Martinsburg W Va evening journal. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1913-1920, 1920-03-22
DID M ERE LUCK
WIN THE WAR?

III Admiral Sims is right" says the
Detroit Free Press Qnd), not even
the war department with all its blum
dering was as slow about utilizing its
resources as was the navy depart
ment." 1t had been assumed that the
Nays part in winning the war was
accomplished with efficiency and dis,
patch until the charges of Admiral
Sims burst on the country like ID.
inch shell and started people wonder
ing whether the war was won iii spite
. of the Navy rather than because OF
1t.
But Germany was beaten any
how" Mr.. Average American is like
~ to say. why not be satisfied
with that? Why try to unearth sean
dals?" To this the Pittsburgh Press
Qnd) replies:
I'VE are not so secure from the
possibility of future war but that it
is the part OF prudence to understand
just where we fell short this time
i, and adopt precautions to prevent a
repetition OF the blunders of which
Admiral Sims complains"
The substance of the Admirals
complaint is that the Navy Depart
ment tried to direct the strategy of
the campaign from Washington, and
that instead of cooperating with the
Allies in common plan against the
enemy it pursued an Individual plan
OF its own. His three basic charges"
according to the Chicago Daily News
Undo, are:
THAT during the early period of
the war the navy department violat-
ed fundamental principles OF warfare
and thus caused needless and costly
prolongation of the fighting; that the
policies of the department during the
last half Of the war were Identical
with those recommended by him and
rejected dining the first six months
and that 3e department either did
not have suitable plans when the ma
ton entered the war or else did not
make use OF them in a timely man.
ner."
A painful picture OF confusion and
delay" the News comments, and the
Seattle Times Qnd) puts emphasis
on the Admiral's opinion that these
conditions cost half a million lives,
SIS, 1000 100000 in treasure and $780,
600 tons of shipping" The San Anto-
MO Light Qnd) thinks all this
sounds bad for Daniels" and it
points especially to the original pol
icy Of the Secretary in keeping our
warships in home waters because of
the submarine menace, wher
1.-THE department should have I'M
hnrSrAnd nOnuph IF naroI OF .af .,.,- ~
know that the damage they could in
fiict on this side OF the ocean was
negligible compared with what they
could do on the other side. and that
the best way to keep them from our
coast was to conduct such a forcible
offensive against them that they
would have been obliged to remain
on the other side OF the Atlantic
"And 1t turned out" adds the Buff
falo Express (RepO, that after We
sent our patrol boats to those Euro.
pean waters. we had no more trouble
from submarines off our own coast
The New York Tribune (Rep). how
ever, calls attention to a Daniels
telegram TO Sims, saying that "the
future position of the United States
must in no way be jeopardized by
any disintegration of our main fight
ing feet" and il thinks this boldly
indicates that, instead of cooperating
Fundamentally for the prompt de
toat of common enemy, we were L
conserve our main fighting fleet in
tart for nOstbellum conditions" III
this, thinks the Tacoma News.Trib
uno lnde. "the navy's head seemed