New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915 — John Shaqi
New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
The Imperial Government has examined the communication from the United
States Government in the same spirit of good-will and friendship by
which the communication appears to have been dictated. The Imperial
Government is in accord with the United States Government that for both
parties it is in a high degree desirable to avoid misunderstandings
which might arise from measures announced by the German Admiralty and to
provide against the occurrence of incidents which might trouble the
friendly relations which so far happily exist between the two
Governments.
With regard to the assuring of these friendly relations, the German
Government believes that it may all the more reckon on a full
understanding with the United States, as the procedure announced by the
German Admiralty, which was fully explained in the note of the 4th
inst., is in no way directed against legitimate commerce and legitimate
shipping of neutrals, but represents solely a measure of self-defense,
imposed on Germany by her vital interests, against England's method of
warfare, which is contrary to international law, and which so far no
protest by neutrals has succeeded in bringing back to the generally
recognized principles of law as existing before the outbreak of war.
In order to exclude all doubt regarding these cardinal points, the
German Government once more begs leave to state how things stand. Until
now Germany has scrupulously observed valid international rules
regarding naval warfare. At the very beginning of the war Germany
immediately agreed to the proposal of the American Government to ratify
the new Declaration of London, and took over its contents unaltered, and
without formal obligation, into her prize law.
The German Government has obeyed these rules, even when they were
diametrically opposed to her military interests. For instance, Germany
allowed the transportation of provisions to England from Denmark until
today, though she was well able, by her sea forces, to prevent it. In
contradistinction to this attitude, England has not even hesitated at a
second infringement of international law, if by such means she could
paralyze the peaceful commerce of Germany with neutrals. The German
Government will be the less obliged to enter into details, as these are
put down sufficiently, though not exhaustively, in the American note to
the British Government dated Dec. 29, as a result of five months'
experience.
All these encroachments have been made, as has been admitted, in order
to cut off all supplies from Germany and thereby starve her peaceful
civil population--a procedure contrary to all humanitarian principles.
Neutrals have been unable to prevent the interruption of their commerce
with Germany, which is contrary to international laws.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account