Part 13 (2/2)

Sunk or Captured Percentage

England (Exclusive of colonies) .......... 19,256,766 2,977,820 15.5 France .............. 2,319,438 376,360 16.2 Russia .............. 1,053,818 146,168 13.8 Italy ............... 1,668,296 314,290 18.8 Belgium ............. 352,124 32,971 9.3 j.a.pan ............... 1,708,386 37,391 0.22

(Figures for Dec. 1916 estimated) The World Tonnage at beginning of war was.... 49,089,553 Added 1914-16 by new construction............ 2,000,000 ---------- 51,089,553

Of this not useable are:

Tonnage Germany ... 5,459,296 Austria ... 1,055,719 Turkey ... 133,158

In Germany and Turkey held enemy s.h.i.+pping .......... 200,000

s.h.i.+ps in U. S. A... 2,352,764

Locked in Baltic and Black Sea ......... 700,000

Destroyed enemy tonnage ........... 3,885,000 ---------- Total 13,785,937

Destroyed neutral tonnage (estimated) 900,000 ---------- 14,685,937

Requisitioned by enemy countries for war purposes, transports, etc.

England ....... 9,000,000 France ........ 1,400,000 Italy ......... 1,100,000 Russia ........ 400,000 Belgium ....... 250,000 ---------- 12,150,000 ---------- 26,835,937 ---------- Remaining for world freight transmission still useable at the beginning of 1917............ 24,253,615 tons

To the Entente argument that Germany has not considered the speedy construction of merchant s.h.i.+ps during war time the author replies by citing Lloyd's List of December 29, 1916, which gave the following tonnage as having been completed in British wharves:

1913 .......... 1,977,000 tons 1914 .......... 1,722,000 tons 1915 .......... 649,000 tons 1916 .......... 582,000 tons

”These figures demonstrate that England, which is the leader of the world as a freight carrier is being harmed the most.” Admiral Hollweg cites these figures to show that s.h.i.+p construction has decreased in England and that England cannot make good s.h.i.+p losses by new construction.

On page 17 Rear Admiral Hollweg says:

”We are conducting to-day a war against enemy merchant vessels different from the methods of former wars only in part by ordinary wars.h.i.+ps. The chief method is by submarines based upon the fundamentals of international law as dictated by German prize court regulations. The German prize regulations were at the beginning of the war based upon the fundamental principles of the London Declaration and respected the modern endeavours of all civilised states to decrease the terrors of war. These regulations of sea laws were written to decrease the effects of the unavoidable consequences of sea warfare upon non-combatants and neutrals. As far as there have been changes in the regulations of the London Declaration during the war, especially as far as changes in the contraband list have been extended, we Germans have religiously followed the principle set by the English of, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'”

On page 19 he states:

”Americans would under no circ.u.mstances, not even to-day, if they were faced by a superior sea power in war, refuse to follow this method of warfare by the ruthless use of pirate s.h.i.+ps. May our submarine campaign be an example for them! The clever cruiser journey of U-53 off the Atlantic Coast gave them clearly to understand what this method was. Legally they cannot complain of this warfare. The other neutrals cannot complain either against such sea warfare because they have ever since the Middle Ages recognised the English method of sea warfare.”

[Ill.u.s.tration: The New Weather Cape]

In the chapter ent.i.tled ”The Opponent,” on page 27 the author says:

<script>