Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-02-08
THE GERMAN PROCLAMATION.
Germany's explanatory memorandum upon
the "War Zone" proclamation centers around
the following statement:

the War Zone" proclamation centers arounC
the following statement:
The German government has in vain called the
attention Of neutral powers 10 the fact that II must
face the question of whether IL can longer perse.
I'm IFS hitherto strict observance Of the rules
Of the London Declaration IL Great Britain we're to
continue its and the neutral powers were
TO continue acquesce in these violations Of
trality TO the detriment of Germany For her vio-
iations Of international law Great Britain pleads
the vital interests which the British empire has at
stake and the neutral powers to satisfy them
selves with theoretical protest Therefore in
they accept the vital interests Of bellgerents
sufficient excuse for every method Of warfare.
Germany must now appeal to these same vital
interests to Its regret 1t therefore sees itself
forced to military measures aimed at England in
retaliation against the English procedure.
That is to say, Germany is forced to accept
the preservation of her vital interests as SUI
ficient excuse for every method of warfare.
In issuing this extraordinary proclamation,
German admits taking her attitude with regret
Her reason is that Great Britain has violated
International law By plain implication Ger
many admits also that she will no longer strict
~ observe the rules of the London Declaration.
Germany explanation is strikingly like that
which preceded the invasion of Belgium. The
German chancellor and later other statesmen,
among them Count Won Bernstorff, said that
France was preparing to strike at Germany
tilrough Belgium and it was necessary for Bel
einm to strike first. Later Berlin declared that
secret treaty had been negotiated between
Great Britain and Belgium, by which Belgium
became in fact an ally of Great Britain instead
of a neutral state.
Because other powers have violated in
iefnational law and comfy, we can no longer
be held by international law and comfy when
our vital interests are at stake, " sums up this
attitude.
As matter of fact, ordinary conception of
national obligation and national duty is
hopelessly confused by the European conflict.
There is no agreement as to what constitutes
International law, nor tolvhat lengths the bell
igerent is justified in going to protect vital
interests. Each side acuses the other of being
the first to break the faith.
Al notable development of the conflict has
been the various assaults made on the United
States because Of our attitude. Britisb critics
not infrequently say that in failing to lodge an
emphatic protest against the invasion of Bel
eium Uncle Sam was false to international
1onor; and British objection was raised to
american purchase of German ships on the
ground that this would afford aid and COM
tort to the enemy and thus be an unneutral
8ct
The Germans meanwhile criticise Uncle Sam
just as this memorandum published today
criticises for 'acquiescing in these violations
Of neutrality to the detriment of Germany, = in
stancing British embargo on cargoes for Ger
many, the seizure of German reservists and the
blockade of neutral ports. ("
The criticism Of belligerents must, however,
be expected by neutral nation so powerful
and whose material help is so desirable as that
Of the United States. The belligerents are quite
naturally unable to maintain an impartial
viewpoint.
Ali this dispute over what is and what is
not violation of international law, all these
hings at the United States, simply go to show
what an amazing folly it would be for America
to become actively involved in the war. There
would never be agreement, either abroad or at
home, as to the justice of fighting one side or
the other Americans may very we'll overlook
Or calmly accept the criticism of belligerents
because it is not and never can be impartial or
well balanced criticism
81.