations the element of secrecy that always arouses suspicion and mistrust among the nations, seems doomed to failure. Stern Endurance Test. Britain's naval aim is fairly clear. She proposes to increase her battleships from 15 to 20 or more, to build and maintain a force of not less than 70 cruisers and proportionately to augment her destroyer and eubmarine tonnage. The United States, will keep step with British naval expansion, but each Power recognises that its armaments are not directed against the other. Japan ie determined to consolidate her strategic position in the Western Pacific, and besides building many new ships is planning to convert her outlying islands into naval and air bases, now that the Washington Treaty ban on such activity is about to be raised. In Europe, as we have seen, the tide of naval rearmament is rising ever higher and, except for the Anglo-German 100:35 ratio agreement and the possibility of economic exhaustion, there is nothing to stem it. The race has become a stern test of endurance. —N.A.N.A.