GERMANY’S FATAL WAR ZONE
THE WARNING TO NEUTRAL NATIONS -- UNITED STATES REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE
WAR ZONE -- A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS -- AIMED AT NEUTRAL
SHIPPING -- AN INHUMAN POLICY.
The German imperial decree making all of the waters surrounding the
British Isles a war zone and threatening to destroy ships and crews
found therein after February 18, 1915, whether they were English or
neutral, raised a storm of protest in the United States. The decree
read:
“The waters around Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole
English Channel, are declared a war zone from and after February 18,
1915.
“Every enemy ship found in this war zone will be destroyed, even if it
is impossible to avert dangers which threaten the crew and passengers.
“Also, neutral ships in the war zone are in danger, as in consequence of
the misuse of neutral flags ordered by the British government on January
31 and in view of the hazards of naval warfare it cannot always be
avoided that attacks meant for enemy ships shall endanger neutral ships.
“Shipping northward, around the Shetland Islands, in the eastern basin
of the North Sea, and in a strip of at least thirty nautical miles in
breadth along the Dutch coast, is endangered in the same way.”
As plainly as words could state it, this was a warning that American and
other neutral vessels might be sunk by German submarines and that
Germany would repudiate responsibility for such action. The American
press denounced the declaration and its intent, and the United States
government made public a note to Germany, containing the following
paragraph:
UNITED STATES REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE WAR ZONE
“If the commanders of German vessels of war should act upon the
presumption that the flag of the United States was not being used in
good faith and should destroy on the high seas an American vessel, or
the lives of American citizens, it would be difficult for the government
of the United States to view the act in any other light than as an
indefensible violation of neutral rights which it would be very hard
indeed to reconcile with the friendly relations now happily subsisting
between the two governments.”
Frederick R. Coudert, of New York, an authority on international law,
said in discussing the war zone:
“From the beginning the United States government always maintained the
right to treat the open sea as a public highway, and refused to
acquiesce in one attempt after another to establish a closed sea. It
refused to submit to an imposition of the Sound dues by Denmark, or to
recognize the Baltic as a closed sea. It refused to pay tribute to the
Barbary powers for the privilege of navigating the Mediterranean, and
gave notice to Russia that it would disregard the claim to make the
North Pacific a closed sea.
A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS
“No one has ever pretended to assert a claim to control the navigation
of the North Sea, and Germany has no more right to plant mines in the
open sea between Great Britain and Belgium and France than she would
have to do so in Delaware Bay, or than a property owner, who was annoyed
by automobiles, would have to plant torpedoes in a turnpike.
“The right to plant mines as a defense to a harbor, from which all
vessels might lawfully be excluded, is one thing, but to destroy the use
of the open sea as a highway, by sowing mines which might indeed destroy
British ships, but might also destroy American ships, is an act of
hostility which, if persisted in, would constitute a casus belli, and if
we had Mr. Webster, or Mr. Marcey, or Mr. Evarts in Washington as
Secretary of State, prompt notice would be given that for any damage
done Germany would be held responsible.”
A representative quotation from the newspapers of the United States is
the following:
“The imperial decree making all of the waters surrounding the British
isles a ‘war zone,’ and threatening to destroy ships and crews found
therein after February 18, whether they be English or neutral, is surely
the maddest proposal ever put forth by a civilized nation.
AIMED AT NEUTRAL SHIPPING
“This excessively efficient method of warfare, however, is one that most
concerns England and France. The interest of the United States lies in
the fact that the threat is aimed emphatically at neutral shipping.
[Illustration: THREE BRITISH CRUISERS SUNK BY SUBMARINES.
The “Aboukir,” “Hogue” and “Cressy” sunk by torpedoes on September 22.
The horrors of modern warfare are illustrated by the notice issued after
this disaster by the British Admiralty, which reads in part, “No act of
humanity, whether to friend or foe, should lead to neglect of the proper
precautions and dispositions of war, and no measure can be taken to save
life which prejudice the military situation.” (_Copyright by the Sun
News Service._)]
[Illustration: THE LOSS OF THE “IRRESISTIBLE” IN THE DARDANELLES.
On March 18 the “Irresistible” quit the line of the French and English
fleet, which was bombarding the Turkish forts in the narrows of the
Dardanelles, and sank in deep water. The whole ship was lifted up in the
explosion, and to increase the horror of the situation the Turks
commenced bombarding the vessel with their big guns.]
“Neutral nations were loath to accept the sinister meaning of the order
when it was first published; but its intent was emphasized by Bismarck’s
old organ, the Hamburger Nachrichten:
“‘Beginning on February 18 everybody must take the consequences. The
hate and envy of the whole world concern us not at all. If neutrals do
not protect their flags against England, they do not deserve Germany’s
respect.’
“The misuse of the American flag is annoying to this country as well as
exasperating to Germany, but no government in its senses would seriously
threaten to make that an excuse for piratical operations. A merchant
ship has a right to fly any flag the skipper has in his locker,
particularly if thereby he can deceive an enemy and evade capture. The
custom is as old as maritime warfare, and has been resorted to
numberless times by every nation.
“But this issue is trifling compared to the German effort to exclude
neutral shipping from an arbitrarily decreed ‘war zone.’ It is
officially admitted that this does not comprise a formal blockade, but
it is clear that Germany is attempting to achieve the benefits of a
blockade without its heavy responsibilities.
AN INHUMAN POLICY
“It is understood that she has a perfect right to hold up and search
neutral ships in her declared ‘war zone,’ and to make prizes of such as
carry contraband. But it is the possession of this very right which
forbids the inhuman policy she proclaims. She cannot plead ignorance of
a vessel’s identity, or attack it unless it refuses to stop when
signaled. The burden of proof is upon the submarine, and to torpedo a
vessel on suspicion merely would be unredeemed piracy and murder.
“This is distinctly a case in which the convenient doctrine of ‘military
necessity’ is not to be invoked. Nor would an occasional misuse of a
neutral flag by belligerent vessels, as a ruse of war, justify a
mistaken act of destruction. If every British merchantman approaching
England flew the American colors, that would not excuse the torpedoing
of one American ship.
“These facts are stated with convincing clearness in the official
protest sent from Washington to Berlin. We do not know who framed this
document, although it bears distinct literary marks of revision by
President Wilson. But whoever the men actually responsible for it, they
produced a state paper which is a model of terseness, lucidity,
dignified courtesy and force, an irrefutable presentation of the
relevant principles of international law and justice. No loyal American
wants trouble, but the blood of the most pacific citizen must move a
little faster on reading the German decree and the restrained but
perfectly straightforward reply sent by our government.”