FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   163   164   165   >>   >|  
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
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   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   163   164   165   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

matter

 

English

 

warfare

 

international

 

escape

 

representatives

 

ordered

 

danger

 

Ambassador

 

brutality


Germans

 

subject

 

unrestricted

 

stigmatised

 

proceeding

 

permissible

 

blockade

 

admitted

 
history
 

sentence


passed

 
allowable
 

inquiry

 

argument

 

neutral

 

German

 

Supreme

 

Commands

 

highly

 
condemned

perpetrators
 

mentioned

 

Atrocities

 

bringing

 
defence
 
FOOTNOTES
 
fashion
 

obliged

 
responsible
 

minister


prevails

 

parliamentary

 

account

 

criticism

 

majority

 

judgment

 

action

 

procedure

 

Schillingsfurst

 

Hohenlohe