FEBRUARY 1, 1917

The latest sea outrage

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2017-02-01/register/the-latest-sea-outrage-bblgpc3xl

The signs of an increased intensity in the German submarine campaign are accumulating fast. There can be only one reason for the manifesto of the German Government about hospital ships, which the Foreign Office makes public today. It has all the familiar marks of a document designed to prepare the way for inhuman deeds. It is based on the lie that British hospital ships have been misused for the transport of munitions and troops. It alleges, with stupid mendacity, that “proofs” have been placed “through diplomatic channels” before the British and French Governments. And it utters its threat in the form of a prohibition of all traffic of hospital ships in the English Channel and the North Sea south of the Yorkshire coast — a transparent attempt to induce the German people and neutrals to believe that the enemy has control of this large expanse of sea. This orgy of falsehood is well exposed in the reply of the Foreign Office, and the German Government have been informed that if the threat is carried out reprisals will be taken by Great Britain immediately.
The sinking of hospital ships by German submarines is no new outrage. There have been flagrant attacks on Russian Red Cross vessels in the Black Sea. Our own hospital ships, and those of the French, have owed their comparative immunity in home waters more to the measures of precaution taken than to any forbearance of the enemy. The fate of the Britannic and of the Braemar Castle — both sunk in the Aegean during November — proves that well enough. But the Foreign Office are probably right in saying that the new German manifesto means that the German Government intend to attempt “to add other and more unspeakable crimes ... to the long list which disgraces their record”.
The most recent of these crimes is among the worst. On Saturday, in a heavy easterly gale, the Artist, a British steamer, was torpedoed 48 miles from land. Of the crew, who were forced into open boats “utterly without means of reaching land or succour”, sixteen survived. The Admiralty do not mince words about the fate of the rest. “Those who perished during those three days of bitter exposure were murdered, and to pretend that anything was done to ensure their safety would be sheer hypocrisy.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/register/war-on-every-mans-lips-dmbc95tpb

february 2, 1917

War on every man’s lips

New York, Feb 1. The United States is thunderstruck by Germany’s move. There is no longer any talk of peace Notes or peace conferences. The possibility that the country may be forced into war is on every man’s lips. It is universally proclaimed that the President is confronted with a situation to which the destruction of the Lusitania is the only parallel. It is felt that he must at once decide whether to make good his words or compound Teutonic crimes for, as every newspaper recalls, he said nearly a year ago after the Sussex crime that torpedoing without warning would produce a rupture in diplomatic relations. And now Germany purposes apparently to torpedo everything without warning, including hospital ships and liners. Even the German-American Press scarcely dare to justify their master’s policy. The comment of the American Press is very heated.
There is absolutely no inclination anywhere to heed the arguments about the brutality or illegality of our blockade, with which Germany tries to palliate her piratical programme. Everybody agrees that the translation of her plans into action will put her without the pale. The only difference of opinion is regarding the manner in which the President should show his resentment. A large number of newspapers, including the New York World, the chief organ of the Administration, proclaim with Mr Roosevelt that Count Bernstorff ought to go at once. Others follow the New York Times in proclaiming that the United States must act, but in eschewing further advice. Others again urge their readers to reflect that the probability of war must be gravely considered. On the other hand, the school of “wait and see” has a goodly band of exponents, even the Conservative Baltimore Sun, which likes to think that it provides the President with his breakfast table news. These differences are reflected in Washington. In Executive circles complete silence is observed, if for no other reason than that the President probably has not yet decided upon his course, but in Congressional circles the question of immediate action, as opposed to waiting until a specific case of injury to Americans arises, is keenly canvassed. So far, judging from dispatches, the cautious school somewhat preponderates.