Evening star., 1922-02-01
of BY of Naval armament Sur

the preceding page: For our enc
least they thought so, the new en-
gine. the technical and material up
settirg, that was going to make every
old teaching. obsolete
More than that. the very title of
the article leaves no doubt as to
its purport. For it's complete form,
which had not been quoted. reads:
'Synthesis of submarine warfare
characteristics of the German sub
marine warfare. If, therefore. one
wants, on account of those lines %:
Commander CasteX, to be anxious
about something. it must be about the
German enemies and not the French
friends of Great Britain.
Thinks French, View Clear.
Third, Capt. Castex has been repre-
sented as approving of the infamous
am at loss to understand how this
may have been stated since the
French officer formally. clearly,
peremptorily expressed himself to the
reverse. After having said that the
fact that they used the submarine
could not be blamed as such on the
Germans. he adds: The only reproach
that can be set up against them is
to have too frequently and in too
many particular cases. smeared their
flag by conducting submarine war
fare with barbarity and with an ag-
gravation of odiouS acts. \ useless
besides. and stupid cruelty. for it
served in no way the purposes OF
the war and because, in the end, 1t
turned against their own interest by
raising against them the unanimous
condemnation of the conscience of the
nj k,f fl,a
Am l not entitled to maintain thai
Commander Castex was not only not
approving of these German ways and
means, but expressly condemned
them.
"Fourth. it has also been said that
Commander caSteX was probably
teaching the theories thus attributed
to him in the French naval schools:
and it has been said in such unklnd
and cruel words that my heart is
still bleeding at the thought OF them.
Which words We're as foi'o"s:
".Now this officer, who is appointed
Driucipal lecturer to the senior ofil-
GERS course, will. no doubt, unless
change of policy takes place. pe
pouring what We regard as inns m
fanny and this poison into the ears
of the serving officers of the frehch
navy
Two-foId Answer to Charge
"The answer to this is two-loi9
and simple enough. There is no neeu
Castey cannot teach what has peeh
called that infamy, first. because ne
detests it: second, because ms course
of lecturing has nothing to do win
submarines; the subject OF ms les
sons is the organization OF the seh
eral staff. .. ,
"The subject is so grave that l
want to let YOU know what is actu
ally taught in French naval schoolS
as to the submarine and the 'ierihah
way of using it. The following eN
tract will enlighten YOU;
1.-The submarine weapon mas turheu
round against the TaVing maniacs
who employed it. and Germany's mis-
fortune came not only from the de-
feat of her land armies. but III a very
large measure from the !ncompFe-
hension of those who, i'll her camp
have ordered 1t.
in the form which has been given
it by the Germans. That the Ger
mans may have considered the most
solemn engagements as scraps OF pa :
per. that is their business. But II
does not behoove Frenchmen to 1ol-
low such shameful examples. Inc
life of human societies, IKE ina. 81
men, rests on good faith, ana the
French have too often shown othtr
peoples how loyal one should be 10
give up now, under the effect OF sur
prise caused by the submarine war.
give up what has been their glory
in the past and may be again. l am
persuaded, their force in the future.
at has been said that the article
of Can't. CasteX was we'll known to
the British naval staff. May l eN-
press regret that such lessons as are
being given by Capt. Laurent, the
author of the passage L have just
quoted and whose course of lectures
has for it's subject naval strategy,
remain unknown The
lesson 1 quoted cannot be supposed
to have had anything to do with the
present discussion. for it was taught
on June 1. 1920. and appears in Com
mander Laurents printed text, VOL
ume II. page 101.
Denies .sInfamy" Is Taught.
Il am justified. 1 believe. to say. as
conclude, that neither the infamy
Castex nor any other is taught nor
ever shall be taught in any of those
French naval schools from whence
came the comrades of war that have
fallen of late by the side of American
and British officers and those OF the
other allied nations: nothing OF the
kind has ever been taught nor shall
ever be.
Il beg to add one word. In the ses-
sion of the 23d of December the chief
of the British delegation, to whom
am bound by a friendship so ancient
that people have been born since We
began to know each other, people
who have had time to grow up and
cover themselves with glory in the
course of the last war, mentioned
that Great Britain alone was sufti-
GENTLY equipped in order to compete
with submarine warfare, thanks to
her gallant coast population, her
fishermen, so expert IN everything
that concerns life at sea. and he said
that Great Britain had used 1876
submar rine destroyers, to the immense
of France. who had only
257, and should ever the necessity
again arise, Great Britain would nave
to protect France again. On this
point I collected information and
found that at the beginning of the
war; all who could bear a rifle We're
of our sailors and fishermen are now
sleeping their last sleep. not in the
sea or along the coast, but in the
trenches. facing no<.l. facing east,
facing Belgium and Alsace.
"When the pitiless submarine war
was started by Germany we set to
work and did our best to face this
new danger, helping ourselves and
the common cause. We are still
filled with admiral ation for her sailors.
All the world knows of our admira
ton for EnglandS brave sailors, gal
liant and heroic at home, on the sea,
the model of all nations. Our popu-
lation, however, our Bretons. Nor
mans Gascons and provencals, did,
too, from common testimony, cred
itably well and they manned. in the
perilous waters of western or south
ern Europe, not 257 ships, but over
1900.
"Our British friends, who live in
country of fair play, whilst we live
in a country of the franc jeu,' will