NATIONS’ NAVIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22631, 24 July 1935, Page 9

NATIONS’ NAVIES

BUILDING ' PROGRAMMES LIMITATION OF TONNAGE (British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) RUGBY, July 22. In the debate on the Admiralty ( vote in the House of Commons Opposition speakers criticised thf recent AngloGerman naval agreement as not contributing to disarmament, failing to provide for limitation of tonnage, and assuring German supremacy in the Baltic.

Mr George Hall (Labour) said he feared a fresh impetus to naval building, and observed that among the nations affected by the Washington and London naval treaties 700 ships would be due for replacement between 1036 and 1942, and the estimated total cost of that replacement was £800,000,000.

x Mr Lloyd sGeorge expressed surprise at the concession to Germany of a large number of submarines.

Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell (First Lord of the Admiralty) said that after December, 1936, all the existing naval agreements would come to an end, and unless they could put something in their place all navies in the future would be entirety unrestricted. The Treaty of Washington had conferred enormous benefits on all the maritime Powers. It had cut down expenditure and saved the taxpayers of every nation. It had maintained peace for the last 15 years because the ratios adopted provided a standard of Strength appropriate to the defensive needs, and at the same time gave no country such predominance as to make it safe to risk aggression. 'Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell stated that it was unfortunately necessary to abandon the principle of ratios in efforts to secure new agreements because- some countries felt that it was wounding to the national pride. Instead they had to have a system of programmes. They would not ask the Naval Powers what their ultimate strength was going to be, but what size navy did they propose to have in, say, 1942. Then if they could by agreement accommodate those various naval strengths so as to provide adequate defence, yet making it exceedingly unlikely for any country to attack with any chance of ultimate success, they would have achieved something of enormous advantage to the taxpayers of the world and have contributed very greatly to general pacification. Coming to the question of the agreement with Germany, the First Lord compared the task of trying to secure an international agreement with the putting together of a jig-saw puzzle, in which the pieces were continually altering in shape, size, and colour. Until recently it had proved almost impossible to get any two pieces together. For this reason the Admiralty welcomed the proposal of a great country like Germany to fix its ratio for ever at a point in relation to Britain’s which they couid view without undue anxiety.. Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell said that the general agreement which they hoped to arrive at would not have been any good at all unless Germany had been in it. He claimed that the Government did gain a benefit, not to Britain alone, but the yyorld, when it closed with the German offer .with the object of obtaining an agreement on building programmes. They hdd been having bilateral confidential conversations with a good many countries. The conversations were not conferences at which they could settle anything, but were to jave the way for a conference which they hoped might be held at the end of 1935. THE ANGLO-GERMAN PACT LONDON, July 22. Mr Lloyd George, referring to his controversy with Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell on July 2 and 3, quoted reports in the newspapers and asked why the First (Sea Lord had not contradicted them if they were incorrect. Did the Germans, either at the preliminary talks or the conference, intimate to the Admiralty that they were prepared to co-operate in the abolition of submarines? Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell: Certainly. I said so.

Mr Lloyd George: Did we turn it down on the ground that France and others would not accept it? Sir Bolton: That is absolutely untrue. They said they would co-operate. We decided to put the proposal forward when we get a general conference at which something can be done. Mr Lfoyd George: After you have given Germany more submarines? Sir Bolton: We will have a better chance, because Germany will be with us. The First _ Sea Lord, discussing the Anglo-German pact, said that the House must realise that they must face up to realities, especially when one was dealing with dictators. Mr Winston Churchill regretted that Britain had condoned flagrant breach of the Versailles Treaty. The mobility of the fleet was greater after the war than before the war./ When faced with the German danger that mobility would pass and the whole argument for the base at Singapore to protect their interests in the Indian Ocean and maintain connection with Australia would be affected. They would be unable, when the German fleet was built, to move any large portion of the British Fleet far from home. THE RATIO PRINCIPLE - AMERICA DISAPPOINTED WASHINGTON, July 22. (Received,July 23, at 7 p.m.) Sir Bolton Eyres-Monsell’s announcement in the House of Commons that Britain would abandon the ratio principle of naval limitation was received with disappointment, but apparently little surprise, by official circles here. Neither State nor Naval Department officials commented publicly, but appar-, ently all hope has now been abandoned that the Naval Conference scheduled for this year will be held. On the other hand, it is expected that Britain will abide by the five, five, three ratio until December 31, 1937, the expiration date of the treaties of 1922 and 1930, so far as ratios arc concerned. To-day President Roosevelt held a conference with several advisers regarding foreign affairs, during which the international situation, witfi particular attention to how to maintain American neutrality in any conflict, is reported to have been discussed. Under the projected construction programme the American navy is expected to reach treaty strength in 1942, and it is unofficially indicated that the Government has no intention of going beyond that unless some other Power creates a definite issue by literally breaking down naval treaties. Renewed discussion on the efforts to ensure neutrality in any future war coincided with the attitude of rigid official silence toward Britain’s abandonment of naval ratios. It has been authoritatively learned that the discussion on the neutrality question touched upon the possibility of legisla-

tion designed to prevent the United States from becoming embroiled in foreign conflicts. Four Bills affecting United States interests in wartime are pending.

Mr Pittman, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, declared that Die statement by Sir Bolton EyrcsMonsell constituted the abandonment of the Washington Treaty. It is just another move in construing treaties as only scraps of paper.

Mr Tranmell, chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, however, expressed his belief that the British Government did not intend to open the season of naval building until 1937. American officials have pointed out that the United States has not insisted on con tinning the precise five, five, three ratio, hut lias advocated limitation of navies to equality of security, as opposed to the Japanese demand for equality of armaments.