PATER’S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3201, 21 July 1915, Page 78

PATER’S CHATS WITH THE BOYS.

THE SINKING OP THE LUSITANIA. Illustrated and other papers which have recently arrived here are full of the Lusitania tragedy, and the condemnation of the German action is universal and unqualified. One of the writers on naval affairs, and a recognised naval authority, is Mr H. C. Bywater, who, before the outbreak of the war, was the Berlin correspondent of the Navy, the official organ of the Navy League, and what he says I'll refer to directly. ANY BRITISH WARSHIPS ABOUT? Were there any British warships about when the attack took place? I have read a letter somewhere recently, which says that writer is in a warship which passed over the spot about an hour and a-half before the catastrophe, and that the ship had hardly cast anchor when it received a wireless to proceed to the scene. GERMAN METHODS. The Germans take up a position which is perfectly logical from their point of view, but they are most illogical and truculent when they criticise the actions of the nations allied against them, especially ourselves. They say they gave Americans warning that the ship was to be torpedoed, so they do not hold themselves responsible for the loss of American lives. Are all nations to accept Germany’s standards and methods? The Germans, to destroy British overseas trade, are to prevent munitions from reaching Britain, blew the Lusitania up, or, what is really the same thing, sank her, because, in their eyes, one German soldier’s life is worth more to Germany than about 1300 lives to beligerent and neutral nations. Very well. Again, years before the war broke out, German writers, official and non-official, openly declared that, in the event of war, Germany’s intentions were to block all overseas trade with Britain by sending ships to the bottom, and so to starve Britain by cutting off supplies of food and raw products. Again, very well. Perfectly logical, because German methods all have an object in view—the ending of a war as swiftly as possible by any and every means available, provided it is safe to do so. Briefly, beiing a law to herself, Germany has the right to adopt any means towards two ends —the saving of the life of a German soldier by cutting off munitions and other supplies to the enemies of the Triple Alliance—Germany, Austria, and Turkey; and, second, the starving and ruining of the enemy. Everything must give way to these two paramount ends. BUT WHAT OF THE OTHER SIDE? Here is where the German is illogical. The German Government denies to its enemy rights it demands for itself. Germany wants to sink food-ships going to Britain, Avhether containing British subjects or not; but what an impertinence it is to deny to Britain the right to do the same thing in defence of herself as Germany does. If Germany has the right to sink ships and make no attempt to save life for the simple reason that submarines have no accommodation, haven’t w 7 e the same right Avith submarines to do the same thing? If Germany starving Britain is legitimate, surely Britain starving Germany is legitimate also. If any means are allowable to Germanv to safeguard the life of a German soldier, aren’t the same allowable to Britain to save the life of a British soldier? What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander also. WHAT H. C. BYWATER SAYS. To return to the Lusitania. In reference to this disaster Mr Bywater sums up five points which you can think out: (1) A week’s Avarning Avas given of what the Germans intended to do. (2) During this time German submarines Avere busy in the area around .and betAveen Valencia Island and Queenstown —the Lusitania Avas sunk south of Queenstown and almost, if nob actually, within sight of land. (3) The speed of the Lusitania had been reduced from full 25 knots to 17 or 18. (4) No survivor suav any British defensive or offensive ship in the neighbourhood. (5) The Admiralty had been payin'* £75,000 a year for years to have first* call on the Lusitania (and as much on the Mauretania, too) for first call on her services when urgency required. Why, then, Avas there no con Amy? This should haA r e been supplied—morally, because of the valuable cargo of lives j materially, be-

cause of what she had cost the nation and because of her cargo; and militarily, because of the influence which her destruction might be expected to have upon shipping generally. WHAT LORD ROSEBERY SAYS. He sums up the turpitude of Germany under three headings—“ (1) The moral degradation of a nation that "could hail such a crime as a victory and rejoice oyer it. (2) The mental degradation of a nation which can offer warning as an excuse for massacre. It is constantly proved n humbler cases of homicide that the murderer declared, ‘ I’ll do for him ’; but that has never saved the culprit from the gallows. (3) The stupidity of it. Never has that rauch-clarioned saying, ‘lt is worse than a crime; it is a blunder,’ been more fully exemplified. It is intended to dismay our neople; it will only rouse them to more furious effort. It is ntended to alarm neutrals, whom it will only alienate and. incense. And all thi s to secure without any possible competition the title of the enemy of the human race and the horror of the civilised world.” WHAT GERMANY WOULD SAY AND WHAT BRITAIN SHOULD SAY Germany is wrath because Britain is getting munitions from America and she cannot. I think if Germany had the control of the sea as we have, she would say to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland, “ As we are fighting Britain, and wish to bring her to her knees, we shall not allow you to import or expoit any more of any thing than you did before the war until we can make certain that its ultimate destiny is not to or from Britain.” If Germany, why not ourselves? Whatever a German soldier’s life is worth, ours is at least equally valuable; and any legitimate means ought to be adopted to end the war, and so save life and treasure. WHAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD SAY TO ENGLAND AND GERMANY. I have said that Christian ethics demanded from the United States at least a dignified protest when Belgium was violated and when Louvain was laid in ruins. But dollars rather than neutrality stayed America’s hand. What should she say now to Germany in the face of Germany’s action on the sea and Germany’s protest against America’s supplying the Allies with munitions? If New Testament morality is to be the guide, I think America should say: lou are in the wrong. You have violated the laws of civilisation, and set at naught the Hague Conference, the Geneva Convention, and the Declaration of London. In the interests of civilisation and humanity the war should end. You are the culprit; therefore we shall not allow any supplies to go to you direct nor through neutral countries, and we shall do all we can to assisT your enemies to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.” That may mean a declaration of war. If it does, then let war be declared. I do not wish for the United States to come into it, for the fewer there are to deal with when peace conditions are being discussed. the fewer the complications. The United States, however, need not declare war, but could give Britain a free hand in intercepting goods for Germany through neutral nations ; and neutral nations could not complain if they were allowed to carry or trade equal to that preceding the war. The extra trade is the profit on a needless bloodshed, and as such blood money should be stopped. I had promised to-day another Chat upon Bernhardi’s latest book, but a friend has it, and forgot to return it in time. Perhaps I shall give it next week, or, perhaps, instead outline an informative article in the February Fortnightly Review on Italia Irredenta, and so bring up to date a Chat I wrote on this subject some weeks ago.