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 American Government, as Germany readily acknowledges, has protested
against the British procedure. In spite of these protests and protests
from other neutral States, Great Britain could not be induced to depart
from the course of action she had decided upon. Thus, for instance, the
American ship Wilhelmina recently was stopped by the British, although
her cargo was destined solely for the German civil population, and,
according to the express declaration of the German Government, was to be
employed only for this purpose.
Germany is as good as cut off from her overseas supply by the silent or
protesting toleration of neutrals, not only in regard to such goods as
are absolute contraband, but also in regard to such as, according to
acknowledged law before the war, are only conditional contraband or not
contraband at all. Great Britain, on the other hand, is, with the
toleration of neutral Governments, not only supplied with such goods as
are not contraband or only conditional contraband, but with goods which
are regarded by Great Britain, if sent to Germany, as absolute
contraband, namely, provisions, industrial raw materials, &c., and even
with goods which have always indubitably been regarded as absolute
contraband.
The German Government feels itself obliged to point out with the
greatest emphasis that a traffic in arms, estimated at many hundreds of
millions, is being carried on between American firms and Germany's
enemies. Germany fully comprehends that the practice of right and the
toleration of wrong on the part of neutrals are matters absolutely at
the discretion of neutrals, and involve no formal violation of
neutrality. Germany, therefore, did not complain of any formal violation
of neutrality, but the German Government, in view of complete evidence
before it, cannot help pointing out that it, together with the entire
public opinion of Germany, feels itself to be severely prejudiced by the
fact that neutrals, in safeguarding their rights in legitimate commerce
with Germany according to international law, have up to the present
achieved no, or only insignificant, results, while they are making
unlimited use of their right by carrying on contraband traffic with
Great Britain and our other enemies.
If it is a formal right of neutrals to take no steps to protect their
legitimate trade with Germany, and even to allow themselves to be
influenced in the direction of the conscious and willful restriction of
their trade, on the other hand, they have the perfect right, which they
unfortunately do not exercise, to cease contraband trade, especially in
arms, with Germany's enemies.
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