THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1930. NAVAL PARITY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20964, 1 March 1930, Page 12

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1930. NAVAL PARITY.

Public opinion in the United States upon the subject of naval disarmament was'described by Dr C. E. Martin, of Washington University, in an interview published this week, as divided into two schools of thought.* It may be assumed, in view of the part played by President Hoover in the conversations leading up to- the London Naval Conference, that of these opposed schools that which is genuinely in favour of a reduction in naval strength is the stronger. It must be recognised, however, that considerable opposition exists in the United States to the ideals of the Anglo-American Governments vVith respect to their respective naval policies. The “ big navy ” element has some influence' upon American thought, as was demonstrated in the recent memorandum presented to the Conference suggesting the right of the United States to build a ship of war superior to any other'in the world, A pamphlet recently issued by the Navy League of the United States, a copy of which has just reached us, reveals that this organisation, presumably speaking for a fairly large body of the American public, holds somewhat similar views. The argument of the Navy League iii support of its contention that Great Britain and America should possess navies of equal strength appears to be that Britain and America are equally dependent upon their navies for the protection of trade routes in time of war. Figures are quoted showing that the total "sea-borne trade of the United States is not appreciably less than that of the United Kingdom, and from this fact the Navy League takes the courage to assert l that “ in so far as the naval problem is related to safeguarding sea-borne | traffic, the American and British | navies have about equally great and , woildw icle tasks." The logicians responsible for this . statement rightly feel, however, that the obvious argument that Britain depends for the greater portion of her foodstuffs upon overseas producers must be answered. Reference is made, therefore, io the “nineteenth century terms” in which the United States is prone to be regarded, i.c., “ as a great self-sufficient continent overflowing with surplus supplies of food and materials,” whereas the truth, according to the Navy League of the United States, is that the country is critically dependent on imports of crude materials. If the contention had been left at that point it is conceivable that half truths might have carried conviction to readers of this interesting pamphlet who were open to be convinced, but the Navy League has damaged its chances to a sympathetic hearing by elaborating this argument. ' It the United States were suceussfully blockaded “imports of tin and rubber would be stopped at their ports of origin, 10,000 miles from our shores,” and the United States would also bo deprived of the manganese which is imported as an incident to steel production. It is

difficult to believe that a responsible organisation such as the Navy League of the United States should rely upon such an argument to defend its plea for naval parity with Britain, yet such appears to be the case. The fact that Britain is almost wholly dependent upon overseas countries for the food supplies that are more important than arms in wartime is entirely discounted on the ground that America relies upon exterior sources for her supplies of rubber and tin. The truth of the matter is, of course, that in the event of an impenetrable blockade being instituted against the United Kingdom the length of time that the people could resist their aggressor might be reckoned in months, whereas the United States, with her huge tracts of arable land and her resources of raw materials, could almost interminably withstand a siege. It is unfortunate that propaganda based upon such a fallacious argument as that used by the Navy League of the United States in this instance should be circulated in America. Possibly the dissemination of such misleading information may account for the opposition to the Naval Conference proposals which, has been reported in certain Washington cables. Fortunately, however, the majesty of Americans, including a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, take a longer view of the problems with which the Conference is confronted, and it is unlikely that the voice of the “ big navy ” men will prove sufficiently powerful to influence the American delegates in reaching their decisions.