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 s.War Zone" proclamation centers around
the following statement:
The German government has in vain called the
attention of neutral the fact that it must
face the question OF whether II can longer perse.
of the London Declaration. II Great Britain We're TO
continue its course and the neutral powers were
continue acquiesee in these violations OF neu-
trality to the detriment Of Germany. For her vio-
lations Of international law Great Britain pleads
the vital which the British empire has at
stake and the neutral powers to satisfy them
selves with a theoretical protest. Therefore In
fact they accept the vital Interests Of heigerenis rs
sufficient excuse for every method Of warfare
Germany must now appeal TO these same vltai
interests to ifs regret It 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 "suf-
fcient 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 IS 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
through Belgium and it was necessary for Bel
gium 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 neutral state
Because other powers have violated in
ternationaI 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 a matter Of fact, ordinary conception of
national obligation and national duty is
lopelessly confused by the European conflict.
There is no agreement as to what constitutes
international law, nor to what lengths the bel
ligerent is justified in going to protect vital
interests Each side acuses the other of being,
the first to break the faith.
A notable development of the conflict has
been the various assaults made on the United
States because Of our attitude British critics
not infrequently say that IN failing to lodge an
emphatic protest against the invasion of Bel
gium Uncle Sam was false to international
honor; and British objection was raised to-
American purchase of German ships on the
ground that this would afford aid and com
fort to the enemy and thus be an unneutral
act
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
All this dispute over what is and what is
not a violation Of international law, all these
fings 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 well overlook |
OF calmly accept the criticism of belligerents |
becauseit is not and never can be impartial or
well balanced criticism.