THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1934. NAVAL PROBLEMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22365, 12 September 1934, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1934. NAVAL PROBLEMS

I\ speculations concerning the prospects for the naval conference which is to take place next year the attitude of Japan has been one of the most uncertain factors. Her Government has made no secret of its dissatisfaction with the existing naval treaties. Her Naval Minister, Admiral Osumi, stated some months ago that Japan must grasp the opportunity of freeing herself from the treaty restrictions. It was reported later that the features of the policy propounded by him for his Government’s consideration were that Japan must regain independence in national defence, and have naval parity with Great Britain and the United States, through the fleets of these two Powers being reduced to the strength of that of Japan. Now comes a statement by the “foreign spokesman” at Tokio which, while not conflicting with previous reports from that quarter, throws further interesting light upon Japan’s naval aspirations, and is intended to reflect no doubt something of her disposition towards other Powers. Taken at its face value, this is on the whole a placatory pronouncement. It deprecates naval competition, and asserts that Japan is in favour of the idea of navies “insufficient for offensive purposes, but sufficient for defensive purposes.” The declaration follows that, if the other Powers agree, Japan is ready to scrap powerful attacking weapons. It will be interesting to see what the other Powers may be able to make of proposals of this kind when they come under discussion in detail. Possibly they have been put forward now in this tentative and somewhat vague manner in view of the fact that the Japanese Government is expected to send experts to London next month to discuss naval questions. In the reference to the desirability of abolishing powerful attacking weapons

Japan presumably has battleships particularly in view. In part the Japanese view would thus apparently be that battleships should be scrapped or restricted in size. These vessels are enormously costly, and there may be room for the argument that in the case of a Power like Great Britain the money spent upon them could be used to better purpose in the provision of an adequate number.of cruisers for the protection of her trade routes. The possibility, however, of agreement among the naval experts that the abolition of the battleship is feasible is highly remote. The argument that aircraft have rendered the modern battleship obsolete is still not taken by them very seriously. If the battleship is the logical and necessary outcome of the conditions that have to be taken into account in 1 naval warfare, as it is the one type of ship strong enough to meet the most powerful units of an enemy force and therefore is indispensable, the discussion can hardly go beyond the question whether the battleship need be so huge and costly. The British naval authorities have indicated their belief that there is no substantial reason why battleships should be of the size that is considered necessary by other maritime Powers. They have stated, however, that below a figure of 22,000 tons it is impossible to go. In an interesting review article Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond criticises any such conclusion. Whatever her tonnage, he points out, the battleship would embody a marked differentiation from a cruiser in view of the purposes for which she would be required, and his presentation of the “ case,, against big battleships” seems generally both forcible and logical. “All attempts,” he concludes, “to represent the need of size as intrinsic have been answered at different times. But there remains another reason which is, admittedly, as grave—other nations insist upon having them, and we cannot, therefore, be without instruments as powerful as theirs.” If, however, the views of the Japanese Government have been correctly reported, this question which has been raised in naval discussions in the past will no doubt again be considered in all its implications. Japan was desirous of securing a reduction of the size of battleships some year* ago and so was Italy. The pronouncement from Tokio certainly docs not suggest that Japan will be an entirely obstructionist influence at the conference next year.