ar fashion, there is certainly some truth in the argument. But it
is just as true--as stated in the Note of March 5--that in a war on
land no regard is ever paid to civilians who venture into the war
zone, and that no reason is apparent why a war at sea should be
subject to different moral conditions. When a town or village is
within the range of battle, the fact has never prevented the artillery
from acting in spite of the danger to the women and children. But in
the present instance, the non-combatants of the enemy States who are
in danger can easily escape it by not undertaking a sea voyage.
Since the debacle in the winter of 1918, I have thoroughly discussed
the matter with English friends of long standing, and found that their
standpoint was--that it was not the U-boat warfare in itself that had
roused the greatest indignation, but the cruel nature of the
proceedings so opposed to international law. Also, the torpedoing of
hospital ships by the Germans, and the firing on passengers seeking to
escape, and so on. These accounts are flatly contradicted by the
Germans, who, on their part, have terrible tales to tell of English
brutality, as instanced by the _Baralong_ episode.
There have, of course, been individual cases of shameful brutality in
all the armies; but that such deeds were sanctioned or ordered by the
German or English Supreme Commands I do not believe.
An inquiry by an international, but neutral, court would be the only
means of bringing light to bear on the matter.
Atrocities such as mentioned are highly to be condemned, no matter who
the perpetrators are; but in itself, the U-boat warfare was an
allowable means of defence.
The blockade is now admitted to be a permissible and necessary
proceeding; the unrestricted U-boat warfare is stigmatised as a crime
against international law. That is the sentence passed by might but
not by right. In days to come history will judge otherwise.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] The Ambassador, Gottfried, Prince Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst.
[6] See p. 279.
[7] Mr. Penfield, American Ambassador to Vienna.
CHAPTER VI
ATTEMPTS AT PEACE
1
The constitutional procedure which prevails in every parliamentary
state is ordered so that the minister is responsible to a body of
representatives. He is obliged to account for what he has done. His
action is subject to the judgment and criticism of the body of
representatives. If the majority of that body are against th
|