SUBMARINES IN WARFARE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 3105, 24 December 1921, Page 5

SUBMARINES IN WARFARE.

. BRITAIN URGES ABOLITION. LOUD LEE'S MASTERLY SPEECH. By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. Received December 24, 9.15 a.m. WASHINGTON, Doc. 22. The afternoon's session of the full committee was devoted entirely to discussion on the abolition of submarines. Lord Loo opened the British case with a spooch 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 hold. M. Sarraut (France), Signor Schanzer (Italy), and Mr Hanihara (Japan) opposed abolition, while expressing detestation of the savage methods of using submarines as Germany had done in the late war. M. Sarraut asked for further time for consideration, and promised to speak at greater length to-morrow, though he declared that Prance would not consent either to abolition or limitation. Mi- Hughes, for the United States, would not express an opinion, though he road the full report of the American advisory committee, advocating their use, and foreshadowed the eventual governing of submarines by international rules arising out of this conference. 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 tf she does not win her point for abolition. Ho said it was evident that the opinions around the table showed some change as a result of the discussion, and he hoped they would show further change after more light was thrown on the subject.—Special to Australian Press Association.

INTERESTING FIGURES, Wli \T UNITED STATES PROPOSALS MEAN. Received December 24, 10.5 a.m. WASHINGTON, Dec. 22. Oflicitil: The joint meeting of llio commiitee on the limitation of armament and the sub-committee on Hie limitation ol naval armaments was hejd to-day. The chairman at the morning silting explained what had taken place in llie sub-committee meeting on naval liiniiafions, and a general discussion followi il. In the afternoon Lord Lee explained that lie nmleistood the present position ua- that there was one agreement between live Powers regarding the ratio of capital ships, but. all the Powers were not equally committed on the of submarines, ■mall craft and auxiliaries, lie agreed with Admiral do Bon that it was justifiable, to begin by making clear the question of principle in regard to future submarines. Lord Lee said he regretted thai a ihU'ereme of opinion had arisen. The submarine question was the only one on which the British delegation was out of sympathy with the United States proposals, ami perhaps also with the views of France and other Powers, He felt it necessary to mention the following figures as the basis of his statement. The existing tonnage ol submarines in the United States was 83.500. Britain 8(1500. Japan 32.200. France 28,360. and Italy 18.250. The American proposals allowed a tonnage of 90.000 to the United States and Britain, 54.000 to Japan, and to ('Vance and Italy a proportionate- amount. The new building permitted under the pro posals, therefore, would be United Stales 6500 tons, Britain 9500. Japan 2800, and

France and Italy in proportion. TOTAL ABOLITION WANTED. Lord Lee, continuing, said he was bound to sa\ ii seemed strange to put before the conference limitation of naval armaments proposals designed to increase the type ol war vessel which according to the British view, was open to more objection than surface capital .ships. Moreover, it would be certain that as a. consequence the Powers possessing large, merchant marines would be compelled to increase the numbers of anti-submarine craft, thus giving little relict ki the overburdened taxpayers, and providing scant comfort for those who wished to abolish war. The British view was that what was required was not merely reslric lion of submarines, but their total and final abolition. First he would like to reply to the contention that the submarine was the

legitiniau weapon of the weaker Powers and :in effective and economical moans ot defence for extensive coastlines and maritime communications. Both could be contested on technical grounds, and ii was dearly proved by reeeul history that attacks against an exposed coastline could be conducted by powerfully armed and swifl moving vessels fitllv equipped to resist submarine attacks. There was no branch ol naval research thai had more closely engag. ~c | ii, e attention of the experts than a counter-offensive against submarines. I. be methods of deleciion and location instruction were so much further ahead that the offensive submarine was already reduced in value against modem surface warships. Germanv had 375 submarines during the war and no less than 203 had been sunk. L'he U-boats accomplishments in legitimate naval warfare were insignificant. In the earlv pan of the war a few obsolete vessels were Mink, but the British Grand 1' cot

was not affected—not one single ship had been hit or sunk in a submarine action. The light cruisers swept all parts ol the North Sea. undeterred by the submarines. The passage of the troops across the than-1 , ie l to the number of 15 million was not prevented, no man being lost except on Lpital ships. Submarines had proved equally powerless against the passage ol the United States troops across tue Atlantic. BRITAIN'S MAGNIFICENT OFFER. Lord Lee remarked that, it was said thai submarines were cheap, but surely the conference did not desire to make war cheap w hei. war was almost continuous, bubinarinu warfare was cheap to the aggressor, but not to the victim. Germany had novel more than nine or ten submarines at sea 1 time, but Britain had to maintain ', average of no less than 3000 antisubmarine" and surface craft. Britain welcome,] the proposals for curtailing the capital ships, but what would it gun n the competition was merely transferred to submarines* Not much; but t£ the sub nan es were abolished, it, could accept r cieallv the whole of the Americans gronosals The submarine was a weapon 0 ,„,,!„■ a ,,d piracy and (he drowning of o,'combatanis. For offence it was on > ra |„able when used against merchant ships, ordefence it was merely inelhceut, and

he disadvantages exceeded the advantages JSepffor wai-against a mercantile marine, fhe submarine was the only class ot vessel rhe conference was asked to give'!»«"* 011 to thrive and multiply.. H would disappoint the British d .'hey fjiM to persuade, the conference to got ud o this weapon. To show the earnestness, ot Stain in this matter. Lord Lee pointed out thai Urilain possessed the most efticien submarine navy in the world bu mepared to scran the whole ot tins gieai B and disband the personnel provided •ho other Powers did the same, lhat was ;, ' irish oiler to the world However was useless to be blind to the facts of he position. He hardly hoped to can} with hin. all the Powers represent • t he. though he belteVe, in the end alii he cm ised nations wo&ld come round to the m S viewpoint. In any event, the British d no. intend that the *»f°™» f, l ™ capital ship issue should be .he e > failure regard mis submarines. bey wouk we™ any suggestions for reductions a restrictions of submarines in particular, ad wait with the greatest interest the proposals ot their French colleagues. At the conclusion of Lord Lee s statement, the chairman (Mr Hughes) said he.did not

intend to comment, but merely wished to interpolate a statement giving the America,, figures of submarines built and builc - imr. whereupon the proposals were basect. The United States had 95.000 ions. Britain 82 461 France 42.850, Italy 20,223 and the Japanese 31.400. The United States was prepared to reduce the figures slightly. \|, Sarratil paid a tribute to Lord _l.ee. He said lie profoundly disapproved ol the liiirhui'iuis use of submarines in the late war. „,,(! i.-caHefl the Fact thai tl 'srion was ( | v ..ili with al Versailles and by Ihe League ...■ , ... ir-d public opinion had shown i, i, t , favourable io its continuance, 'lhe French believed thai the submarine was pre-eminently a defensive weapon, and could >ot be considered a dominating weapon. It ~u!d be used under honourable conditions. Cerium ol these conditions should be exam

inccl, discussed and formulated in such ;i, way as to determine l lit-, laws ; of naval waifare.—Special to Australian Press Association. BRITISH ARGUMENTS. MIGHT YET TURN THE SCALE. Received December 24, 9.40 a.m. WASHINGTON, Dec. 22. The British spokesman emphasised Mr A. J. Balfour's contention that the nation which found itself pushed against a wall was not going to respect any rules of warfare framed in peace time. He thought no country was proof against thai temptation. instancing the German use of gas and the bombardment of open towns, both ol which were forbidden by the previous rules of war. Ho made the significant admission that Britain had tested'tin' views of the oilier Governments on this question some time ago, and he bad reason to think that such views were changing. The only sure remedy against a nation breaking the rides of war would be for a group of nations to enter into an undertaking that they would combincdly attack any Power so oltendmg. The British .spokesman said there was no hurry for a public session, indicating the hope that the British arguments might yet turn the scale in favour 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; m other words to find a common denomination before going before the public with the case for and against. It is supposed that Mr Hughes has sent M Briand another cable-ram appreciative of'his response to his lirrt representations but calling attention to what he regarded as ihe rather large French demands in relation to other craft. It is ""dentood that this message was the cause of the French asking for more time to-day as the} wished to revise their figures on the Iresh instructions from M. Briand. The French declare that they are not riding from their demand for a large Xarine tonnage-Special to Australian Press Association,

PECULIAR FRENCH TACTICS. WAITING L>ARIs"TnSTRTICTIO"KS. WASHINGTON. Do<-. 22. | 'l*i lo dillicullv if understanding Iho French ... ,i,s miiv he due io the personal leohngs . S Adiiiral do Hon and M. Burn.ni who ,iro known to be soro because Ml L.f Hß hw Ims taken Iho matter over hen ; o ,a s direct to M. Br.aud or u inav mean ',.' ,) -v r;.o anxious Io have I r.la.n dc- !„ ( .| In. tlu- other nations in Iho matter f he abolition of submarines with I'ranee fidin, that defeat. Tl.en. lhey would be ... a positioti to tlicUte In own terms to the conference. II I* euuen. , ,;„ lu jsnudersland (he temper o( He delc'-ales. which is cry stalks,...., s roi gb JS the French attitude. One tftect of £' retraction of M. Br.and's offer o withdraw the battleship demand w. bo.to ~.,.,]„.,. lengthen the conference, a* ino\ r.oWnsof anva.ten.pl »!> <™ »' -I .„. whole of this morning s p.o----;::;.;iin,;';,;' I ;;;tc«icaiiyt;,ken,,p ! vvAd- ..,;,..,! 'd,> Hon ro-argiung I<ranee s e,iso His apparent that the Krone. delegation h , v . put their own construction, on. J . n nd's letter Io Mr Hughes, maintain. ng ;" ' kbnd means I withdrawn „ the -arital ship claims is conditional upon ?/,. nee' ' iews on the subnumne. question u :', ..el Essentially these, news are S'F nee should not bo landed m a y ;' . o whatever regarding the budding o aSiarv craft, including submarine . , V Clver, Iheeoufereneedecukson sue !uiSon'. the,, France wants the right I!.',;;;;;,; for father instructions from I'aua. Th« matter wa= thereupon adjourned. " ■ " i(l w known that ellorts were made al his conference to for... a conmntteo to ' v . ,11 the rules of warfare as well as , '„| marine conduct, but they were aba >- LifiSnM, all the nations of the world wore not represented I.ere. . " C IM stated that, the American ex per roiorled against the abolition of gas as . Son on the ground that it was, just, as m sheds. Aerial warfare is boin* . ' ered to-day hy a subcommittee , c may eventually be hud down at a ml nonfereneeofaJl the Powers for naval warthe barring of merchantmen, I:; 1 ,!,; for defence.-Special to .Australian Press Association.

ATTITUDE OF M. BRIAND. REFUSAL TO REDUCE SERVICE. Reeved M Urtand conferred with M. Gu.stl.au on the question of submarine tonnage. ° : Mat",, save thai M. Briand refuses to ifthiUevvice l.eyond whnl » cjngpatiblß with France's purity, .ondwhwj Son'on this point shoulcF not = a deadlock in Mr Hmclny nnwd>"..,, men; programme-A. mid N./* cauio.

v., C R Hughes originally. proposed ,1,. The ratio of five-five-three in respect 7 he capital ship tonnage of Bnta.n, l>. Pud Sale and Japan should beappl.ee , I"> auxiliary surface craft mcliidin enters flotilla leaders and destroyers, an Sntrines. He suggested tha it hotommj allowed to each Power in these ciasse, should be as follows: Aux. Craft Submarine Tons Tons Rritain . 450.000 90.000 » ;s s "" w sskss 'as Japan aou,wu > The allowance for France and Italy, i Hioir capita! ship ratio of 1.75 were as applied to these classes, would be as toi ' ows: ~~ Aux. Craft Submarine Tons Tons ~ 157 K M 31.500 Italy''' ... '.'•'. 1571500 31.500