The Washington times., 1915-05-12
THE TASK OF A NAVY

ropean and other waters, by way of
pointing out that there are two sides
to the question whether the British
navy has been properly handled.
Mr.. Winston Churchill has been
criticised because the British fleet
has failed to make proper provision
to protect merchant shipping. He
replies in the commons that the re-
sources of the naval power are not
such that it is possible to provide
conveys of destroyers for merchant
craft. In saying this, he adds that
it is not possible for him to say
why this is true, because to do so
would make public certain naval dis
positions and give useful informa-
tion to enemies.
In the circumstances, the answer
must be regarded as conclusive. 1t
would be gross improperly to
make public the detailed facts con-
corning British arrangements for
transporting troops across the Eng
lish channel. Without much doubt,
the admiralty is at this time CO.
operating closely with the army au-
thorities in moving men to the Con-
tinent. 1t is of the supremest i'm
portance that these movements
be made as secretly and
as safely as possible. Britain
would prefer that it's full naval po-
tentiality be utilized to prevent the
sinking of transports, rather than
that the whole scheme of naval dis
positions should be disorganized in
order to provide escorts for mer-
chant vessels. This is part of the
business of war.
From the beginning there has been
only one reported loss of any body
of British troops in the process of
moving them to the Continent. Half
a million and more, perhaps a mil
lion of men have been taken to
France and Belgium. Another mil
lion may yet be taken there. To ac-
complish this movement in safety is
the supreme duty of the cooper
ating military and naval powers at
this time.
Those who point out that the Brit
ish navy has accomplished no real
purpose in the war, fail to contrast
what it has achieved IN this regard,
with what the German navy has
done. Who can doubt that, if they
had dared or had been able, the
Germans would have dumped a
dozen army corps into Great
Britain months ago? That would
have been the very greatest accom-
plishment that Germany could have
registered. Early in the war, such
performance would almost GER
tainly have resulted in overrunning
England. 1t would have neutralized
her as a factor In the war. 1t
would have rendered utterly impos-
sible the effective utilization of any
element of British power on the side
of the allies. Money, men, naval
support, economic backing, would
all have been rendered impossible.
France would have had to defend
herself alone, and would not have
succeeded. 1t is not beyond the mark
to say that the.war would have been
over before now and Germany a
victor, if the power of the British
navy had not been able to accomplish
what it has done.
But this is only the beginning.
German shipping has been driven
from the seas. German foreign
commerce has been destroyed.
German capacity to draw on the
outside world has been wrecked.
Confidence in the ultimate sue
cess of German arms has suffered
everywhere because of the utter
elimination of the German element
in the affairs of the world outside
the war zone.
Do these things count for nothing
in the appraisal of the British naval
performance? Is it of no import
ance that Germany proclaims to the
world that England is starving it to
death, while hundreds of vessels en-
ter and leave the ports of the United
Kingdom every day? England is
still in business; it is maintaining
it's relations with the rest of the
world; it is able to feed it's people
to sail its ships, to bring needed sup
plies, both for civil and military
use. Germany can do none of these
things.
1t is true that, because they have
violated evsry rule of civilization
every provision of their treaties, ev-
cry convention of international law
the Germans have been able to sink
some unarmed merchantmen, to
murder some fishermen, 10 rouse
| the whole world IN hitter hatraa