Germany, The Next Republic? Part 14

"Before there is a discussion of our legal right to the submarine warfare a brief review of the general policies of our opponents during the war will be given. This account shall serve the purpose of fortifying the living feeling within us of our natural right and of our duty to use all weapons ruthlessly.

"If we did not know before the publication of the Entente Note [The Allies' peace reply to Germany] what we were up against, now we know.

The mask fell. Now we have confirmation of the intentions to rob and conquer us which, caused the individual entente nations to league together and conduct the war. The neutrals will now see the situation more clearly. For us it is war, literally to be or not to be a German nation. Never did such an appeal [The Entente Note] find such a fruitful echo in German hearts. . . ."

"I begin with England, our worst enemy."

On page 31 Admiral Hollweg speaks of the fact that at the beginning of the war many Germans, especially those in banking and business circles, felt that Germany was so indispensable to England in peace time that England would not conduct a war to "knock out" Germany. But Hollweg says the situation has now changed.

On pages 122 to 126 he justifies the ruthless submarine warfare in the following way:

"It is known that England and her allies declared at the beginning of the war that they would adhere to the Declaration of London. It is just as well known that England and the Allies changed this declaration through the Orders in Council and other lawless statements of authority until the declaration was unrecognisable and worthless--especially the spirit and purpose of the agreement were flatly pushed aside until practically nothing more remains of the marine laws as codified in 1909. The following collection of flagrant breaches of international law will show who first broke marine laws during the war."

"Ten gross violations of marine law in war time by England.

"1. Violation of Article IV of the Maritime Declaration of April 16th, 1855. Blockading of neutral harbours in violation of international law.

"2. Violation of Article II of the same declarations by the confiscation of enemy property aboard neutral ships. See Order in Council, March 11th, 1915.

"3. Declaration of the North Sea as a war zone. British Admiralty Declaration, November 3, 1914.

"4. England regarded food as contraband since the beginning of the war.

The starvation war. England confiscated neutral food en route to neutral states whenever there was a possibility that it would reach the enemy. This violated the recognised fundamental principles of the freedom of the seas.

"5. Attempt to prevent all communications between Germany and neutral countries through the violation of international law and the seizing of mail.

"6. Imprisonment of German reservists aboard neutral ships.

"7. a. Violation of Article I of The Hague Convention by the confiscation of the German hospital ship _Ophelia_. b. Murdering of submarine crew upon command of British auxiliary cruiser _Baralong_.

c. Violation of Article XXIX, No. 1, of London Declaration by preventing American Red Cross from sending supplies to the German Red Cross.

"8. a. Destruction of German cruisers _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ in Spanish territorial waters by English cruiser _Highflyer_. b.

Destruction of German cruiser _Dresden_ in Chinese waters by British cruiser _Glasgow_. c. Attack of British warships on German ship _Paklas_ in Norwegian waters.

"9. England armed her merchant ships for attack.

"10. Use of neutral flags and signs by British merchantmen in violation of Articles II and III of the Paris Declaration."

On page 134, after discussing the question of whether the English blockade has been effective and arguing that England by seizing neutral ships with food on the supposition that the food was going to Germany, he says:

"We may conclude from these facts that we Germans can now consider ourselves freed from the uncomfortable conditions of the London Declaration and may conduct the war as our own interests prescribe. We have already partially done this in as much as we followed the English example of extending the lists of war contraband. This has been inconvenient for the neutrals affected and they have protested against it. We may, however, consider that they will henceforth respect our proposals just as they have in the past accepted English interests.

England demanded from them that they a.s.sist her because England was fighting for the future of neutrals and of justice. We will take this principle also as basis for what we do and even await thereby that we will compel England to grant us the kind of peace which can lay new foundations for sea warfare and that for the future the military acts of belligerents against neutrals will not be carried to the extremes they have been for centuries because of England's superior sea power.

This new era of civilised warfare we bring under the term 'freedom of the seas.'"

Hollweg's next justification of the unlimited submarine warfare is that Secretary of State Lansing in a note to Count von Bernstorff at first said merchant ships could not be armed and then changed his mind.

On page 160 Hollweg says: "And now in discussing the question of the legal position of the submarine as a warship I cite here the statements of the German authority on international law, Professor Dr. Niemeyer, who said: 'There can be absolutely no question but that the submarine is permitted. It is a means of war similar to every other one. The frightfulness of the weapon was never a ground of condemnation. This is a war in which everything is permitted, which is not forbidden.'"

On page 175 in the chapter ent.i.tled "The Submarine War and Victory" the author says:

"Every great deed carries with it a certain amount of risk. After the refusal of our peace proposal we have only the choice of victory with the use of all of our strength and power, or, the submission to the destructive conditions of our opponents."

He adds that his statements shall prove to the reader that Germany can continue the hard relentless battle with the greatest possibility and confidence of a final victory which will break the destructive tendencies of the Entente and guarantee a peace which Germany needs for her future existence.

On page 193 he declares: "All food prices in England have increased on the average 80% in price, they are for example considerably higher in England than in Germany. A world wide crop failure in Canada and Argentine made the importation of food for England more difficult.

"England earns in this war as opposed to other wars, nothing. Part of her industrial workers are under arms, the others are working in making war munitions for her own use, not, however, for the export of valuable wares."

Admiral Hollweg has a clever theory that the German fleet has played a prominent role in the war, although most of the time it has been hugging the coasts of the Fatherland. He declares that the fleet has had a "distance effect" upon the Allies' control of the high seas. On page 197 he says:

"What I mean in extreme by 'fernwirkung' [distance effect] I will show here by an example. The English and French attack on Constantinople failed. It can at least be doubted whether at that time when the connection between Germany and Turkey was not established a strong English naval unit would have brought the attack success. The necessity of not withdrawing the English battleships from the North Sea prevented England from using a more powerful unit at Constantinople.

To this extent the German battle fleet was not without influence in the victory for the defender of Constantinople. That is 'distance effect.'"

On page 187 Hollweg declares: "England not only does not make money to-day by war but she is losing. The universal military service which she was forced to introduce in order to hold the other Allies by the tongue draws from her industry and thereby her commerce, 3,500,000 workmen. Coal exportation has decreased. During the eleven months from January to November, 1916, 4,500,000 tons less coal was exported than in 1915. In order to produce enough coal for England herself the nation was compelled by the munitions obligation law to put miners to work."

On page 223 the author declares:

"That is, therefore, the great and important role which the submarines in this war are playing. They are serving also to pave the way in the future for the 'freedom of the seas.'"

He adds that the submarines will cut the thread which holds the English Damocles' sword over weak sea powers and that for eternity the "gruesome hands" of English despotism will be driven from the seas.

[Ill.u.s.tration: CHART SHOWING TONNAGE OF SHIPS SUNK BY GERMAN SUBMARINES FROM REAR ADMIRAL HOLLWEG'S BOOK]

Germany's submarine warfare which was introduced in February, 1915, began by sinking less than 50,000 tons of ships per month. By November, 1915, the amount of tonnage destroyed per month was close to 200,000 tons. By January, 1916, the tonnage of ships destroyed by submarines had fallen to under 100,000 tons. In April, 1916, as Grand Admiral von Tirpitz' followers made one more effort to make the submarine warfare successful, nearly 275,000 tons were being destroyed a month. But after the sinking of the _Suss.e.x_ and the growing possibilities of war with the United States the submarine warfare was again held back and in July less than 125,000 tons of shipping were destroyed.

At this time, however, the submarine campaign itself underwent a change. Previously most of the ships destroyed were sunk off the coast of England, France or in the Mediterranean. During the year and a half of the submarine campaign the Allies' method of catching and destroying submarines became so effective it was too costly to maintain submarine warfare in belligerent waters. The German Navy had tried all kinds of schemes but none was very successful. After the sinking of the _Ancona_ the Admiralty planned for two submarines to work together, but this was not as successful as it might have been. During May, June and July the submarine warfare was practically given up as the losses of ships during those months will show. There was a steep decline from a quarter of a million tons in April to less than 140,000 tons in May, about 125,000 tons in June and not much more than 100,000 tons in July.

During these three months the Navy was being bitterly criticised for its inactivity. But as the events six months later will show the German navy simply used these months to prepare for a much stronger submarine campaign which was to begin in August. By this time it was decided, however, not to risk a submarine campaign off the Allied coasts but to operate in the Atlantic, off the coasts of Spain and Norway. This method of submarine warfare proved very successful and by November, 1916, Germany was sinking over 425,000 tons of ships per month.

During this swell in the success of the submarine campaign the U-53 was despatched across the Atlantic to operate off the United States coasts.

U-53 was sent here for two purposes: First, it was to demonstrate to the American people that, in event of war, submarines could work terror off the Atlantic coast. Second, it was to show the naval authorities whether their plans for an attack on American shipping would be practical. U-53 failed to terrorise the United States, but it proved to the Admiralty that excursions to American waters were feasible.

On February 1, when the Kaiser defied the United States by threatening all neutral shipping in European waters, Germany had four hundred undersea boats completed or in course of construction. This included big U-boats, like the U-53, with a cruising radius of five thousand miles, and the smaller craft, with fifteen-day radius, for use against England, as well as supply ships and mine layers. But not all these were ready for use against the Allies and the United States at that time. About one hundred were waiting for trained crews or were being completed in German shipyards.