CHAPTER XXIV

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.

“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.”