ESTABLISH THE COMPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1938 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Carl Vinson (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will continue the hearing on H. R. 9218. STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY, UNITED STATES NAVY, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS Resumed Mr. McGRATH. In going over this morning's Washington Herald, February 2, 1938, it reads as follows: Does the American Navy know the whereabouts of every combat ship in the Japanese fleet? asked California's Representative John J. McGrath. There was an embarrassed silence and again Chairman Vinson broke in with the comment: "Let us assume that we don't know." I wish to say for the record and for the person who reported for the Washington Herald that I did not make that statement. The statements that I made referred to shipyards, ship construction, and ship repairs on the west coast for the record. The CHAIRMAN. The record shows the question was propounded by Mr. Scott, and it was an error on the part of the newspaper reporter in getting Mr. McGrath mixed up with Mr. Scott. I suggest to the clerk that he give the reporters a list of the names of the committee members because they do not always sit at their designated places. Mr. SCOTT. I was sitting behind my name. The CHAIRMAN. On Friday of last week the statement was made on the floor of the House that this program seemed to be justified only on the theory that we intended to join with the British and French navies to police the world. What have you to say about such statements as that? Admiral LEAHY. That statement is incorrect. This program is justified by the need to provide naval strength in the same proportion or approximately the same proportion that was provided in the Washington and London treaties by the 5-5-3 ratio. The CHAIRMAN. It has been stated that this proposed increase in the Navy will cause departure from our policy of the last few years and that we are changing from a nation that stood for reduction in armaments to one going straight down the road to meet any other nation in the world in the armament race. What do you about that? have to say Admiral LEAHY. It is my understanding that the present policy of the United States Government is exactly the same as it has been for many years, and that policy contemplates so much reduction of naval force as it is possible to attain by agreement with other interested nations. The CHAIRMAN. And we have not abandoned any policy of seeking to bring about limitation or decrease of armaments, by now increasing our armaments to that necessary for our national defense? Admiral LEAHY. No. On the contrary, the policy is to seek to reduce naval armaments. The CHAIRMAN. And that is borne out by the message of the President of January 28, 1938, in which he said: The Congress knows that for many years this Government has sought in many capitals with the leaders of many governments to find a way to limit and reduce armaments and to establish at least the probability of world peace. The Congress is aware also that while these efforts, supported by the hopes of the American people, continue and will continue, they have nevertheless failed up to the present time. We, as a peaceful nation, cannot and will not abandon active search for an agreement among the nations to limit armaments and aggression. But it is clear that until such agreement is reached-and I have not given up hope of it— we are compelled to think of our own national safety. Admiral LEAHY. That quotation from the President's letter expresses much more clearly than I can the present policy of the Navy Department. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would, right there, insert in the record the contribution in bringing about a reduction in armaments that was made as a result of the Washington and London treaties. In other words, put in the record the number of ships, types of ships, that this Government agreed to scrap and did scrap. Also put in the record the number of ships and types of ships that were scrapped by Great Britain and Japan, and that will show the contribution that was made toward the reduction of naval armaments. Will you please put all that in the record? Admiral LEAHY. I will have that entered in the record. (The matter referred to is as follows:) UNITED STATES In accordance with the provisions of the Washington treaty, the United States scrapped 4 dreadnaughts; 15 predreadnaughts; 7 new battleships building, 4 battle cruisers building; total ships scrapped, 30. The battleships and battle cruisers building varied in percentage of completion from 11 to 75.9 percent. The battleships building were of 43,000 tons and mounted twelve 16-inch guns. The battle cruisers building were of 43,500 tons and mounted eight 16-inch guns. Tonnage scrapped, 755,380 tons, which is approximately three times the combatant tonnage in this bill. BRITISH The British scrapped 14 dreadnaughts; 6 battle cruisers; 2 predreadnaughts; no ships building: 4 ships projected, keels not yet laid; total ships scrapped, 22; 447,750 tons actually scrapped. JAPAN The Japanese scrapped 1 dreadnaught; 11 predreadnaughts: 1 battleship building, 39,979 tons, ten 16-inch guns; 3 battle cruisers building, 41,000 tons, ten 16-inch guns; total ships scrapped, 16; 355,730 tons actually scrapped. Information on tonnage and property value is published in the hearings before the Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, 1926-27, pages 317 to 322. The CHAIRMAN. I will state in that connection that in a speech I made on that subject February 18, 1932, I said this: As a result of the Washington Conference we destroyed 20 battleships that were completed, of a tonnage of 325,850 tons, which had cost us $117,753,000. In addition we scrapped 11 new battleships or battle cruisers, which were building, and which, when completed, would have had a tonnage of 465,800, and which had cost us $94,757,000. In all 31 ships were destroyed, of a total tonnage of 795,650 tons, which had cost $212,500,000. Certainly that was an indication to the world of our desire for armament reduction. But as I previously pointed out, the example that we set of not building ships was not followed by other nations, who proceeded to build up their own navies. Is it possible to work out, by a formula or by any other means, exactly what is the required number of the different types of ships necessary for the purpose of adequate national defense? Admiral LEAHY. It would be possible to work out a satisfactory formula of that kind if we were accurately informed in regard to the naval vessels in the possession of other naval powers. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, we are forced to construct and build certain types of ships because other nations build certain types of ships. Admiral LEAHY. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. If other nations abandon battleships there would be no justification for us to spend sums of money to keep on building battleships? Admiral LEAHY. I believe that is true. The CHAIRMAN. Our whole naval program must be dependent upon the type and character of ships that other nations build. Admiral LEAHY. In order to maintain a ratio with other naval powers, it is necessary that we should build naval vessels to match the naval vessels in their possession. The CHAIRMAN. When other nations are building battleships, submarines, destroyers, and airplanes, it is incumbent upon us to construct the same kind to give to the people an adequate defense. Admiral LEAHY. It is necessary, and that is the purpose of this proposed authorization bill. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we do not increase our Navy above the strength now authorized and suppose we should be attacked by one of the powers which had built up its naval strength with battleships and other types, do you think that this country could stave off a superior naval fleet until we could build enough ships to provide for our proper national defense? Admiral LEAHY. I think it would be impossible to stave off a superior navy for so long a time as is required to construct modern naval vessel, 3 years as a minimum. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, upon the outbreak of hostilities you are compelled to defend with what you have in hand at that time. Admiral LEAHY. At the outbreak of hostilities and for at least many months thereafter the only Navy that will be available to us is the Navy that is in commission at that time. The CHAIRMAN. You, of course, recall what the building program was during the World War; that during the World War we laid down 171 destroyers before the armistice, and when the armistice had been signed we had only completed 38 and only gotten 27 to the war zone. Admiral LEAHY. There was not sufficient time between the beginning of destroyer construction and the armistice to complete a larger number. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the increase provided for in this bill would tend to better promote peace or will it have the opposite effect-that of inviting war? Admiral LEAHY. I think it will definitely tend to promote peace, because when this increase is reached we will then have attained again approximately our 5-5-3 ratio, which was believed and still is believed to be suflicient to discourage any attack on America by any naval power. The CHAIRMAN. That was the effect of having a limitation treaty, as it so equalized the different treaty powers that there was not any likelihood of a country with a treaty navy engaging in a war with a country with a navy of the same relative strength. Admiral LEAHY. It was believed at that time that the ratio would prevent an attack by any foreign nation. Mr. KNIFFIN. You would not say, however, that an increase of 20 percent of all the navies of the major powers would be conducive to peace, would you? Admiral LEAHY. An increase of 20 percent in all the powers, if they started with the ratio fixed by the Washington Treaty, would make no difference in their ability to make an attack or to defend themselves. Mr. KNIFFIN. In your opinion, would it be conducive to peace, the broadening of the armament program by all of the major powers? Admiral LEAHY. I do not think so. Mr. SCOTT. Do you consider there is any truth in the statements that have been made by historians that one of the causes of the World War was the naval race that was going on among certain European powers at the time? Do you think that had anything to do with the outbreak of the war in 1914—the naval race that was going on at that time? Admiral LEAHY. That is a question that has been raised many times, and it seems to be impossible of settlement. Personally I feel that the so-called naval race between European powers had very little to do with bringing on the World War. The CHAIRMAN. If all the navies were increased 20 percent, let us say, if the navies of Japan, Great Britain, and the United States were increased 20 percent, you would still be exactly where you were after the Washington-London treaties. Admiral LEAHY. It would be exactly the same relative position, and it should have no effect on either preserving peace or disturbing peace. |