Evening star., 1932-10-09

- made 1t clear beyond question
that the British Government
i was resolved to reject the
Hoover Disarmament proposal
as it affected naval strength, and the
French as it concerned military effect
ives If and when the Disarmament
Conference reassembles, therefore, the
British representative will be found
urging reduction, not in the total OF
tonnage, but in the size and armament
Of units, while the French will present
some new statement of the old principle
that security must precede disarma-
ment. Beyond doubt, too, the British
and French will continue to work to-
gether as they have ever since the
launching of the Hoover proposal.
The British opposition to the Hoover
proposal rests. of course upon the
view of the admiralty, which has been
constant ever since the Washington
Conference and was largely responsible
for the failure of the Coolidge Con-
ference. At that meeting the British
asserted that the security of the En-
pire was dependent upon British pos
session of 70 cruisers with total ton
mage of 100000. This was the so-called
absolute" requirement. Since the
United States was unwilling to go above
100000 tons. the conference failed.
Up to Treaty Strength.
At London two years later. the Brit
ish admiralty. under Labor pressure,
had reduced its absolute" to something
like $40 900 tons and so ships. And
today the British feet is substantially
built up to treaty strength. The same
situation exists in the destroyer and
aircraft carrier categories. Thus the
Hoover proposal would involve the
scrapping of nearly 120 900 tons of
cruisers and some $4,000 tons of de-
stroyers. BY contrast, acceptance of
the limits of the London Conference
involved no sacrifice. because the fleet
was far below the figures claimed as
necessary at the Coolidge Conference.
But. whereas during the London Con-
ference a Labor government was in
power. today the Tories are in over
whelming majority in the House of
Commons and upon the Tories the in
And the admiralty now declares. as it
did at London. that national security
cannot be assured if there is any fur
ther reduction of the numbers of cruis-
ers and deStroyerS. In fact, for two
years the admiralty has been warning
the world that unless France and Italy
accepted the limitations of the London
Conference. the British would soon have
to invoke the "escalator clause" and ex-
ceed those limits themselves. And
such warnings have recently been re-
newed in the light of present German
demands.
The Hoover proposal also has pro-
voked very general. if so far uneX-
pressed, resentment in admiralty circles
because it seems, in the eyes of British
naval experts. one more attempt on
the part of the United States to acquire
parity without expense For, if the
Hoover program were carried out, the
United States would have to scrap
neither cruisers nor destroyers On the
contrary, it would still be below the
level of equality IN both categories.
U. S. Would Retain Tonnage.
As against 50 cruisers and $50 de-
stroyers in the British feet, the United
States today possesses 18 cruisers and
70 destroyers under age, that is, effec-
tive. 1t has seven cruisers and one
destroyer actually building. If the
Hoover proposal were carried out
while the British would have to scrap
100000 tons of cruisers and SO destroy
ers, the United States would retain all
Of its under-age cruisers and destroy
ers. The total of its cruiser tonnage
built and building would approximate
10000, as against approximately
225.oo0 for the British
The United States would thus attain
parity substantially without expense.
But while the British now are recon-
ciled to American parity. they still re-
main resolved not to sacrifice national
security to enable the United States to
obtain that parity without cost. And Sc
curity Of the British rests upon the two
power standard principle. In fact, in
the face of the German menace, dis
closed in the pocket battleship," even
the two-power standard, with France
and Italy designated as the possible
dangers, is beginning to seem made
quate.
AS long as the present Tory govern
ment lasts. reduction of the British
feet in accordance with the Hoover
proposal is, therefore, unthinkable. On
the other hand, the British now are
formulating a program of reduction
which envisages the reduction in the
size of battleships and cruisers and
thus saving by other means. Capital
ships are to be limited to $4,000 tons
instead of $4,000 as at present; cruis-
ers to $500 tons. instead of 10000.
Guns on capital ships are to be re-
stricted to 12-inch caliber, instead of
16. as today. and on cruisers to inches
instead of 8.
American Navy Firm.
Against these proposals, the General
Board OF the American Navy stands
firmly because. given the distance be-
tween American naval bases, capital
ships of large fuel capacity are essen
tlal, while only the larger cruiser can
similarly meet American requirements.
The battle over the and inch gun
was fought at Geneva and the Ameri-
can. like the British naval experts, re-
main mistaken. All of which is no
more than evidence that, while both
the British and the Americans are pre-
pared to reduce the costs OF their
navies, the problems of the two fleets
are so different that the programs for
economy are trreconcilable.
In any international meeting, how
ever. the British thesis will be backed
against the American by all European
naval powers and Japan as well. as for
all these countries the principle of
smaller and, therefore, less expensive
units is more appealing. For all, too,
the physical details are identical with
the British and not with the Ameri-
can. But the British thesis is unac-
ceptable TO the American Navy, be-
cause the smaller craft proposed can
not meet the American circumstances.
Between the British naval opinion
end the French military. the similarity
is striking. The British hold that a
fleet of so cruisers and $50 destroyers
Is essential to national security, the