our King, modest soldier and fervent patriot. He and King Albert are the only sovereigns in this war who have never abandoned their place at the front. The difficulties of the war which Italy is waging may be understood only by visiting our battle fronts. They are stretched along the highest altitudes at which warfare has ever been known. With all the advantageous positions in the prior possession of the Austrians, our enemies have to be dug out of their nests, 10,000 feet up amid eternal snows. To her natural defenses Austria has added the most powerful modern system of fortifications. Still, the Italians have gained ground, and all along have conquered territory on the right bank of the Isonzo, except at Gorizia and Tomlino, which are intrenched camps defended by almost impregnable mountains, part of the Carso plateau, the high Monte Nero Ridge, the Ampezzo territory, including Cortina, and part of the famous Dolomite Road, which is the shortest communication between Toblach and Trent. We had almost reached Rovereto when the Austrian incursion into Trentino obliged us to retreat within our own frontier. But with this exception the Austrians have always been on the defensive, and have lost about 200 towns and villages, 40,000 prisoners, dozens of cannon, hundreds of machine guns, several thousand rifles, all of which have more than ordinary value, because they were taken in a mountainous country, where it is difficult to replace captured artillery and stores. The Policies of Germany's Enemies By the Berlin Foreign Office Reviewing the political events of the second year of the war, the German Foreign Office issued the following statement: THE HE world war was caused by Russia's aggressive policy, supported by France's policy of revenge. But it was rendered possible solely by the fact that England subordinated to her economic antagonism to Germany all her other interests. Whereas Germany's enemies regard it quite in order that they demand territorial aggrandizements at the cost of others-like Russia, who wants Constantinople and Galicia; like France, who desires Alsace-Lorraine and the left bank of the Rhine, and like Italy, who seeks Austrian territory — they grudge Germany even that she strive to develop herself economically in peaceable competition, and they pronounce this an unpardonable sin against the world's order of things. They are unwilling that Germany should become great and strong, because the other powers want to be the economic masters of the world. Territorial and economic aggrandizement has united Germany's foes in a war of destruction against us. The second war year has brought these true aims of our opponents into clearer light. In Russia this is openly admitted, they having an understanding with England and wanting Constantinople as their war goal. In France there is a war-mad cry for Alsace-Lorraine. In England, too, the mask has been dropped. It is openly admitted that Belgium was only a pretext to justify England's participation in the war which was undertaken only from self-interest. Germany must be destroyed. Germany shall never more raise her head economically nor militarily. In this way is the goal of our enemy more clearly enunciated during the second year of the war. It is equally clear that the talk of a struggle of democracy against militarism is only a catch-word used by our enemies to create sentiment and to cloak outwardly their real purpose of destruction. Assuredly there can be no talk of a struggle for the maintenance of democratic principles when one side sets out to destroy the enemy completely, including the civilian population. And is England really the land of democracy she pretends to be? Has not the entire development of England during the war shown that England is drawing further than ever away from democracy? Moreover, if England had really resorted to war in defense of the rights of the smaller nations, as she fondly announces to the world, she could without damage to her position have answered otherwise than with the threat of destroying Germany. Chancellor von Bethmann Hollweg's remarks made in the course of the year outlined German aims with sufficient clearness. England, therefore, wants a war of destruction, a war to the knife which, according to the plans of our enemies, shall continue even after the cannon is silenced; for their former talk about the permanent peace that they wished to establish has been drowned under the shout that Germany's enemies are raising over the Paris Eco nomic Conference. It is not enough that the world must be shaken by a protracted, bloody war. The world must not even thereafter enjoy a settled peace if the will of the Entente Powers prevails, for the decisions of the Economic Conference do not signify an economic peace, but a permanent economic warfare which never will permit the world to come to rest upon the basis of peaceful competition. This shows at the same time that the great words of the Entente Powers about fighting for the rights of smaller nations and international order are empty sounds, for when Germany's enemies seek to control neutral trade they simply ignore the rights of other countries and base, not on the principle of right, but upon pure might, precisely what they allegedly want to abolish. The second year of the war therefore shows that our enemies are precisely what they all along wrongly reproached Germany with being, namely, disturbers of the peace. Russia, through her unbridled passion for extending her borders; England, through being uncontrollable for dominating alone the economic world, and France, through her passion for revenge. This second year of the war further proved that it is our enemies who follow the principle of might before right. They show this in the more and more reckless violations of the generally recognized principles of international law, not only in the struggle against the Central Powers, but still more in their treatment of neutrals. One observes, therefore, in the second war year increasing violations of the rights of neutrals in the interests of England and her allies. These violations will also continue through the third war year, and even increase, unless all signs prove false. Germany proved in the last year, contrary to England's example, that in attaining her end she seeks so far as possible to avoid violating the just rights of neutrals. She even went far toward meeting the wishes of the United States in her conduct of submarine warfare, in spite of the fact that the enemy was trying to subdue Germany through an illegal war upon her peaceable population. Out of regard for the interests of neutrals Germany relinquished for the prosent one of her most effective weapons against the enemy, although she was compelled to wage a life-and-death struggle. At the opening of the third year of the war Germany is able to look back to her splendid military successes on water and on land, which are not without political importance. Germany and her allies remained firmly united during the past year in bonds of friendship and common interests. Bulgaria, as the fourth member, entered the alliance in October, 1915, after having satisfactorily arranged matters with Turkey. Through the accession of Bulgaria, which resulted in the subjugation of Serbia, the way was opened for the Central Powers from Berlin to Constantinople and to Bagdad, an event of far-reaching importance. The alliance of the Central Powers rests upon a community of political and economic interests. It is an intrinsic necessity for all four States and it guar antees to them among themselves the greatest advantages without in any way threatening the interests of the others. Building upon what she already has achieved Germany treads the threshold of THE the third year of the war with unshaken confidence. But the goal has not yet been reached, for the enemy has not yet come to see the impossibility of subjugating Germany. German Deeds On the High High Seas By Admiral von Holtzendorff HE naval warfare of the second year of the war, which envy and a spirit of revenge forced upon Germany and her allies, has passed, the chief impression left by it being increased British naval terrorism and the battle of the Skagerrak. The neutral powers in 1916 were throttled more than in the first year by the sea power of England, and hindered in the justified exercise of their commerce, postal rights, &c., by threats and violence. The victory of the German fleet over the British May 31 and June 1, therefore, was won in the interest of all the neutrals and all those who are dependent on the freedom of the seas. While in the first year of the war twenty proved violations of the law of nations by enemy merchantmen (firing upon German submarines, attempts to ram them, &c.,) occurred, thirty-eight such cases were reported in the second year. Merchantmen owned by the Allies therefore during the two years violated in the grossest manner the rules of international law no less than fifty-eight times against our submarines. This can be proved up to the hilt. The warships of Germany's enemies during the war have violated the law of nations in three particularly extreme cases, namely, the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, the Dresden, and the Albatross. Two cases, the Baralong and the King Stephen, must be characterized not only as violations of the law of nations and a breach of the most ordinary tenets of humanity, but as common murder. Countless cases in which British warships have violated international law in their conduct against merchantmen owned by the Central Powers or neutrals cannot be enumerated. During the second year of the war the British and their allies lost 22 warships of a total of 266,320 tons and Germany and her allies 10 warships of 82,210 tons. The total losses for the two years of the war are: Great Britain and her allies, 49 ships of 562,250 tons, and Germany and her allies, 30 ships of 191,321 tons. Of these losses England alone had 40 ships of 485,220 tons and Germany alone 25 ships of 162,676 tons. The British losses comprised 11 battleships, 17 armored cruisers, and 12 protected cruisers. The battleships include the Audacious, the loss of which has not yet been officially announced, and a ship of the Queen Elizabeth class. The cruisers include the still contested loss of the Tiger and the destruction of an armored cruiser of the Cressy class on the night of May 31, which was established by observations from almost the entire German fleet, and two small cruisers in the battle of Skagerrak. Furthermore, during the year preceding June 30, 879 enemy merchantmen, of a total of 1,816,682 gross tons, were lost as a consequence of war measures of the Central Powers, which brings the total for the war up to July 1 to 1,303 enemy merchantment of 2,574,205 tons, not including enemy merchantmen confiscated in the harbors of the Central Powers. The total result of the two years' war for England and her allies is a loss in material and prestige which cannot be made good. This great and unexpected success of the German fleet and confederated naval forces deserves the more consideration because the strength of warships afloat or under construction at the beginning of the war for the enemy fleets was 443 vessels of 5,428,000 tons, excluding auxiliary cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and other armed craft, of which England alone had far more than 2,000 in service. Against these vessels Germany and her allies could oppose 156 similar ships of 1,651,000 tons. The Central Powers therefore have inflicted on an enemy three and a third times stronger than them losses in large warships almost triple their own. IT Review of the Year's Naval Battles By Captain Persius Leading German Naval Critic T seemed likely that the second year of the war would end without a sea fight of the first magnitude, but May 31 brought a gratifying proof that our great battleships were not built in vain, and that our fleet, despite seeming inactivity, was quietly and assiduously preparing itself for a blow against the strongest sea power in the world. We still hear the question asked as to who was the real victor in the fight off Skagerrak. A comparison of the clear, concise reports of the German Admiralty Staff with Admiral Jellicoe's long-winded reporis, which contain only a few facts, leaves no doubt that the German official account gives a thoroughly truthful description of the battle. The English version, with its barrenness of facts, labors in vain to conceal its improbability. Whatever the final judgment is of the battle in detail the loss of British prestige at sea and the pronounced success of our fleet remain indisputable if only the British losses in men and ships are considered. The waves of the North Sea swallowed 6,104 British seamen and 117,150 gross registered tons of shipping, while the German losses were 2,414 men and 60,720 tons. These figures were officially published on both the German and British sides. Numberless authorities, both hostile and neutral, have expressed opinions on the battle, but the German people will not permit themselves to be influenced by any foreign judgment. They understand alone how proud they may be of a navy whose quality and honor have stood the test of battle with the strongest sea power. They know that Chancellor von Bethmann Hollweg rightly expressed the general sentiment in his speech in the Reichstag on June 5 when he said: "This victory, too, shall not make us vainglorious. We know that England is not subdued or conquered by this battle." By the side of the battle of the Skagerrak the other events in the second year of the war, navally speaking, pale into insignificance. In the first year the activity of German submarines aroused general astonishment. In the second year their activity was sharply circumscribed, but nevertheless their successes in war upon commerce were considerable in comparison with those of the first year. On the other hand, the destruction of warships by submarines occurred but seldom. The U-27 destroyed an English protected cruiser in the North Sea on Aug. 10, 1915. Another of our boats sank the French armored cruiser Amiral Charnier in the Eastern Mediterranean on Feb. 8, 1916. A number of minor war vessels were also sunk. English submarines did some damage to German commerce in the Baltic and succeeded in torpedoing several of our warships like the armored cruiser Prince Adalbert, Oct. 23; Undine, Nov. 7, and Bremen, Dec. 17. Special attention is merited by the bold flights of our marine aircraft and their important scout work in the North Sea and Baltic. Attacks were made against fortified places on England's east coast and the English were able to destroy only two German airships, No. 15 on April 1, and No. 7 on May 4. Within a few hours ar airships were able to reconnoitre the entire North Sea and they did valuable service in the battle off Skagerrak. Marine aeroplanes also did excellent work and especially distinguished themselves in the Baltic where they were of the utmost value in various ways. On several occasions they were able even to take the offensive with success, damaging warships with bombs and capturing merchantmen. In the Black Sea and the Mediterraean German submarines, working with those of Austria-Hungary, operated successfully in war against commerce and destroyed numerous transports laden with troops and war material. In the Black Sea the Yawuz Sultan Selim, formerly the German cruiser Goeben, and the Midullu, formerly the German cruiser Breslau, bombarded Russian fortified towns on the Crimean coast at various times and damaged Russian commerce. The glorious deeds of several German auxiliary cruisers remain to be mentioned. The Möwe, under the command of Count von Dohna, made a successful raid into the Atlantic in January and February. The Appam, one of the steamers captured by it, carried the pas sengers and crew of other captured merchantmen to the United States under the command of Lieutenant Berg. The Möwe herself made her home port safely on March 4 laden with booty. The auxiliary cruisers Meteor and Greif destroyed on Aug. 7 and Feb. 29, respectively, the much stronger armed British auxiliaries Ramsey and Alcantara. On the threshold of the third year of the war it remains to be pointed out that the German Navy has hitherto fulfilled its chief task of keeping the enemy from German coasts, and, beyond this, has scored a series of successes that have exceeded our most sanguine expectations. The German people do not ignore the fact that British sea power still dominates the seas, but nevertheless they look with confidence upon their navy. They expect it to show itself able and willing to win victories in the third year of the war as it has done hitherto and thus contribute its part toward the general aim of securing an honorable peace. THE Jutland and the Turn of the Tide By Arthur J. Balfour First Lord of the British Admiralty HE second anniversary of the British. declaration of war provides a fitting opportunity for a brief survey of the present naval situation. The consequences, material and moral, of the Jutland battle cannot be easily overlooked; an allied diplomatist assured me that he considered it the turning point of the war. The tide, which had long ceased to help our enemies, began from that moment to flow strongly in our favor. This much, at least, is true that every week which has passed since the German fleet was driven, damaged, into port has seen new successes for the Allies in one part or other of the field of operations. It wou be an error, however, to suppose that the naval victory changed the situation; what it did was to confirm it. Before the Jutland battle, as after, the German fleet was imprisoned. The battle was an attempt to break the bars and burst the confining gates. It failed, and with its failure the High Seas Fleet sank again into impotence. The Germans claim Jutland as a victory, but in essence they admit the contrary, since the object of a naval battle is to obtain command of the sea; and it is certain that Germany has not obtained that command, while Great Britain has not lost it. Tests of this assertion are easy to apply. Has the grip of the British blockade relaxed since May 31? Has it not, on the contrary, tightened? The Germans themselves will admit the increasing difficulty of importing raw materials and foodstuffs and of exporting their manufactures; hence, the |