Le Nord : revue internationale des Pays de Nord - 01.06.1939, Page 380
370
LE NORD
Baltic- offensive. These plans were
principally propounded by Lord
Fisher of Kilverstone, then First
Sea Lord, who had cherished the
idea of a Baltic-offensive many
years ago (v. Lieutenant-Colonel C.
Repington: The First World War,
Vol. I, chap. 1, p. 11—12; Winston
Churchill: The World Crisis, Vol.
II, chap. 2 f. and Admiral Sir R. H.
Bacon: Lord Fisher, Chap. VIII).
But this fact alters nothing in the
correctness of the preceeding state-
ment. These plans were never re-
alised, because the risk was too
overwhelming as long as Germany’s
naval strength in all essentials was
unweakened. For this reason the
Gallipoli-expedition was preferred,
and it may be reasonably believed
that it was not only for the good
of Denmark but also to a great de-
gree for England and the Allied
Powers that the plans of a Baltic-
offensive never were carried out.
Mr. Joesten asserts that the mine-
blocking “was both an illegal and
flagrantly un-neutral act.” This
must be definitely dismissed. The
treaty of March 14th, 1857, has
nothing at all to do with this
problem. This treaty concerns only
mercantile vessels. Although it does
not expressively mention the pas-
sage through the Sound and the
Belts in time of war, it may be in-
ferred, that Denmark, as far as pos-
sible, is bound to safeguard mer-
cantile vessels a free passage also in
time of war. This also was the Da-
nish reading of the treaty during
the Great War. But the treaty says
nothing whatever about warships in
time of peace nor in time of war.
It has nothing to do with military
measures during a war. Mr. Joesten
seems not to have read the treaty
itself or to have the slightest know-
ledge of the historical conditions
and the negotiations before its con-
clusion.
As to the legal side of the whole
question this must be judged ac-
cording to the general rules of inter-
national law. These principally
secures to all ships — mercantile as
well as warships — the right of free
passage through waters, which like
the Danish Belts connect two free
seas. But this principle rule is valid
with reservation of the right of war,
i. e. that rights derived from the
sovereignty itself remain intact
during a state of war. Not only a
belligerent but also a neutral state
is thus, for defence purposes or for
the maintenance of its neutrality,
entitled to establish mine-blocking
of its own home-waters or make the
preparations suited to guard íts
safety. The nature and the extent
of those preparations are wholly de-
pendent on the political situation at
the given moment. This is the
reason of the changing attitude of
the Danish governments in the dif-
ferent situations. That the mine-
blocking was at variance with Da-
nish neutrality rules of 1912, is
undeniable. That it was carried out
after a German inquiry, is a historic
fact. But this can in no way modify