New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
"Finally, not only material, also I might say sentimental, interests
play a certain role not to be underestimated among the people. Many
warm friends of America among us are painfully affected by the fact
that actual conditions give the impression that America, even though
unintentionally, differentiates between the belligerents.
"Austro-Hungarian statesmen, conscious of the great role that America
will be called upon to play in the future, would forget their duty if
they neglected to do everything in their power to clear away the
circumstances that shake the confidence of the bravely fighting armies
and the whole population in the justice of America. It is clear that
the war would have been ended long ago if America had not supplied our
enemies with the means of continuing it.
"The assumption that the Austro-Hungarian note was sent at the wish of
the German Government is incorrect. On the contrary, it is a
completely spontaneous demonstration, inspired wholly by the
Austro-Hungarian considerations. We hope it will be received and
judged in America in the same spirit in which it was sent."
MR. WOOLSEY'S OPINION
_Theodore S. Woolsey, formerly Professor of International Law at Yale
University, in Leslie's Weekly, for July 29, has an article entitled
"The Case for the Munitions Trade." In part Professor Woolsey says:_
In the midst of widespread industrial depression came a great war.
This war intensified the depression. It cut off markets, raised
freights, retarded payments, upset the whole commercial world and we
suffered with the rest. Then shortly came a demand for certain
products and certain manufactures caused by the war itself, varied,
considerable, even unexpected. This demand grew until it became an
appreciable factor in our industrial life, a welcome source of profit
when so many other sources of profit were cut off. It was a good
thing; at the same time it was a temporary, unnatural thing, and
directly or indirectly it was based upon the desire of some of our
friends to kill others of our friends. Accordingly people began to
give this trade bad names. They called it unneutral, wrong, inhuman.
For the sake of our pockets we were adding to the sum of human
suffering and slaughter, and they urged that, even if legally
justified, ethically this trade was a blot upon our character as a
humane and civilized people and must be stopped. Where does the truth
lie? What can the munitions trade say for itself?
Naturally, it turns for justification first to the usage of other
wars, to the recognized rules of international law. As expressed in
Article 7, Convention XIII, of the 1907 Conference at The Hague, the
law is as follows:
"A neutral power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for
the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunitions or, in general, of
anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."
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