FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   >>   >|  
narchy. If we give a negative answer we shall abandon Germany and the standpoint we took up on January 31. The handle wherewith to grasp evasion of a clear answer is provided by the _aide-memoire_ itself, as it identifies our statements in the _Ancona_ and _Persia_ question with the attitude of the German Note of May 4, 1916. We should, therefore, be quite consistent if we, as we did in our Note of December 14, 1915, were to declare that we should be governed by our own ideas of justice. In our correspondence with the American Government respecting the _Ancona_, _Persia_ and _Petrolite_ questions we treated the concrete case always without going deeper into the individual principles of legal questions. In our Note of December 29, 1915, which contains the expression of opinion cited in the _aide-memoire_ (it may also be noted that our expression of opinion was no pledge, as we had promised nothing nor taken any obligation upon ourselves), the Austrian Government distinctly stated that they would refer later to the difficult international questions connected with the U-boat warfare. Present war conditions did not appear suited to such a discussion. In consequence, however, of the dealings of our enemies, events have occurred and a state of things been brought about which, on our side also, renders a more intense application of the U-boat question unavoidable. Our merchantmen in the Adriatic, whenever attainable, were constantly torpedoed without warning by the enemy. Our adversaries have thus adopted the standard of the most aggravated and unrestricted U-boat warfare without the neutrals offering any resistance. The Entente when laying their minefields displayed the same ruthlessness towards free shipping and the lives of neutrals. Mines are considered as a recognised weapon for the definite protection of the home coast and ports, also as a means of blockading an enemy port. But the use made of them as an aggressive factor in this war is quite a new feature, for vast areas of open sea on the route of the world's traffic were converted into minefields impassable for the neutrals except at the greatest danger of their lives. There is no question but that that is a far greater check to the freedom of movement and a greater obstacle to neutral interests than establishing the unrestricted U-boat warfare within a limited and clearly mark
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137  
138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

neutrals

 

warfare

 

question

 

questions

 

expression

 

unrestricted

 

Government

 

minefields

 

December

 

greater


memoire

 

answer

 

Ancona

 

Persia

 

opinion

 

considered

 

merchantmen

 

warning

 
shipping
 

torpedoed


constantly

 
ruthlessness
 

attainable

 

Adriatic

 

unavoidable

 

adversaries

 

intense

 

aggravated

 

adopted

 
standard

offering
 

resistance

 

renders

 

application

 
displayed
 
laying
 
Entente
 

danger

 
greatest
 

traffic


converted

 

impassable

 

freedom

 

limited

 

establishing

 

movement

 

obstacle

 

neutral

 

interests

 

blockading