The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-03-24
Did Mere Luck Win the War?

If Admiral Slime is right" says the
Detroit Free Press (Ind), mot even
the war department, with all its blum
dering was as slow about utilizing its
resources as was the navy department"
1t had been assumed that the navys
part in winning the war was accom-
plished with efficiency and dispatch I'M
til the charges of Admiral Sims burst
on the country like 14-inch shell, and
started people wondering whether the
war was won in spite Of the navy
rather than because of it.
But Germany was beaten, anyhow"
Mr. Average American is likely to say
why not. be satisfied with that? Why
try to unearth scandals?" To this the
Pittsburgh Press (Ind.) replies:
We are not so secure from the pos
sibility Of future war but that it is the
part of prudence to understand just
adopt precautions to prevent a repeti-
ton of the blunders OF which Admiral
Sims complains"
The substance of the admiras's COM
plant is that the navy department tried
to direct the strategy Of the campaign
from Washington, and that instead of
cooperating with the allies in a COM
mon plan against the enemy, it pur-
sued an individual plan of its own.
His three basic charges" according
to the Chicago Daily News (Ind.), are:
That during the early period of the
war the navy department violated fun
damental principles Of warfare and
thus caused needless and costly pro-
longation Of the fighting; that the pol
icies of the department during the last
half of the war were identical with
those recommended by him and reject
| ed during the first six months and that
| the department either did not have
L a Mans Whnn
| the war, or else did not make use Of
! them in timely manner"
| "A painful picture of confusion and
delay" the News comments, end the
Seattle Times Qnd.) puts emphasis on
the admiral's opinion that these con
ditions cost half million lives, SIS,
600, 000,0 900 in treasure and $500 900 ton:
| of shipping" The San Antonio Light
Qnd.) thinks all this sounds bad fol-
| Daniels" and 1t points especially t
the original policy of the secretary, II
| keeping our warships in home waters
because of the submarine menace
| whereas:
"The department should have under
stood enough of naval strategy to know
that the damage they could inflict OF
| this side of the ocean was negligible
compared with what they could do OF
the other side, and that the best wa!
to keep them from our coast was t
puSll lOlS OllSllolN'
against them that they would hav
been obliged to remain on the othe
side of the Atlantic"
And it turned out" adds the Buff
falo Express (Rep.), that after W.
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 tele
gram to Sims, saying that "the flu
ture position Of the United tSates mus
in no way be jeopardized by any dis
Indignation of our main fighting fleet,
and 1t thinks this BOLDLY indicates tina
instead of cooperating whole heart
edly for thu prompt defeat of a com
mon enemy, we were to conserve on
main fighting fleet intact for post bel
lum conditions" I'm this" thinks tn
Tacoma News Tribune Gnd.), 9Th
navy's head seemed to fear the Eng
fish navy as pluSh as he feared Ger
many WF
However, as the Cleveland Plat
Dealer (Ind. Dem.) remarks, we Shout
hear the other side before finally con
demning the one department of tn
government reputed ready for the Ger
man peril in 1917
Admiral Sims judges the navy b
its failure to reach a standard whc
was in fact unattainable," says tn
Springfield Republican Qnd.), and ''al