The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1939. "HARVEST OF THE SEA”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20101, 22 November 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1939. "HARVEST OF THE SEA”

Germany now admits responsibility for the indiscriminate and illegal laying of mines which have been responsible for the loss of at least ten ships, the majority of them neutral, during the last two or three days. The admission itself is interesting and provides a remarkable commentary on Nazi methods and mentality. On Monday, the German morning newspapers heatedly denied that Germany was guilty of the sinking of the Simon Bolivar and the official organ of the Nazi Party went even further and insisted that it was clearly revealed that an English mine was responsible. Broadcasts from Zeesen yesterday morning, heard in New Zealand earlylast evening, again disclaimed German culpability and attempted to place the blame on Britain. A few hours later, however, the same station was boasting of the German “harvest of the sea,” and, admitting that the mines had been laid with the object of disrupting Britain’s maritime trade, added that “it was rather sad for neutrals’’ that their ships should have been caught in this latest net of Nazi frightfulness. What the German radio announcers and the German public—assuming that the public is given all the reports—think of these astounding contradictions is a matter for conjecture, but it is reasonable to assume that in Germany, as in other parts of the world, they must cast serious doubts on all “news’’ that emanates from Nazi sources.

Nothing is to be gained by protesting against the use of this new German weapon, for the world already knows that there are no depths to which the Nazis will not descend in the conduct of war. To them, the most despicable means are justified by the ends. Their objective at the moment is “to strike at their foes” in British waters and if others suffer in the process then it is “rather sad." “Rather sad” seems to be a somewhat mild expression even for Nazis to apply to the sinking of a neutral ship such as the Simon Bolivar with the loss of nearly a hundred lives. This ship, like those of other neutrals, -was entitled to assume that it was protected by international law, but for Germany there is no law other than that of the jungle. The laying of mines in such a manner as to trap innocent • victims is equalled in callousness only by the. torpedoing without warning of neutral vessels which have no part in the war. In some respects, it is worse than the bombing of open towns which, if they are situated in belligerent areas, must accept some risk. There is no valid reason, however, why similar risks should be imposed on innocent women and children travelling on neutral vessels, and this is exactly the effect of the German mine-laying policy.

From the humanitarian point of view the Nazi methods outrage all sense of decency, but apart from this aspect there is no reason why this new weapon should cause concern to the Allies. They entered the war with their eyes open and well knowing that there were no rules by which the enemy would be bound. British and French losses can be written ofi’ with the best grace possible as the fortunes of war, but that is not to say that the Allies must still consider themselves bound by rules which Germany so flagrantly breaks. Mr. Chamberlain’s announcement to-day that retaliatory measures will be adopted is to be welcomed, although it is difficult to see just what steps can be taken in this direction, because it is certain that British instincts of decency will prevent resort to the methods used by the enemy. In the meantime, there is a grim satisfaction in the knowledge that the Nazis have been compelled to invent yet another form of barbarity. The failure of a legitimate submarine campaign led to Hie adoption of unrestricted warfare by U-boats against both Allied and neutral shipping. This, in turn, was effectively countered by the convoy system and, as a result, Germany has now resorted to the method of laying illegal mine-fields. This new step, therefore, can fairly be interpreted as an admission of the failure of submarines to seriously disrupt the Allied sea-borne trade.

It has been suggested that the Ger-

man object in carrying out this ruthless warfare on neutral vessels is to convince neutral countries of the futility of attempting to maintain trade with the Allies. It is doubtful whether this objective will be achieved, and even if it does succeed in some measure in restricting neutral shipping it wilt inevitably cause resentment in those countries which are affected and which have every right to maintain their trade with belligerents. The victims of mine.; during the last few days include ships belopging to the Netherlands, Sweden, Lithuania, Yugoslavia, Italy, and Japan. This list, ironically enough, includes the two countries which are Germany’s partners in the anti-Com-intern pact, and their feelings in the matter can well be left to the imagination. They, as well as the other neutrals, will require only a few lessons of this nature to convince them that their best interests and the only hope of an ordered world lie in the suppression of the rule of force of which Germany is such an ardent advocate. The methods adopted by Germany may well prove a boomerang, because, apart from consolidating opinion against her, they provide yet another example of how unfitted she is to rule.