BANKRUPTS AND BATTLESHIPS
By SIR ARCHIBALD HURD
ANEW race in naval armaments has begun in circum- stances which would move men to incredulous laughter in a normal world, in which respect was paid to economic considerations. As it is, this renewed com- petition is a matter rather for tears when regarded as a sequel to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, and as a prelude to next year's Naval Conference. For the countries which are taking the lead in this contest of tons and guns not only have deficits on their national budgets, but protest to the world that they are so poor that they cannot pay their acknowledged external debts, a legacy from the Great War. Germany, France and Italy are the three countries which have brought the " battleship holiday " to an end by starting to rebuild their battle fleets.
In order to appreciate the significance of the new situa- tion, it is necessary to glance back to the end of the Great War, when the British Admiralty declared that the submarine had been " mastered." It proposed, in the interests of humanity and economy, that the construc- tion of such vessels should be banned by international agreement. The suggestion was rejected at Washington almost with contempt. It was declared by the other delegates, in so many words, that the Germans had proved that, of all ships of war, submarines were so effective that no battleship could remain afloat for any length of time in the next war ; they were the chief weapon of the weaker Powers. Moreover, it was asked, " What is the good of having such slow moving ships, with vulnerable hulls, since the bombing aeroplane could sink them out of hand ? " So, although under the Washington Treaty of 1921, France and Italy had liberty to build such battle- ships as would enable them to maintain their ratio of 1.75, not a single keel was laid in either country. Atten- tion was concentrated on destroyers and submarines, vessels relying on the torpedo rather than the gun. France now has 73 destroyers, and 94 submarines, with 8 destroyers and 15 submarines building ; Italy has 94 destroyers and 43 submarines, and has 4 destroyers and 22 submarines building. (Flets. of the British Common- wealth of Nations and Foreign Countries, 1934.) In combination, these two Mediterranean Powers could place in commission at any time next year 353—say 300 —of these mosquito craft, while the number owned by the other Mediterranean Power, ourselves, will be 222 or, in round numbers 200, for service in all parts of the world.
Then a dramatic change occurred. When Germany surrendered to the Allies her subMarineS as well as all her surface craft, except six small an.4 out-of-date battle- ships and a few cruisers and destroyers, it was agreed that she might replace the battleships when they Were worn out with modern vessels. The only stipulation was that they should not exceed 10,000 tons each. It was assumed by " the torpedo fanatics " that Germany would not take advantage of this liberty, and for two reasons. In the first place, the intrepid German crews, it was said, had proved that the submarine was supreme, and, in the second place, Germany was in such economic distress that she could not, in any event, afford the luxury of new battleships. It came, therefore, as a shock to the French and Italian Admiralties when the Germans laid the keel of the first of four " pocket battleships " of 26 knots, far more costly, ton for ton, than any men-of-war ever built by the richest and most ambitious naval Power. The Germans by this action undermined the whole tech- nical basis on which the post-War policy of construction had rested in France and Italy. The whole situation had to be examined afresh.
In Cu course the naval authorities in Paris, came to the ccneusion that the French Navy must also have new battleships. Nor was that all. Since the German ships were of 10,000 tons, the French battleships must be larger, more heavily armed and armoured, and of much higher speed. So the ' Dunkerque ' was duly laid down, a vessel of 26,500 tons, with a speed of 30 knots. What was Italy to do ? As a matter of prestige, apart from all technical considerations, she also had to have modern battleships, otherwise France would have an advantage over her in the Mediterranean. France having replied to Germany, Italy in due course replied to France with a ship of 35,000 tons. In the competition in armaments it is an inflexible rule that each country must go one better than its neigh- bour.
In this way the " battleship holiday " has already come to an end, though the Naval Conference is still a long way ahead. Six modern battleships are built or building in Germany, France and Italy, and the problem of the design of other vessels of this type is occupying the minds of the other Admiralties of the world. The plea of the British naval delegates at the London Naval Conference, reaffirmed at Geneva, in favour of smaller and cheaper battleships—vessels of not more than 25,000 tons—has been ignored. It is as though it had never been made. Nor is there any indication that the bulk of the people of France and Italy object, any more than do those of Germany, to paying the price to be exacted of them. They are satisfied with the assurance that nothing is being done which contravenes the pro- visions of the Washington and London Treaties. For the rest, Frenchmen at any rate are gratified by the boast of their Minister of Marine, that with one capital ship building and another authorized; the French dele- gates at the coming Conference will have " all the trumps in their hands." Presumably the Italian dele- gates, in the knowledge that their country is pledged to lay down even larger battleships, will be supported by a confidence at least as well founded.
In these circumstances little, as far as battleships are concerned, is to be expected from the forthcoming Naval Conference. The controversy as to displace- ment has been closed. The Americans intend to begin ships of 35,000 tons and other Powers will certainly not lay down anything of smaller size and, therefore, of less fighting power. And though the British and American Governments will no doubt agree on preserving the conditions of parity established by the Washington Treaty, Japan has let it be known that she is dissatisfied with her present ratio ; France and Italy. now that they have entered on a battleship race, will stand out for a much higher ratio than they were given in 1921. So far as battleships are concerned, the principal Naval Powers are entering on a renewed com- petition in vessels of this type, each of which will cost. from £6,000,000 to £7,000.000 ; the pride of the British Navy in the early years of this century, the King Edward VII,' was built for less than £1,500,000. The struggle may be regulated to some extent, but it cannot be stopped. The pleas in favour of smaller and cheaper vessels, such as Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond and other naval officers have recom- mended, have been rejected. No nation would have been any the weaker at sea if some such displacement limit as was imposed on Germany had been generally adopted. That is the irony of the situation from the taxpayers' point of view. Any regulation of tonnage in their interests had to be of universal application to be effective, and, failing such agreement, there is obviously no alternative to the rebuilding of the battle fleets at a cost far exceeding any sum hitherto spent on naval armaments.
Previous page
