New-York tribune., 1917-07-21
Aggression at Sea

Il is no wonder that the general reader
can make neither head nor tail of the con-
ditions at sea. One day he IS told that
there is growing dissatisfaction in Ger
manv at the results of the submarine cam
paign; next day he hears that the damage
done has far exceeded the expectations OF
the most sanguine. He is assured by one
who is supposed to be well informed that
the submarine has proved as great tall-
pre- as the Zeppelin, while another no less
knowing warns him that unless something
unforeseen happens Germany is sure to
win the war in six months.
Figures are produced showing conclu-
siyely that since the intensified war began
tonnage has been so reduced that we shall
be lucky if we survive six weeks, and at
the same moment we are invited to give
due consideration to another set of figures
cutting the estimate of losses in half. No
wonder popular feeling has wavered for
three months between despair and blind
optimism and that now the common IN
clination is to adopt merely expectant
attitude.
One or two facts seem, indeed, to be
pretty well established. The first is that
the submarine situation is not well IN
hand" as some enthusiasts assured US 1t
was many months ago. Another is that
the latest estimate, putting the losses at
1900 900 tons month, is absurd. No one
believes that they amount to anything like
that except persons like Ridder, whose
eager desire to see US worsted IN the war
fathers all his thoughts and convictions
and leads him on this occasion to accept
the estimate as true because it was passed
by the British censor.
II may be recalled that early IN May
the Secretary of the Interior made the
surprising statement that in single week
the Germans had destroyed 100000 tons
of shipping, adding with evident justice
that "if this keeps up for any length OF
time it will lay England and France pros
trate." The figure he quoted represented
inst the rate now put forward by the Lon
don correspondent of "The New YORK
Times" as the average; but, supposing
it to be correct, it must be remembered
that the week in question was an excep-
tionally bad one. The German Minister
of the Interior estimated the tonnage de-
stroyed in the first two months OF the un-
restricted war on commerce at the very
figure now offered as the regular monthly
loss. Herr Helfferich on that occasion
probably INDUCED in little guessing, and
a guess is doubtless what we have 10 90
with ON this occasion, too. Happily, in the
opinion Of the most competent judges, It is
bad guess.
The more moderate estimates of those
who have carefully analyzed such figures
as are procurable are disquieting enough
Mr.. Pollen is satisfied that unless the war
can be won before the February after next
Germany will triumph, and he is still In
clined to put the case in the form OF
question: Can the army win before the
navy is beaten? AS might be supposed,
however, there is a general and increasing
demand that the navy should do something
too, though it cannot be said that discus
sion on this point is always very clear.
Mr.. Winston Churchill, who formerly
\ taught US that it was quite unnecessary to
beat the German feet, is now all for ag-
gression-for digging out the rats, in fact
according to his original programme
There seems to be some misunderstanding
in this matter, which ought TO be cleared
up. Mr.. Churchilps new mood has SO
taken the fancy of some of his readers
that even "The Spectator" with few
compliments to our navy, undertakes to
define "the part the press can play" as
follows at can help TO create, and then
offer TO the Admiralty, a state Of public
opinion which would be incapable of cow
ering il the navy should be called upon
10 endure losses comparable with those OF
the armies in the field"
That is very well in general sense, but
it may be allowable to point out that Mr.
Churchil's conceptions are by no means
shared by all, even of those who are salts
fed that aggression is necessary Mr.
Churchill is evidently still thinking of the
Dardanelles and Of the fuss that was made
over the loss of few old ships. He is still
talking Of the vast preponderance of guns
in the British fleet and Of the many obso-
lete or obsolescent battleships now going
10 waste. He seems 10 be itching 70 turn
these 10 account in some way or other.
The only thing that need be said Of this
at present is that it is proposal which
does not commend itself 20 all who are dis
satisfied with the relative passiyity Of the
British at sea. In short, it is one thing 10
advocate offensive measures and quite an
other 10 propose an attack with the fleets
now at the disposal tof the Allies. No