The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1909. GERMAN VIEW OF ENGLAND'S NAVY.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXIV, Issue 12734, 2 April 1909, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1909. GERMAN VIEW OF ENGLAND'S NAVY.

At the present moment, when one hears so much about the sea supremacy of Britain being threatened by Germany, it is a little reassuring to read that the opinions expressed by those occupying prominent official positions in the Fatherland are not all in disparagement of Britain. A German officer of high rank and distinction, vice-Admiral Sieg*el, writing in the Marine Rundshau, says that, as things stand, the freedom of the sea for the States cf Europe depends upon the English people's love of peace and the British Government's wisdom being strong enough to avoid misuse of this maritime strength and the oppression of the other maritime States. He* thinks that in Germany the prevailing opinion is that it would be a national misfortune if they were to be involved in a war with Britain. He goes on to say : "The English, personally, attract our sympathy. They are our kith and kin. We admire without envy their many great qualities and their success in the world. The most important commercial relations bind us to them, and innumerable Germans have found a competency in England and her colonies. The' interests of the two nations run parallel, and do not cross one another even though sometimes there is a tendency to unjust commercial jealousy." The Admiral's views of the relations between the two navies are expressed in terms which cannot cause ill feeling. He considers that the armies of the five Great Powers of the Continent are so nearly equal in strength that none of these States in case of war with another could be sure in advance of being victorious. The consequence of this equality is a balance or equilibrium between the Great .Powers, and this balance tends to be stable. But, says Admiral Siegel, there is no such balance on the eea. At sea England has such a preponderance that no other Power in the world can vie with her. The Admiral has a very high opinion of the British navy, both of its strength and its quality, an opinion which we sincerely hope is well grounded. He says that the thought that there is a Power on earth which is at any moment able to destroy any other "Navy, and so to cut off from the sea the country concerned, carries with it some anxiety. He suggests that if any of the Continental Armies had a similar preponderance over the others the Continent would feel it as an incubus. Then he makes the striking statement that the safety of the situation lies in Britain's love of peace. He points out that at the time of the last great series of wars there were combinations of neutral Powers to resist some of the claims of the British Navy in respect of its treatment oPneutral ships. But England was fighting for her existence and, as the event proved and the world eventually recognised, for the freedom of Europe. The theory that England's naval power was a danger to Europe was propounded by one or two German writers many years ago, but it found no echo, and Admiral Siegel suggests that it is doubtful whether it can now be revived and made acceptable to the other European Powersi He appears to think that Germany cannot build a fleet equal in strength to that of Great Britain, though recent statements made and comparative figures quoted by , the Home authorities would indicate .that -Admiral Siegel is arguing on false premised. He asks what strength the German ' Fleet should have, "and ' he suggests the standard of a force able to .prevent -the blockade of the German coast even by the strongest fleet in the world. He would resist blockade not by passive defence, but by a vigorous offensive. The Admiral's view of disarmament is concisely expressed. He sees no justification for an international agreement limiting naval armaments "unless and until the strongest Sea Power gives a secure guarantee that she will not use her superior strength fpr.the injury of weaker maritime Powers." That guarantee, we should imagine, has already been given, for where is the evidence tnat Britain has made any unjust or unrighteous use of her naval strength? We are inclined to think that a good many people will look upon Admiral Siegel's conclusions as a little specious pleading in justification for Germ in efforts at ascendency.