"PLEASE, MAY WE SHARE THE OCEAN?"
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sut,—You may perhaps like to contrast the following extracts (from an editorial in the American Outlook) under the above heading, with your article, "Two Voices from America," in your issue of December 25th, 1926 :—
"At the conclusion of the War the 'United States was in a position to outbuild the navies of every nation in the world. It could have wrested the control of the seas from Great Britain without causing American taxpayers the lose of a night's sleep. Instead of pro- ceeding with its program of construction, it called upon the navel Powers of the world to gather at Washington. In effect, the American Government said : This contest for naval superiority ought not to go on. While the United States is in a position to outbuild all of you together, it recognizes the fact that such a course would lead to tremendous burdens upon your peoples which they ought not to be asked to bear. Let's call a halt to this race and settle upon a ratio of power which will be fair to all concerned. That this may be accomplished, we are willing to scrap hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of naval vessels.' As our readers will remember, the limitations were placed solely upon ships of over 10,000 tons. No settlement was proposed or reached in regard to vessels of smaller tonnage. The treaty left. the United States with a battleship fleet which appeared to be equal to that of Great Britain. Our fleet, however, was vastly inferior to Great Britain's in cruiser strength. The proposals now before Congress look towards bringing our cruiser fleet loan ultimate parity with that of Great Britain. Under the treaty we could build as many 10,000-ton cruisers as we desired, and inaugurate a new race in naval armament. Even the so-called big-navy men in Congress have no such ides in mind. They feel that we are morally entitled to the same ratio in cruisers which we are supposed to maintain in battleships. How is this proposal greeted in Great Britain ? The naval correspondent of the London Sunday Times declares that the bill before our Congress shocks those Britons who had believed that America honestly desired peace and disarmament. As Great Britain now has four times the cruiser strength of the United States, we may say that these Britons are easily shocked. The Spectator says that President Coolidge's change of attitude (a change which has not been very noticeable on this side of the Atlantic) has made Britons wonder whether they may continue to hope for American help in the cause of disarmament. The reaction in Europe to the proposal to build more cruisers strengthens our belief that these cruisers ought to be added to our naval list at the earliest possible moment. To build them is a threat to no Power on either the Atlantic or the Pacific. To build them now may hasten the day when cruisers as well as battleships may be safely limited by all Powers, to the advantage of taxpayers and the cause of peace."
May I add that the naval party in Congress is supported by a very large element in our population because of a some- what deep-seated conviction that in naval matters since the Washington Conference the British have not been playing the game ?
This comes out in two respects, in the first place, the objection to the elevation of our heavy guns in first-class war vessels. The British had an advantage in the fact that their guns could be pointed some fifteen degrees, I think it was, higher than those in the American vessels. This gave them a superiority of range. When we proposed alterations so that we should be equal in this respect, the British cried, Not fair," and protested. They declared it against the policy of the agreement in naval affairs of the 5-5-3 proportion. The fact was that they had an advantage, and they refused to permit an equality that was intended in the agreement.
The second matter is in the tremendous activity in the cruiser 10,000 ton class. Your own editorial implies lack of fair play on our part. Americans are wondering, in the slang of the day, "how you get that way."—I am, Sir, &c.,
GEO. W. GILMORE,
Editor, The Homiletic Review.
354-360 Fourth Avenue, New York, N.Y.
[We are certain there is no desire on the part of Great Britain to do anything but abide loyally by the spirit of the Washington Conference.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
