Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1919-02-09
GREAT BRITAIN UNEASY
OVER NAVAL PROGRAM
Famous English Expert Discusses
Plans Made by the United
States.
PEACE.TNIE ESTIMATES CITED
Apparently Questions Loyalty Of Ma
ton That Stood Between Civilized
World and Autocracy During Re
cent Gigantic Struggle.
by II. &. FEi,HABY,
Enn0ms british NnNnl Exncrt.

naval construction and spent some ST.
OOo,000.000 in 1920.
Tho peace-time estimates OF the Brit
ish navy were $3.50, 900. 900, little more
than a quarter OF that sum.
The personnel OF the United States
Navy viii be maintained for some time
TO come at 100000
The peace-t!me strength Of the per-
sonnet OF the British navy was 49,
600.
Can you wonder that the British
people are saying to themselves. What
does it all mean? Is 1t a challenger"
II seems incredible TO them that the
navy that worked side by side with
the British SO loyalty and so modcstly
for eighteen hard months, the navy
that, through It's leaders, has so often
avowed that IT was the British feet
that stood between the civilized world
and damnntioM seeks now TO round on
It's blood brothers and set Up race
Tor naval supremacy.
Nevertheless there is uneasinrss. and
as one who knows Britain through and
through and has also some under
standing OF naval matters ] would urge
me United states authorities and pub
hclsts to clear up the position by
straight and definite statement OF
policy.
GIVES REASON ron THE
1t should not be difficult to do. All
students of naval warfare see quite
clearly the difficulty which confrnn,s
the United States. Britains strategicaI
position Is svch that she can always
concentrate her sea forces in a danger
area In time 70 deal with any pot.n-
IA enemy Ten years ago she was
able, thanks to dipfomatio develop
nents. to abandon her time honored
policy Of n strong Mediterranean fleet
ana 70 concentrate In the North Sea
"a al 1-t.a E-F,ff
IS not in that happy stratcglcal posi-
ton. II the United States propose TO
be great power the Ameris::,n navy
must be strong enough tothoid two
seas al once II neceasary--the Atlantic
and the Pacific. The PannHin Canal
would be OF immense value in permit
lantic and Pacific squadrens IN either
ocean IL only danger had to be
guarded against. but it would be OF
both seaboards. I,
This Is position that is elementary
in diplomacy. building 10 what | MAJ
perhaps call the two-ocean standard.
the United states runs the risk OF
,.G;iS1 SiuisIhp.c!oh' aisiike-and com
w-ecKine at The OUTSET a,,t I the F' wSo Is
scheme o, the league OF nations / viii
on this mater ana say mai Know
that the British people will never allow
any other nation whatsoever 10 over
bul!d II IN naval power. ] will 20 fur
iher. and recall! 10 my American read
eIs TACT that is sometimes los, sight
OF in both countries
NEVER CONSIDERED L. 6.
NAVY a GREAT POWER
In the days OF the naval armament
scramble before the war in the days
when the British naval strength was
always measured by the two power
standard: the United States Navy vas
never taken into account by the Bit
ish authorities.
That was not because 1. was peplJ,,
ible. Far from 1t. 1t was because The
british naval authorities and the Bril-
that the United states Navy was not
to be counted as potential enemy.
need hardly emphasize The i'm
mense Importance of that feeling OF
trust and good viii.
Is IL all TO be wrecked now, at The
very moment when most /, is needed
as a solid rock on which to law The
foundations OF the league of nations?
do noi think that is the Intention
ish people.
MISUNDERSTANDING SOURCE
OF DANGER, SAYS WRITER
There Is then misunders tand;ng-
tnat most dangerous Of international
complications. 1t Is misun.ierstand-
ing ma, mat would easily yield to plain
political rhodomontade. but frank.
business talk between those resnon,
S'p The io leo tne poffey in both countries
success upon the excrtion of pressure,
moral and physical, upon any nation
mat IS tempted 20 run amuck 1t has
been shown in the past four wears ne
never before, that the one form of
pnysicaI pressure that can be exerted-
upon an entire nation and not only
upon the armed forces of that natjon
Is sea poWer-eNpressed in terms Of
blockade. The allies brought Greece
very q"lckiy TO reason when her mis-
GUIDED government was bribcd by tho
Germans in 1916. The United States
nave twice brought other neutral ma
lions into line by the mere threat of a
cutting OIL OF sea-borne supplies in the
past eighteen months. Modern life is
SO much more complex than il was in
the days when blockade first became
recognized feature of International
law that it is impossible to say Of any
country that 1t is really self-support-
ing. 1t depends on sea-borne con-
merce FOR It's wealth, if not for its
very daily bread.
POWER OF BLOCKADE
EFFECTUAL WEAPON
This power. of blockade under a
the naval forces of the majority
against the recalcitrant minority Is
there not here the basis for COM
plete understanding on the subject OF
%warship building between Britain and
the United States? The latter is de-
termined to hold her legitimate place
wealth makes it possible for her even
TO aim at predominant position, but
decline. as do most Englishmcn. to
believe that she has any such ambi-
ton. Britain has nothing to fear from
the league, because it is not her ma
ture to run amuck. Her sole cause for
apprehension is lest she should be
overpowercd by any one other nation
on the sea. Britain in sea warfare
stands alone. She is pre- emincntly the
mistress OF the art of naval warfare,
and she trusts 10 herself and to no
alliance to defend her.
Have 7 made II clear to what end
am working? The thing needed 10 re-
move all possibility OF misunderstand-
ing between the two great English
speaking powers Is n working agree
ment as to tho share OF sea power to
he eSerted by each of them in the
league OF nations. In what proportion
the task should he divided | make no
attempt 10 suggest, but such an agree
ment Is n task TO which the leaders OF
both nations arc called urgently and
painstakingly to turn their attention.
Copyright, 1879