New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-08-20
Alarmists Discredited

"When | went to the Admiralty" said
Sir Eric Geddes the other day, Il thought
knew all about the deeds of the navy
hut l didn't. l have now seen the records
and reports-something that you cannot
put into the papers. Don't De iii
patient with the navy"
His appeal was plainly addressed to
those well-meaning but impulsive critics
whose nerves have been shaken by the
ravages of the submarines, who have
worried themselves into the CONVICTION
that the navy has constantly been nam
pered by timid or wrong-headed leaders,
and who long since came to the conciu-
sion that unless the whole system was
changed and the fleets placed under the
control of another "school of thought
for that is the current phrase-we should
infallibly be ruined.
The figures given out by Mr.. Lloyd
George last week must have proved as
great a surprise to these prophets OF DIS
aster as they did to all but those who,
like Sir Eric Geddes, have had access to
the records at the Admiralty. Not that
the true state of affairs is entirely salts
factory, or that the critics were uniformly
wide of the mark in their guesses. Inc
sinkings for April, the worst month, were
indeed already known approximately. 1t
was certain that in British vessels alone
the tonnage amounted to we'll over half
million-56O,O00 is the actual figure, as
given by Mr.. Lloyd George. But the re-
assuring circumstance is the remarkable
decline in the tonnage destroyed, to 32O'-
600 in June and to about $4,000 IN july
OF this the most Industrious critics OF the
Admiralty were apparently Ignorant, Tor
in their discussions of the problem they
commonly proceeded on the assumption
that little or nothing had been done to
reduce submarine losses in the last SIX
months.
If the figures given to the House OF
Commons are correct, most OF the estl-
mates hitherto have been grossly mac
curate. Only month ago Lord Beresford
and his estimate was by no means the
highest-told correspondent of The
New York Times" that since the first OF
February the total loss had been at the
rate of more than 100000 tons year.
By no stretch of imagination is 1t concelV-
able that the figure is as high as that,
though the most liberal allowance be
made for the losses of neutrals and Allles.
But if Lord Beresford exaggerated he
did good service in urging the publication
of the tonnage figures. The Admlraltys
method of announcing losses was never
enlightening enough to the public, and ne
ALWAYS held that there was nothing to be
gained by secrecy. Sir Edward Carson
was of the same opinion, and last year,
before he became First Lord, he pro-
tested strongly against the governments
ambiguous announcements. ut is all very
WE'LL" he said, ITO hide away the sub
marine menace in the corners Of news
papers. 1t can do us no good shutting
our eyes to the fact that we are really not
telling the Germans anything they do not
know. They know perfectly well, and no
small print in the corner Of newspaper
will make any difference"
Nevertheless, in the matter of tonnage
secrecy was maintained more or less
steadily, the result being that the widest
estimates were offered from time to time
on the strength of such evidence as was
available to the public. And it must be
admitted that there was no indication in
the evidence of the great decline an
nounced by Mr.. Lloyd George; indeed,
considering the official weekly returns of
the last six months, it is difficult to ac-
count for an improvement so marked. 1t
has long been apparent that the German
forecast had not been fulfilled, but we
had little reason TO believe that so much
progress had been made in the protection
Of commerce.
On the other hand, there was never any
good reason TO credit the worst predic-
tions OF the criers of disaster. If they
were 10 be believed, the men responsible
for the conduct Of affairs at sea were with
cut courage, without initiative and with
cut originality. We were told that they
Fad done virtually nothing and there was
no hope that they ever would do anything,
because they belonged TO the wrong
"school of thought" The great changes
at the Admiralty did not satisfy these
critics, because the First Sea Lord did not
belong 10 what they conceived TO be the
right school Of thought. He had, indeed,
urgently encouraged every officer OF the
feet TO offer suggestions for fighting the
submarine; an anti-submarine depart
roent had been established in which the
most experienced officers gave up their
whole time 70 devising means 10 overcome
the menace; there was the Board Of In
yentlons and Research, too, board com