NEUTRAL SHIPPING

Evening Star, Issue 23503, 17 February 1940, Page 9

NEUTRAL SHIPPING

DESTRUCTION BY GERMANY VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, February 15. The compilation of- a list of German violations of international law was described in the House of Commons today as being a “ very lengthy task,” and it is one which is likely to become longer if the Nazi threats following the sinking of the Dutch ship Burgerdijk are put into practice. The claim that all neutral ships which trade with Britain or. enter contraband control bases, even under compulsion, commit an unneutral act, which has been advanced by the German spokesman as justification for the destruction of the Burgerdijk, cannot be upheld in international law under which a neutral’s right to trading with belligerents always has been recognised. Belligerents, on the other hand, have the right to prevent the carriage of contraband provided the methods employed preclude the sinking of merchantmen without warning or without making proper provision for the crews’ safety; but the German “ justification ” in connection with the Burgerdijk cannot be advanced for the sinking of the Norwegian ship Sonja olf the Irish coast. These methods lend support to tbo report that the Nazi spokesman stated that henceforth Germany “ will make her own laws.” UNFOUNDED CLAIM. Further, the German claim that Britain acts illegally in taking ships into port for examination is equally unfounded. The impossibility under modern conditions of examining ships at sea was fully recognised in the last war, when diversion to controls was practised by all belligerents, Germany now makes constant use of this right in the Baltic, which is the only sea in which she exercises any control on the surface. It is thought that the apparent foundation of Germany’s cliam to sink vessels whore she has no surface control is because she is unable to make any impression on British commerce except by illegal means. “ SPECIOUS PLEA.” Another argument advanced by Germany in justification of her acts is that the North Sea can be regarded as an operations zone in which neutrals must accept risks as they would if passing through a battle zone on land. This specious plea overlooks the fact that the operations in question consist entirely of those very attacks against merchantmen, the risk of which Germany then says the neutrals must accept. it is one thing to argue that a neutral who chooses to go through a zone where an actual battle or military operation is in progress must take the resultant risks. It is quite another to make deliberate attacks on civilians and merchantmen, claim that these attacks constitute operations, and then say that neutrals must run the risk of them. NAZI EXAGGERATIONS. Without exception all the arguments now advanced by Germany were used by her in the last war in attempted justification of similar action. A further interesting parallel in the 'German methods in this war and last lies in the exaggeration of claims of success in “ breaking ” the blockade at sea. It was noticed in 1914-18 that as the German efforts failed the higher rose the percentage of exaggeration. Whereas in 1914 the claims were reasonably accurate, in 1917 the claims of sea successes were about 60 per cent, higher than actually attained, a figure which rose as high as over 200 per cent, before the war ended. Calculations now show that after only five months of war Germany has already reached the 1917 level of 60 per cent, exaggeration.