THE GERMAN NAVAL CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13940, 28 June 1909, Page 7

THE GERMAN NAVAL CASE.

The '"Contemporary .Review" for Apt-it ptinioiie-, tviiai its »>nter u*:"•i*s i«» :t "Iruiiii; ullt.spoKeil letter " written for i-iits piirxiu.su of euaoling ".ur Junu jjull" lu uio puun. of view 01 tuc German £jubuc. .lue c-iiae lor Germany is put urieny tittis: —nitu our woriu-wiae commerce, our jiitanc colonies, ana our immense mercantile marine, your example, your preceipt, ana yuur practice tuugUo us iiiat it was impossible, to uo without a. navy altogether. \et lor such * policy tnere* is something to be saia. Ait lor a wean navy tuere is riothJur, to b© saia. It would invite attach, and be a. constant temptation to in enemy. When a lion-tamer puts\his head within the jaws of a iiou le acts as we should have done had wt created a fleet winch you could have snapped up as a toothache morbct betofe breakfast.

Of one thing 1 can assure you: we are not -luilding our fleet with any <iesigu of attacKing you. \\& are buituing it because we are afraid that you may seme day attack us, and that the weakness of our fleet may encourage yot to destroy our ships and sweep our commerce from tne seas. IViy deir Mr Bull, you are a pirate, and the son of a pirate, and the nation whicl attacked Copenhagen in 1807 nekl not be surprised is we should not be quite sure that Kiel might not tempt you in 1909. But for this I am not blaming you. Indeed, to some oi, us your ability to resist the temptathn to attack our nascent fleet is much more amazing that would be the bonbardment of Kiel before breakfast.

All nations are at times in positions when war even aggressive, treacherous, piratical wai—seems to them the highest morality. Your action at Copenhagen a hmdred years ago was defended at the time as a necessary act of self-presemtion. If yon had not seized the Danish fleet, Napoleon would have competed the Danes to use it against yoa. A similar policy of anticipating I attack has been the basis of German" policy since the days of Frederick the tfreat. And as we are unable to accep\ the theory that you are more angelic Shan ourselves, we fear that w*e must hirry up our naval defences, if only to yevent you from doing to us what, if we were in your place, we should, «n the principles of Frederick the Grea-., most certainly do to you. When the Boer "War broke out the British Empire embarked with the utmust enthusiasm upon a war of annexation in South Africa; then we knew that our worst forebodings were justified. The old grey wolf of the Northern Seas had reappeared ruthless and hungry as in the days of the Vikings. It was not long before an outrage -on the German flag warned us of what the Kaiser called our '' bitter need of a strong German navy." From that moment the die was cast. We dare hesitate no longer. The England of Gladstone had disappeared. We were face to face with the England of Mr Chamberlain.

Quoting the preamble to the German Navy Bill of 1900, the writer says:— Surely there never was inserted in nn Act of Parliament so extraordinarily frank a declaration to a Neighbouring Power as to the aim and object of our naval preparations. In plain set terms we told you that, as you were, capable of making the\ Boer war, we considered it necessary, as a legitimate act of self-protection, to build a sufficient number of ships to jeopardise your security if you attacked us and to weaken your supremacy even if you gained a victory. There is not the slightest attempt to evade the fact that we are building against you. The fact thai you were the objective and that your policy was the -justification, of our shipbuilding programme was defiantly, almost blatantly, proclaimed in" the hearing of all the world. The menace to Tariff Reform and the National Servic* League spurred Germany to quicken her pace:—An England pacific, Gladstonian, free trading, relying upon voluntary service for her armed force such an England may have as large a fleet as she without exciting any alaTm. But an England that is aggressive, protectionist, armed to the teeth by conscription, is another proposition altogether. Against the latter England we must, ii self-defence, push on our naval defensive forces with the utmost rapidity. AVe are accused of an act of moral j treachery which would justify armed | reprisals' because we took advantage J of the cheapness of materials last auI tumn, and the Hearth of employment i to lay down two of our 1909 Dread- | noughts. in 1905, and to accumulate | materials for fie second pair in advance of what we intended. But I there was no intention on our part j to hurry up tie construction of these i ships, nor did we intend to lay down four more ships this year. . "What we shall do low depends upon the extent to wlich your agitators succeed in inflatiiug public sentiment in both nations. The letter concludes as follows: — You are now going to build two keels to our one. Of that I make no complaint. I rather welcome it as a recognitioi on your part that the four-to-one preponderance of the status quo carnot be maintained. It is impossible for you to avoid scattering your battleships over your foreign statiors. AVe" keep ours at home. Hence, with an ally. Germany will ilways have a fair hVhtins chance against a two-to-one British Navy. And with that, believe me, wo -shall h> well contend. For we do not oliject to your superiority at sea. TViiafc we cannot tolerate is -an ascenebnev so great as to place thp whole of onr oversea commerce, our colonies, and our navy at your disposal.