the victims.  If, to meet the argument, it be asserted that the Central Powers were as a besieged fortress, and that in 1870 the Germans starved Paris in similar fashion, there is certainly some truth in the argument.  But it is just as true—­as stated in the Note of March 5—­that in a war on land no regard is ever paid to civilians who venture into the war zone, and that no reason is apparent why a war at sea should be subject to different moral conditions.  When a town or village is within the range of battle, the fact has never prevented the artillery from acting in spite of the danger to the women and children.  But in the present instance, the non-combatants of the enemy States who are in danger can easily escape it by not undertaking a sea voyage.

Since the debacle in the winter of 1918, I have thoroughly discussed the matter with English friends of long standing, and found that their standpoint was—­that it was not the U-boat warfare in itself that had roused the greatest indignation, but the cruel nature of the proceedings so opposed to international law.  Also, the torpedoing of hospital ships by the Germans, and the firing on passengers seeking to escape, and so on.  These accounts are flatly contradicted by the Germans, who, on their part, have terrible tales to tell of English brutality, as instanced by the Baralong episode.

There have, of course, been individual cases of shameful brutality in all the armies; but that such deeds were sanctioned or ordered by the German or English Supreme Commands I do not believe.

An inquiry by an international, but neutral, court would be the only means of bringing light to bear on the matter.

Atrocities such as mentioned are highly to be condemned, no matter who the perpetrators are; but in itself, the U-boat warfare was an allowable means of defence.

The blockade is now admitted to be a permissible and necessary proceeding; the unrestricted U-boat warfare is stigmatised as a crime against international law.  That is the sentence passed by might but not by right.  In days to come history will judge otherwise.

FOOTNOTES: 

[5] The Ambassador, Gottfried, Prince Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst.

[6] See p. 279.

[7] Mr. Penfield, American Ambassador to Vienna.

CHAPTER VI

ATTEMPTS AT PEACE

1

The constitutional procedure which prevails in every parliamentary state is ordered so that the minister is responsible to a body of representatives.  He is obliged to account for what he has done.  His action is subject to the judgment and criticism of the body of representatives.  If the majority of that body are against the minister, he must go.

The control of foreign policy in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was in the hands of the delegations.