THE EUROPEAN WAR, VOL 2, NO. 5, AUGUST, 1915***


E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustrations.
      See 22460-h.htm or 22460-h.zip:
      (http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/2/2/4/6/22460/22460-h/22460-h.htm)
      or
      (http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/2/2/4/6/22460/22460-h.zip)


Transcriber's Note:

      Archaic spellings of place names have been retained
      as they appear in the original.

      A table of contents has been provided for the reader's
      convenience.





The New York Times

CURRENT HISTORY

A Monthly Magazine

THE EUROPEAN WAR

AUGUST, 1915







[Illustration: H.M. QUEEN SOPHIA OF GREECE

Sister of Kaiser Wilhelm, and an Ardent Germanophile

(_Photo from Bain._)]

[Illustration: HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XV.

The Entrance of Italy into the War has Increased the Delicacy of the
Pontiff's Position

(_Photo from International News._)]




CONTENTS

   THE LUSITANIA CASE

   The American Rejoinder

   German and American Press Opinion

   Austria-Hungary's Protest

   Armenian, Orduna, and Others

   Results of Submarine Warfare

   In Memoriam: REGINALD WARNEFORD

   American Preparedness

   First Year of the War

   Inferences from Eleven Months of the European Conflict

   "Revenge for Elisabeth!"

   A Year of the War in Africa and Asia

   An "Insult" to War

   The Drive at Warsaw

   Naval Losses During the War

   Battles in the West

   France's "Eyewitness" Reports

   The Crown Prince in the Argonne

   Gallipoli's Shambles

   Italy's War on Austria

   The Task of Italy

   Two Devoted Nations

   Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece

   Dr. Conybeare's Recantation

   The Case of Muenter

   Devotion to the Kaiser

   Scientists and the Military

   Hudson Maxim on Explosives

   Thor!

   "I am the Gravest Danger"

   THE EUROPEAN WAR AS SEEN BY CARTOONISTS

   The Belligerents' Munitions

   The Power of the Purse

   Cases Reserved

   New Recruiting in Britain

   American War Supplies

   Magazinists of the World on the War

   Germany's Long-Nourished Powers

   "To Avenge"

   The Pope, the Vatican, and Italy

   Are the Allies Winning?

   Selling Arms to the Allies

   War and Non-Resistance

   "Good Natured Germany"

   Italy's Defection

   Apologies for English Words

   Germanic Peace Terms

   France's Bill of Damages

   A French Rejoinder

   Dr. Von Bode's Polemic

   "Carnegie and German Peace"

   Russia's Supply of Warriors

   Austria and the Balkans

   Italy's Publications in War-Time

   Sweden and the Lusitania

   A Threatened Despotism of Spirit

   "Gott Mit Uns"

   On the Psychology of Neutrals

   Chlorine Warfare

   Rheims Cathedral

   The English Falsehood

   Calais or Suez?

   Note on the Principle of Nationality

   Singer of "La Marseillaise"

   Depression--Common-Sense and the Situation

   The War and Racial Progress

   The English Word, Thought, and Life

   Evviva L'Italia

   Who Died Content!

   "The Germans, Destroyers of Cathedrals"

   Chronology of the War




THE LUSITANIA CASE

The American Note to Berlin of July 21

Steps Leading Up to President Wilson's Rejection of Germany's
Proposals


The German Admiralty on Feb. 4 proclaimed a war zone around Great
Britain announcing that every enemy merchant ship found therein would
be destroyed "without its being always possible to avert the dangers
threatening the crews and passengers on that account."

The text of this proclamation was made known by Ambassador Gerard on
Feb. 6. Four days later the United States Government sent to Germany a
note of protest which has come to be known as the "strict
accountability note." After pointing out that a serious infringement
of American rights on the high seas was likely to occur, should
Germany carry out her war-zone decree in the manner she had
proclaimed, it declared:

     "If such a deplorable situation should arise, the Imperial
     German Government can readily appreciate that the Government
     of the United States would be constrained to hold the
     Imperial German Government to a strict accountability for
     such acts of their naval authorities and to take any steps
     it might be necessary to take to safeguard American lives
     and property and to secure to American citizens the full
     enjoyment of their acknowledged rights on the high seas."

The war-zone decree went into effect on Feb. 18. Two days later
dispatches were cabled to Ambassador Page at London and to Ambassador
Gerard at Berlin suggesting that a modus vivendi be entered into by
England and Germany by which submarine warfare and sowing of mines at
sea might be abandoned if foodstuffs were allowed to reach the German
civil population under American consular inspection.

Germany replied to this on March 1, expressing her willingness to act
favorably on the proposal. The same day the British Government stated
that because of the war-zone decree of the German Government the
British Government must take measures to prevent commodities of all
kinds from reaching or leaving Germany. On March 15 the British
Government flatly refused the modus vivendi suggestion.

On April 4 Count von Bernstorff, the German Ambassador at Washington,
submitted a memorandum to the United States Government regarding
German-American trade and the exportation of arms. Mr. Bryan replied
to the memorandum on April 21, insisting that the United States was
preserving her strict status of neutrality according to the accepted
laws of nations.

On May 7 the Cunard steamship Lusitania was sunk by a German submarine
in the war zone as decreed by Germany, and more than 100 American
citizens perished, with 1,000 other persons on board.

Thereupon, on May 13, the United States transmitted to the German
Government a note on the subject of this loss. It said:

     "American citizens act within their indisputable rights in
     taking their ships and in traveling wherever their
     legitimate business calls them upon the high seas, and
     exercise those rights in what should be the well justified
     confidence that their lives will not be endangered by acts
     done in clear violation of universally acknowledged
     international obligations, and certainly in the confidence
     that their own Government will sustain them in the exercise
     of their rights."

This note concluded:

     "The Imperial Government will not expect the Government of
     the United States to omit any word or any act necessary to
     the performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights
     of the United States and its citizens and of safeguarding
     their free exercise and enjoyment."

Germany replied to this note on May 29. It stated that it had heard
that the Lusitania was an armed naval ship which had attempted to use
American passengers as a protection, and that, anyway, such passengers
should not have been present. It added:

     "The German commanders are consequently no longer in a
     position to observe the rules of capture otherwise usual and
     with which they invariably complied before this."

To the foregoing the United States maintained in a note sent to the
German Government on June 9 that the Lusitania was not an armed vessel
and that she had sailed in accordance with the laws of the United
States, and that "only her actual resistance to capture or refusal to
stop when ordered to do so... could have afforded the commander of
the submarine any justification for so much as putting the lives of
those on board the ship in jeopardy."

In support of this view the note cited international law and added:

     "It is upon this principle of humanity, as well as upon the
     law founded upon this principle, that the United States must
     stand."

Exactly one month later, on July 9, came Germany's reply. Its preamble
praised the United States for its humane attitude and said that
Germany was fully in accord therewith. Something, it asserted, should
be done, for "the case of the Lusitania shows with horrible clearness
to what jeopardizing of human lives the manner of conducting war
employed by our adversaries leads," and that under certain conditions
which it set forth, American ships might have safe passage through the
war zone, or even some enemy ships flying the American flag. It
continued:

     "The Imperial Government, however, confidently hopes the
     American Government will assume to guarantee that these
     vessels have no contraband on board, details of arrangements
     for the unhampered passage of these vessels to be agreed
     upon by the naval authorities of both sides."

It is to this reply that the note of the United States Government made
public on July 24 is an answer.

Germany's reply of July 8 and President Wilson's final rejoinder of
July 21--which was given to the American press of July 24--are
presented below, together with accounts of the recent German
submarine attacks on the ships Armenian, Anglo-Californian, Normandy,
and Orduna, involving American lives, and an appraisal of the German
operations in the submarine "war zone" since February 18, 1915, when
it was proclaimed. Also Austro-Hungary's note of June 29, protesting
against American exports of arms, and an account of American and
German press opinion on the Lusitania case are treated hereunder.


THE GERMAN MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR AT
BERLIN

BERLIN, July 8, 1915.

The undersigned has the honor to make the following reply to his
Excellency Ambassador Gerard to the note of the 10th ultimo re the
impairment of American interests by the German submarine war:

The Imperial Government learned with satisfaction from the note how
earnestly the Government of the United States is concerned in seeing
the principles of humanity realized in the present war. Also this
appeal finds ready echo in Germany, and the Imperial Government is
quite willing to permit its statements and decisions in the present
case to be governed by the principles of humanity just as it has done
always.

The Imperial Government welcomed with gratitude when the American
Government, in the note of May 15, itself recalled that Germany had
always permitted itself to be governed by the principles of progress
and humanity in dealing with the law of maritime war.

Since the time when Frederick the Great negotiated with John Adams,
Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson the Treaty of Friendship and
Commerce of September 9, 1785, between Prussia and the Republic of the
West, German and American statesmen have, in fact, always stood
together in the struggle for the freedom of the seas and for the
protection of peaceable trade.

In the international proceedings which since have been conducted for
the regulation of the laws of maritime war, Germany and America have
jointly advocated progressive principles, especially the abolishment
of the right of capture at sea and the protection of the interests of
neutrals.

Even at the beginning of the present war the German Government
immediately declared its willingness, in response to proposals of the
American Government, to ratify the Declaration of London and thereby
subject itself in the use of its naval forces to all the restrictions
provided therein in favor of neutrals.

Germany likewise has been always tenacious of the principle that war
should be conducted against the armed and organized forces of an enemy
country, but that the enemy civilian population must be spared as far
as possible from the measures of war. The Imperial Government
cherishes the definite hope that some way will be found when peace is
concluded, or perhaps earlier, to regulate the law of maritime war in
a manner guaranteeing the freedom of the seas, and will welcome it
with gratitude and satisfaction if it can work hand in hand with the
American Government on that occasion.

If in the present war the principles which should be the ideal of the
future have been traversed more and more, the longer its duration, the
German Government has no guilt therein. It is known to the American
Government how Germany's adversaries, by completely paralyzing
peaceful traffic between Germany and neutral countries, have aimed
from the very beginning and with increasing lack of consideration at
the destruction not so much of the armed forces as the life of the
German nation, repudiating in doing so all the rules of international
law and disregarding all rights of neutrals.

On November 3, 1914, England declared the North Sea a war area, and by
planting poorly anchored mines and by the stoppage and capture of
vessels, made passage extremely dangerous and difficult for neutral
shipping, thereby actually blockading neutral coasts and ports
contrary to all international law. Long before the beginning of
submarine war England practically completely intercepted legitimate
neutral navigation to Germany also. Thus Germany was driven to a
submarine war on trade.

On November 14, 1914, the English Premier declared in the House of
Commons that it was one of England's principal tasks to prevent food
for the German population from reaching Germany via neutral ports.
Since March 1 England has been taking from neutral ships without
further formality all merchandise proceeding to Germany, as well as
all merchandise coming from Germany, even when neutral property. Just
as it was also with the Boers, the German people is now to be given
the choice of perishing from starvation with its women and children or
of relinquishing its independence.

While our enemies thus loudly and openly proclaimed war without mercy
until our utter destruction, we were conducting a war in self-defense
for our national existence and for the sake of peace of an assured
permanency. We have been obliged to adopt a submarine warfare to meet
the declared intentions of our enemies and the method of warfare
adopted by them in contravention of international law.

With all its efforts in principle to protect neutral life and property
from damage as much as possible, the German Government recognized
unreservedly in its memorandum of February 4 that the interests of
neutrals might suffer from the submarine warfare. However, the
American Government will also understand and appreciate that in the
fight for existence, which has been forced upon Germany by its
adversaries and announced by them, it is the sacred duty of the
Imperial Government to do all within its power to protect and save the
lives of German subjects. If the Imperial Government were derelict in
these, its duties, it would be guilty before God and history of the
violation of those principles of highest humanity which are the
foundation of every national existence.

The case of the Lusitania shows with horrible clearness to what
jeopardizing of human lives the manner of conducting war employed by
our adversaries leads. In the most direct contradiction of
international law all distinctions between merchantmen and war vessels
have been