SUBMARINE MENACE.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 30, Issue 60, 2 August 1918, Page 3

SUBMARINE MENACE.

STATEMENT BY SIR ERIC GEDDES.

THE MARGIN OF SAFETY,

LONDON, July 31

Sir Eric Geddes, First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the shipyards vote in the House of Commons, said that a year ago, owing to ruthless and unrestricted submarining, the Allies and neutrals were forced to contemplate the loss of 550,000 tons of shipping monthly. We had not been converted last quarter into a gain of 100,000 tons monthly. We had not been destroying submarines as fast as they were being built, and our shipyards had lacked men and material. Our ships had been sinking at a rate which would soon have brought us to the point of inability to continue the war. We were therefore compelled to embark on an increased programme of building anti-submarine craft and merchant ships. One hundred and fifty thousand men were now employed in the construction of war

vessels, and 120,000 in building merchant ships. Our success against the submarines foretold the final result. Britain had borne the principal burden in fighting the submarines, but the American programme was now beginning to arrive. When the flow of American destroyers and anti-submar-ine craft began it would become a formidable torrent, and would then enable Britain to devote greater effort to the replacement of merchant ships. The existing measures had reduced the menace, but considerable additions were required before we reached the necessary margin of safety. The national shipyards would ultimately be able to build a 10,000 ton ship each in five months, aggregating a hundred vessels a year. The British shipping situa- j tion would be unsatisfactory till I I iie building programme compen-' sated much more for losses. We i had lost 1,300,000 tons in the first six months of 1918, and bad built ' 700,000 tons. This was somewhat < depressing after the earlier an-, nouncement . that submarinings ’ were well in hand. He hoped that 1 the measures taken would largely I decrease this measure of loss, but it was a mistake to hope that the ' national shipyards could yet make 1 a great contribution. '