PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 91, 10 January 1918, Page 4

PROGRESS OF THE WAR

Sir Douglas Haig's dispatch describing the battles of 191 V adds comparatively little to what was already known, but it tells the story of a very great achievement _ compassed in spite of enormous difficulties which to a very large extent were foreseen and oould not have were unforeseen and could not have the colla-pse of Russia, conspired to heavily increase the task allotted to the British armies, but their achievement in these hard and immensely trying conditions was to undertake and carry out the longest and most successfully sustained offensive of the war. The additional strength which the enemy had obtained, or may obtain, .from events in Russia and Italy, Sm Douglas Haig states, has already been largely discounted. It is in light of this fact and of the still more_ striking indication of British superiority afforded in the defeat of 131 German divisions at Arras, Messines, I*eus, and east of Ypres by Jess than half that number of British divisions that we must measure the enemy's prospects of escaping ultimate defeat or of achieving advantage in the offensive on the West front for whiqh he is now said to be making preparations'. # * * *

One phrase which catches the eye in President Wilson's programme of world peace is "freedom of the seas." It is used, however, in euch a sense that it stands distinctly apart from the specific conditions which are laid down as the only possible foundation of peace. President Wilson, as message runs, recommended absolute freedom of the seas, disarmament, international free-trade, and the- self-determina-tion of nations. It is clear that this is rather a statement of ideals than of essential conditions of peace. America, for instance, would hardly be persuaded, even by Pdesident Wilson, to throw down all tariff barriers, at short notice, and it seems reasonable to apply similar reservations to "absolute freedom of the seas." It goes without saying that President AVilson .speaks from a standpoint diametrically opposed to that of the enemy in advocating freedom of the seas. Presumably his idea is that the task of policing the seas, like that of preventing or defeating any breach of international la'w.on land, should be delegated to an internationalauthority, and that in these conditions the need for national navies would disappear. Thus broadly sketched the prospect is, attractive, but it is difficult to imagine any set of conditions in which Britain would be justified in forfeiting the security afforded by a powerful navy. It is obvious that a nation which depends on sea routes as other nations do on land routes is bound to regard tho ideal of the freedom of the seas from an individual standpoint.

The immediate difficulty, of course, is that Britain would sacrifice much more by consenting to the abolition of navies than would her enemies, or indeed any of her present Allies. It is to be added th,U this cardinal fact ha-s visibly supplied Germany and Austria with a motive in thoir advocacy of what they are pleased to call freedom of the seas. The frankest statement on the subject by an enemy representative was made some time ago by Admiral von Tirpitz. Asked by the Berlin correspondent of an Austrian newspaper how real freedom of tho seas could be guaranteed, ho replied:

I only know of one way, and that is that we do away with England's policing of tho sea. That can only he attained, however, by a grouping of the Powers, which will practically prevent England's supremacy on tho sea in the future. We shall never attain that by paper treaties; for England, naturally, docs not Hunk of voluntarily giving up her position of power. Anyone who deceived himself about; this Lcforo the war must now know where we really are. Above all, Belgium must rever again become a basis for English operations.

Admiral von Tirpitz is, of course, one of the most determined advocates of a German annexation of Belgium. His conception of freedom of the seas is simply that British naval power should bo abolished, and that Germany should be left in possession of stolen territory, including bases conveniently adjacent to the British coast. Somewhat similar ideas have been expressed, though in more guarded language, by other enemy representatives, including Count Czernin. Advocating freedom of the high seas and naval disarmament, the. Austrian Foreign Minister explained that his proposal related only to the high seas, "for I do not extend the idea to the narrow seas, and 1 freely admit that for sea communications special rules and regulations must obtain." Even without the lurid light thrown upon the matter by von Tirpitz it is clear enough that the result of accepting these proposals would bo to establish the Central Empires in a position of power which would leave other nations at their mercy.

As Mr. Archibald Hurd pointed out in a recent article in the KartnujUbi Review, under a scheme of reduction of military strength, the Central Empires would remain, in virtue of their populations, great military Powers in relation to the other States of Europe, while "if the vital interest which the British, American, and Japanese peoples, in particular, have in the high seas were subject to international restraint, length of reach would bo given to such military strength as tho Central Empires under reorgan-

iscd military conditions in Europe might possess." As Hit. Hdrd further observes, British people owe von Tiiii'LTZ their thanks for his frank exposure oi enemy aims, unci it may bo trusted that ho (von Tinpitz) is an accurate, prophet in stating that ''without being forced to her knees England will not surrender an atom of her naval supremacy." "That, ,, adds Mr. Hui:d, "must be our attitude towards the demand that we consent to a limitation of the naval rights on which not only our charlor of liberty, but the charter of liberty of the whole civilised world depends. Once naval power is placed under restriction, as the spokesmen of the Central Powers would have it placed, there would be no counterpoise to military power, which could be created swiftly, secretly, and in overwhelming strength at any moment when a war of policy was in preparation." When a stage has been reached in international relations at which the possibility of war is excluded, the phrase ''freedom of the seas" will take new meaning, but nations to whom the security of sea routes is vital—the British nation more than any other—are certainly entitled to demand a very definite guarantee before resigning the security afforded by naval power.