NAVAL ARMAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 248, 18 September 1929, Page 7

NAVAL ARMAMENT

FRENCH PAPERS DISTURBED. MR MacDONALD’S MISSION. AN OLD BOGEY RAISED. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (United Service.) Received September 18, 10 a.m. PARIS, Sept. 17. _ The newspapers are disturbed in view of Mr MacDonald’s forthcoming conference with President Hoover. Some of the papers ventilate the fear that the negotiations will result in a formula that will bo presented Vo France, Italy and Japan in a take-it-or-leave-it spirit. The Intransigeant in particular dwells on this aspect. It raises the old bogey of Anglo-Saxons aiming at world-wide supremacy.

WAR DANGER NOT REMOVED.

EQUALITY NOT THE SOLUTION

NEWSPAPER COMMENT,

(Australian Press Association.) LONDON, Sept. 17. Most of the newspapers stress the fact that a naval agreement between Britain and America would not be effective in itself, but would be only preliminary to the Five-Power Conference. The result of the conference would be submitted to Parliament, which still has power to say “yea” or “nay.” The Morning Post states: “We are coming to an era resembling the refinements in tunnelling. That is to say, we do not agree not to fight. What we agree about is the length of rapiers and the calibre of pistols, so that if we go to war we start with a parity of armaments. A reflective mind will see that as equality of arms has not prevented or decided duels, so they will not prevent or decide war. What remains as a fundamental truth is that the danger of war is not removed by measuring weapons, but only by a conciliatory spirit—by plucking out from the heart of man those envies, hatreds, desires, needs and ambitions, which lie at the root of the trouble.” The Daily' Chronicle states: “Though agreement is not definite, we may regard disagreement as practically precluded.” The Daily News has no doubt that the outstanding differences can be settled before the Five-Power ConferenThe Daily Telegraph states: “The British Government cannot concede to America what she would otherwise be willing to yield, because the FivePower Conference may make decisions the effect of which would be to leave us dangerously weak in relation to other Powers.” . . It is a matter of inquiry as to whether the conference will deal with naval bases, including Singapore. It was stated to-day that the question had not hitherto been mentioned, nor was it likely to be a matter for discussion later.

BRITISH VIEWPOINT. FINAL REQUIREMENTS STATED. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, Sept. 16. The naval conference in January will give an opportunity for revising some parts of the agreement which has been the subject of conversations during recent months. It is emphasised that in any case the terms of such an agreement must be subject to the Five Powers Conference being in concurrence with it. Britain at present lias 58 cruisers built or building, and under the new proposals they will bo scaled down to 50 by 1936, which is taken as the standard year. In 1935 the situation Will be reviewed. The intervening years will give an opportunity for a peace experiment. If in 1935 it is found that such an experiment is not justified, that the hoped-for increase of the peace spirit has not materialised, and that the figures of 1929 do not give the necessary margin of safety, demands could be put forward for increases in 1936. If 'no ' change lias taken place in the meantime, naval strength could be continued on the 1929 basis. If on the other hand it is found that such figure is much too big, another reduction could he made. The absence of naval rivalry between Britain and America has contributed substantially to the success of the conversations which have recently been in progress. The British Board of Admiralty has never, either under the late Administration or under the present Government, taken America into account in devising its programme. Britain has certain responsibilities to bear, and the Board of Admiralty has always been bound to provide for certain possibilities—the situation that developed so rapidly in Palestine, for example. To meet these responsibilities a certain fleet standard was worked out. PARITY AND REDUCTION.

No objection was raised to America’s parity. In addition to parity America wanted to reduce expenditure and Britain also desired to reduce expenditure, but not below the point at which she could fulfil her responsibilities. The point was therefore reached for discussing how America and Britain could satisfy the two requirements—parity and reduction. In reviewing the situation it was at the outset agreed that the effort at disarmament must have a political foundation. Work was started therefore with the Kellogg Pact as the basis of any agreement readied. A survey showed that there were broadly three classes of warships to be considered:— (1) First-class battleships limited by the Washington Agreement of 19'? 1. (2) Cruisers divided into eight-inch gun cruisers of roughly 10.000 tons and six-inch gun cruisers whose tonnage has recently become recognised at ajsout 6500 tons. (3) Destroyers and submarines. It became clear during the negotiations that the settlement regarding destroyers must depend very largely upon what the other Powers built, but it was agreed that as between Britain and America in destroyers there should be eventual parity. As to submarines, it was found that America, like Britain, would welcome their elimination. The only difficulty throughout the conversations has been cruisers. An exploration of the problem was undertaken and tentative proposals were advanced by both sides.

Tho position now is that an exceedingly narrow margin remains upon which agreement has not yet been reached; The margin is involved in two factors:—

(1) Total cruiser tonnage. (2) The use that can be made of a margin of about 24,000 or 30,000 tons of vessels. In view of the narrowness of this margin, it is regarded as incredible there could bo a break. Britain has stated her final requirements at 50 cruisers, of which 15 are to carry eight-inch guns, with a total tonnage of 339,000. The United States proposals are for twenty-one cruisers carrying eight-inch guns and fifteen carrying six-inch guns—a total cf

315,000 tons. Britain would like the American eight-inch gun ciuisers reduced to eighteen and her total tonnage to 300,000 tons. The margin of difference is therefore three eight-inch gun cruisers, and the view held in authoritative British circles is that an agreement on that point does, not depend finally on the negotitaions between Britain and America.

WASHINGTON OFFICIALS RETICENT. SURPRISE CAUSED. (Australian Press Association.—United Service.) WASHINGTON, Sept. 16. Officials to-day declined to comment on the London statement embodying the British -viewpoint on the naval negotiations. To the many, however, who have been following the negotiations, some portions of the statement caused surprise, as they appear somewhat at variance with the information available here ; for instance, the statement that the United States proposal is for 15 six-incli gun cruisers in addition to 21 eight-inch gun cruisers. It is stated that the United States has 10 six-incli gun cniisers m commission. There is no public suggestion that it is voluntarily proposed to construct any more of that class, as it is contended that this type is not suited to American needs. The statement that the United States asked for 315,000 tons of cruisers is also a surprise, as the general understanding here is that the American Government proposed but 285,000 tons. , • . , L , The suggestion that there might be objection by some Powers to holding the conference in London has resulted in unofficial discussiops here, Brussels, The Hague, Prague, or any Swiss city other than Geneva being suggested-

NEW BRITISH CRUISER. (United Service.) Received September 18, 8.40 a.m. LONDON, Sept. 17. The new cruiser Shropshire, which has taken two and a-lialf years to construct and. lias cost £2,000,000, has arrived at Chatham, where it is being commissioned to join the first cruiser squadron of the Mediterranean station, consisting of the sister ships London, Sussex and Devonshire. MOTION AT GENEVA.

STIR AMONG CONSCRIPT COUNTRIES. (Australian Press Association.) GENEVA, Sept. 16.. : Some stir among conscript countries followed the circulation of Lord Hugh Cecil’s motion urging the Preparatory Disarmament Commission to consider the limitation of land, sea and aerial material and personnel, including the restriction of numbers and the period of training. . , This involves the thorny question ot trained reserves, which France does not welcome, as she thinks it entails going back on the previous British acceptance under protest, during the naval discussions between Britain and France, of the French view excluding reserves. Lord Hugh Cecil’s motion is designed to induce a fresh attempt to find a formula to approach land and air armaments by a similar yardstick to that in the case of the naval negotiations, between Britain and America.