New-York tribune., 1921-12-03
America Firm
I'm Stand for
Sub111ersibles
Delegation Will Back Up
Naval Advisers Decision,
Says Simonds, Despite
the Position of British
Vital Arm of Defense
France and Italy Will Sup
port u. S. Attitude in
Discussion Before Farley
By Frank RI. Simonds


can delegation will stand firm behind
the opinions of their naval advisers in
the matter Of the submarines. This
means that a campaign against this
necessary and even vital weapon in the
armory of American defense has broken
down. Further than this, the United
States will be solidly supported in the
present conference by the Italian and
French representatives This can only
mean that the program proposed by
Mr. Hughes on the opening day of the
conference with respect Of submarines
will stand.
The battle over the submarines has
attracted little general attention, or
more exactly, little understanding in
terest, because it has been necessarily
subordinated to larger issues and more
exciting differences of opinion. Yet it
has been true that while the Japanese
were endeavoring to modify the naval
ratio to their own advantage, the Brit
ish were similarly striving to break
personal reasons.
Of course the real question at issue
is simply whether the submarine is a
vital detail in our defense. This ques-
tion has been answered in the affirma-
tive by our naval authorities. Their
opinion was adopted by Mr.. Hughes in
the speech with which he opened the
conference. 1t remains the sober judg-
'ment of those responsible for the de-
tense of American shores and shipping
that the surrender of the submarine
would be v-ry grave weakening OF
American security.
Cause of British Opposition
But unhappily the real question has
been little discussed. Very skillfully'
in the opening session, Mr. Balfour
shifted the ground of the debate and
assaled the use of the submarine on
humanitarian grounds. Now it is easy
to understand the British point Of view
and simple justice to concede the right
of the British to strive for the elimi-
nation of this form of craft, for any
one familiar with the history of the
World War knows that the German
submarine brought the British nation
within few steps of starvation and
thus of surrender, with all that such
surrender would have meant for an
alliance dependent upon the British
fleet for safety.
The existence of submarines is q
menace to British security. To obtain
ban upon them would be to complete
the achievement which was begun when
the German feet was abolished. What
Britain needs is as large a feet as pos
sible of swift cruisers to guard her far
flung lines Of communication, but in
her scheme of naval defense, or, for
that matter, offense, the submarine
plays no part. 1t is, then, for quite
practical but wholly reasonable consld-
crations that the British seek to chm
mate the undersea craft.
Practical Side Overlooked
With characteristic skill however,
the British have carried tie discussi on
from the field Of naval interest to that
of humanitarian considerations. In do
ing this, to the intense apprehension of
those responsible for American defense,
they have succeeded in enlisting the
support of American newspapers, which
have seen only the humanitarian and
totally overlooked the practical side of
the question. Thus, for certain time
there has been division of American
opinion.
been at least partially removed. A
solid front will be opposed to British
proposals in the conference itself, and
the decisive step has been taken by
that advisory committee which has just
made its report to the American dele
cation, and in this report has emphati
cally declared for the retention of the
submarine however the use may be cir
cumscribed in the interests Of human
lty and without real menace to national
security. For, after all, as has been
so often pointed out, it is the abuse,
not the use, of the submarine which
has earned it worldwide condemnation.
Obvious Menace for Britain
But the real problem as to the sub
marine has not arisen from British
concern over the American submarine,
but out of the fact rnat if submarines
are not placed under ban they will
unquestionably be employed not only
by the United States but by France
and Italy. Indeed, we have had from
M. BRAND the frank statement that
France meant to build submarines and
| have been informed recently and Of
fcialy that the Italians hold the same
view.
Submarine fleets in the hands of the
IcHCH anu lldlIaTD, however,, nave an
obvious menace for Britain. In case of
war with one or both Of these nations,
the British sea lanes through the
Mediterranean, when are the life
lines of the British Empire in the Near
and Far East, would be promptly cut,
French bases in North Africa and
Italian in Sicily and the mainland
would offer points of departure Of the
deadly craft, and Egypt and other Brit
lsh Mediterranean holdings would be
isolated. In addition, the French coast
facing Britain would offer innumer-
able bases for similar attacks, bases
far more advantageous than the Ger
man at Zeebrugge, which were so
troublesome during the World War.
Government View Indorsed
Even limitation of the number of
submarines would not accomplish
British purposes, because, as the case
of Germany showed, once war came
construction could be swift. Thus
British safety from the naval point of
view depends rather upon success in
procuring the abolition of the sub
marine than in obtaining the reduction
of the allowances made to various
countries. This explains Mr.. Balfour's
original stand and it also explains the
unmistakable. British effort to have
the OiIasti0n rrCocboJ