New York Times Current History: The European War from the Beginning to March 1915, Vol 1, No. 2: Who Began the War, and Why? — John Shaqi
New York Times Current History: The European War from the Beginning to March 1915, Vol 1, No. 2: Who Began the War, and Why?Various
History
New York Times Current History: The European War from the Beginning to March 1915, Vol 1, No. 2: Who Began the War, and Why?
Various
World War, 1914-1918
I therefore deem it advisable, as Admiral of the Fleet, to lay some
facts before you to enable you to see clearly that it is absolutely
nonsensical and untrue that the German naval bill is to provide a
navy meant as a challenge to British naval supremacy. The German
fleet is built against nobody at all; it is solely built for
Germany's needs in relation with that country's rapidly growing
trade. The German naval bill was sanctioned by the Imperial
Parliament and published ten years ago, and may be had at any large
bookseller's. There is nothing surprising, secret, or underhand in
it, and every reader may study the whole course mapped out for the
development of the German Navy with the greatest ease.
Thirty to Forty Battleships in 1920.
The law is being adhered to, and provides for about thirty to forty
ships of the line in 1920. The number of ships fixed by the bill
included the fleet then actually in commission, notwithstanding its
material being already old and far surpassed by contemporary types.
In other foreign navies the extraordinary rapidity with which
improvements were introduced in types of battleships, armaments,
and armor made the fleet in commission obsolete before the building
programme providing additions to it was half finished.
The obsolete fleet had to be struck off the list, thus leaving a
gap, lowering the number of ships below the standard prescribed by
the bill. This gap was stopped by using the finished ships to
replace the obsolete ones instead of being added to them as
originally intended. Therefore, instead of steadily increasing the
standing fleet by regular additions it came to a wholesale
rebuilding of the entire German Navy. Our actual programme in
course of execution is practically only the exchange of old
material for new, but not an addition to the number of units
originally laid down by the bill of ten years ago, which is being
adhered to.
It seems to me that the main fault in the discussions going on in
the papers is the permanent ventilating of so-called two to three
or more power standard and then only exemplifying on one power,
which is invariably Germany. It is fair to suppose that each nation
builds and commissions its navy according to its needs and not only
with regard to the programme of other countries. Therefore, it
would be the simplest thing for England to say: "I have a
world-wide empire and the greatest trade of the world, and to
protect them I must have so and so many battleships, cruisers, &c.,
as are necessary to guarantee the supremacy of the sea to me, and
they shall, accordingly, be built and manned."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account