THE "LUSITANIA" INCIDENT
On August 6th, 1914, the Government of the United States proposed to
all the belligerent Powers that the laws of war at sea, as laid down
in the Declaration of London of 1909, should be observed throughout
the present war. This reasonable suggestion, which, had it been
generally observed, would have saved the world much distress, came
to nothing, owing to the refusal of Great Britain to accept it as
it stood without reservation. The United States Government thereupon
withdrew its proposal on October 24th, and announced that "It was
resolved in future to see that the rights and duties of the Government
and citizens of the United States should be settled in accordance
with the accepted principles of international law and the treaty
obligations of the United States, without reference to the provisions
of the Declaration of London." Moreover, the American Government
drew up protests and demands for compensation, for use in case
of any infringement of these rights, or of any interference with
their free exercise on the part of the belligerent Powers.
On November 3rd, 1914, Great Britain declared the whole of the
North Sea a theatre of war, and thereupon instituted, in flagrant
violation of the Law of Nations, a blockade of the adjoining neutral
coasts and ports. General disappointment was felt in Germany that
the United States made no attempt to vindicate her rights in this
matter, and confined herself to demanding compensation in individual
cases of infringement.
Both in Germany and elsewhere it was clearly recognized that England's
design was to use this illegal blockade for the purpose of starving
out the German people. During a discussion between myself and Mr.
Lansing, later Secretary of State, on the matter of assistance
to be sent by America to Belgium, he expressed the opinion that
nothing would come of the scheme, as Lord Kitchener had adopted
the attitude that no food supplies could under any circumstances
be sent to territory in German occupation. I answered that I had
expected this refusal, as it was England's intention to starve
us out, to which Mr. Lansing replied: "Yes, the British frankly
admit as much." It will be remembered that, as a matter of fact,
Lord Kitchener withdrew his refusal in view of the pressure of
English public opinion, which demanded that relief should be sent
to Belgium on account of the distress prevalent there, and despite
the fact that such a measure was of indirect assistance to us. A
subsequent proposal from the American Government for the dispatch
of similar relief to Poland was declined in London.
We Germans had hoped that the neutral States would vigorously claim
their right to freedom of mutual trade, and would take effective
measures, in conjunction with the leadership of the United States,
to force the British Government to suspend the oppressive and
extra-legal policy. This they failed to do, at any rate, in time to
forestall the fateful decision on our part to undertake submarine
warfare. It is now impossible to tell whether this policy might not
have had more favorable results, had not the growing estrangement
between Germany and America caused by the new campaign nipped in
the bud any possibility of serious Anglo-American differences.
In the other neutral countries this submarine warfare alienated
all sympathy for us, and no doubt was one reason why the neutral
States, which in previous wars had always attempted to vindicate
their rights as against the Power which had command of the sea, now
refrained from any concerted action to this end. Such a procedure
on their part would have indirectly influenced the situation in
favor of Germany, as the weaker Power at sea; it will be remembered
that the United States, during their War of Independence against
England, drew much advantage from a similar attitude on the part
of the European Powers. My knowledge of America leads me to believe
that, had we not incurred such odium by our infringement of Belgian
neutrality and our adoption of submarine warfare, the action of
the Washington Government might have been other than it was; had
it even raised a finger to protest against England's methods, the
latter must instantly have given way, as had so frequently happened
during the last twenty-five years, when the United States took up on
any point an attitude hostile to Britain. The contrast between this
passive attitude on the part or the President and the traditional
forward policy of America _vis-a-vis_ England, goes far to support
the contention of Wilson's detractors in Germany--that these two
countries were in league and were playing a preconcerted game.
It is impossible to convince one's political foes on any point
except by positive proof, and until the time comes when the enemy's
archives are published, such proof cannot, of course, be adduced
on this particular matter. This time is still far distant. Why
should the enemy publish their archives? They have won and have
therefore no reason to grumble at the course of events. Thus I
can at present only combat with counter-arguments the contention
that I misunderstood the true state of affairs in America. The
hypothesis of secret collusion between America and England seems
in the present case unnecessary; the attitude of public opinion
in America is in itself sufficient explanation of the situation at
the time. Sympathy for us from the very first day of the war there
was none; but had the general feeling been as strongly for us as it
actually was against us, no doubt the Government would have kicked
against the English illegalities, and enforced an embargo against
her. I still hold to my view that Mr. Wilson made a real effort to
maintain the observance of a strict neutrality; but the decisive
factor was that he found himself, as a result of his efforts, in
increasing measure in conflict with the overwhelming Germanophobe
sentiment of the people, and continually exposed to the reproach
put forward in the Eastern States that he was a pro-German.
The American public, indifferent as it was to the affairs of Europe
and entirely ignorant of its complicated problems, failed to understand
the full extent of the peril to the very existence of the German
Empire, which compelled its rulers, much against their will and
with heavy hearts, to have recourse to the invasion of Belgium.
They themselves, living in perfect security and under pleasant
conditions, had no means of realizing the perilous position of
a comparatively small people, such as the Germans, surrounded by
greedy foes, and straitened within narrow frontiers; their judgment,
as already remarked, was swayed by their individual sentiments of
justice and humanity. The attitude of the Allied and Associated
Powers at Versailles might have enlightened the American people as
to the peril of dismemberment which threatened a defeated Germany;
but such realization, even supposing it to have taken place, has
come too late to affect the consequences of the war. I am convinced
that they will in a few years be forced to admit that Germany during
the course of her struggle was, contrary to the generally accepted
view of to-day, quite as much sinned against as sinning.
The German Government, then, decided upon the adoption of submarine
warfare, and issued a declaration to this effect. This document,
together with explanatory memorandum, was delivered by me on February
4th, 1915, to the Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan; it was to the
effect that the territorial waters of Great Britain and Ireland,
including the whole of the English Channel, were declared a war area.
From February 18th onwards every enemy merchant ship encountered
in this area was liable to be sunk, without any guarantee that
time could be given for the escape of passengers and crew. Neutral
shipping in the war zone was likewise liable to the same dangers,
as owing to the misuse of neutral flags resulting from the British
Government's order of January 31st, and the chances of naval warfare,
the possibility of damage to other shipping as a result of attacks
on hostile vessels might sometimes be unavoidable.
I regarded it as my main duty, when handing this document to Mr.
Bryan, to recommend to the United States Government that they should
warn all American citizens of the danger to the crews, passengers and
cargoes of hostile merchant ships moving within the war area from
this time onwards. Further, I felt it necessary to draw attention to
the advisability of an urgent recommendation that American shipping
should keep clear of the danger zone, notwithstanding the express
statement in the memorandum that the German naval forces had orders
to avoid any interference with neutral vessels clearly recognizable
as such.
Mr. Secretary Bryan was at first incredulous; he believed a submarine
campaign of this nature to be unthinkable, and my statements to
be merely bluff. The American Government therefore resolved to
take no measures of precaution, but to dispatch a Note to Berlin
on February 12th, summarizing the two conflicting points of view,
which remained irreconcilable throughout the whole controversy, on
the subject of the submarine war. Germany, on the one hand, defended
her course of action as a reprisal justified by the British blockade,
which both parties to the discussion agreed to be contrary to the
Law of Nations. The United States, for her part, maintained that
as long as the blockade of Great Britain was not made effective,
neutral shipping had the right to go where it wished unharmed, and
that the German submarines were empowered only to hold up merchant
ships for search purposes, unless these same ships offered resistance
or endeavored to escape.
The chief germ of dissension lay in the fact that the British blockade,
which was defended by its authors as being merely an extension
of the rights of sea warfare to square with the progress of the
modern military machine, was met on America's part only by paper
protests, while our own extension of the same rights by means of
submarine warfare was treated as a _casus belli_. At a later period
of the war the Imperial Government made certain proposals to the
United States, who might, by accepting them, have safeguarded all
their commercial and shipping interests, not to mention the lives
of their citizens, to the fullest possible extent, and yet have
allowed us a free field for our submarine warfare. These proposals
the United States rejected; thus she set herself to combat with all
her strength any continuance of the blockade restrictions through
our submarines, while conniving at the similar restrictions exercised
by England, although these latter infringed far more seriously the
rights of neutral Powers.
The following extract from the American Note of February 12th clearly
presaged the conflict to come:
"This Government has carefully noted the explanatory statement
issued by the Imperial German Government at the same time with
the proclamation of the German Admiralty, and takes this occasion
to remind the Imperial German Government very respectfully that the
Government of the United States is open to none of the criticisms
for unneutral action to which the German Government believe the
governments of certain other neutral nations have laid themselves
open; that the Government of the United States has not consented or
acquiesced in any measures which may have been taken by the other
belligerent nations in the present war which operate to restrain
neutral trade, but has, on the contrary, taken in all such matters a
position which warrants it in holding those governments responsible
in the proper way for any untoward effects upon American shipping
which the accepted principles of international law do not justify;
and that it, therefore, regards itself as free in the present instance
to take with a clear conscience and upon accepted principles the
position indicated in this Note.
"If the commanders of German vessels of war should act upon the
presumption that the flag of the United States was not being used
in good faith and should destroy on the high seas an American or the
lives of American citizens, it would be difficult for the Government
of the United States to view the act in any other light than as an
indefensible violation of neutral rights which it would be very
hard indeed to reconcile with the friendly relations now so happily
subsisting between the two Governments.
"If such a deplorable situation should arise, the Imperial German
Government can readily appreciate that the Government of the United
States would be constrained to hold the Imperial German Government
to a strict accountability for such acts of their naval authorities,
and to take any steps it might be necessary to take to safeguard
the American lives and property and to secure to American citizens
the full enjoyment of their acknowledged rights on the high seas."
The Imperial Government reaffirmed its standpoint in a further
Note, dated February 16th, the gist and conclusion of which was
as under:
"If the American Government, by reason of that weight which it is
able and entitled to cast into the balance which decides the fate
of peoples, should succeed even now in removing those causes which
make the present action of the German Government an imperious duty;
if the American Government, in short, should succeed in inducing the
Powers at war with Germany to abide by the terms of the Declaration of
London, and to permit the free importation into Germany of foodstuffs
and raw material, the Imperial Government would recognize in such
action a service of inestimable value, tending to introduce a spirit
of greater humanity into the conduct of the war, and would willingly
draw its own conclusions from the resulting new situation."
This Note was effective, in that it induced the American Government
to dispatch on February 22nd an identical Note to Great Britain and
Germany, with the object of arriving at a _modus vivendi_ in the
matter. Their proposal was as follows: Submarines were not to be
employed in any attack on merchant ships of whatever nationality,
save in execution of the rights of detention or search; merchant
ships, for their part, were not to make use of neutral flags, whether
as a _ruse de guerre_ or to avoid identification. Great Britain
would give free passage to provisions and food supplies consigned
to certain agents in Germany, to be named by the United States.
These agents would receive all goods thus imported and dispatch
them to specially licensed distributing firms, who were to be
responsible that they were issued exclusively to the civilian
population.
The above project was concurred in by the German Government in a
Note of February 28th, which added that "The Imperial Government
considered it right that other raw materials, essential to manufacture
for peaceful purposes, and also fodder, should also be imported
without interference."
The British Government, as was to be expected, rejected the American
proposal on somewhat flimsy pretexts, for England's sea supremacy
was at stake in this as in her previous wars. "Britannia rules the
waves" was, and ever must be, the guiding principle of all her
policy, while her world-Empire endures. On this vitally important
question England could not be expected ever to yield an inch of
her own free will.
Thus the American attempt at mediation died a natural death.
Our adoption of submarine warfare was to be regarded, according to
our Note of February 16th, as a measure of reprisal in answer to
the English blockade. From a tactical point of view, this contention
was unfortunate, as it afforded America the opportunity of agreeing
at once, and thus of conceding us a point which benefited us not
at all, but merely gave the United States all the more right to
renew its protests against the submarine war. It would have been
wiser for us to have initiated the submarine campaign simply as a
new weapon of war without reference to the English blockade; still
better, to put it into operation without declaring a blockade of
Great Britain and Ireland, which could never be really effective,
and caused constant friction between ourselves and America. Our
declaration that the territorial waters of Great Britain were to
be regarded as a war area was a legal formality modelled on the
earlier English proclamation of the barred zones, and at once
antagonized public opinion in the United States. By adopting the
point of view we did with regard to reprisals, we laid ourselves
open to the charge of illegality, and added to the ill-feeling
already excited by the submarine campaign. If the contention of
certain naval authorities that the observance of the Declaration of
London by our enemies would have brought us no important material
advantage is correct, the issue of our Note of February 16th becomes
even less comprehensible. Having admitted in this Note that the
declaration of the barred zones was caused by the fact that all
was not well with us, we could hardly expect England would fall
in with the proposal made at our suggestion by Mr. Wilson, and
thus allow us so easy a diplomatic triumph. The President, however,
after his rebuff from England, was bound, in order to maintain
his prestige, to bring all possible pressure to bear on us, in
the hope of compensating by diplomatic success in Berlin for his
failure in London. My subsequent attitude was laid down, but at
the same time made more difficult, by this interchange of Notes;
but, generally speaking, my personal action in the matter began
with the _Lusitania_ incident; previous to this the negotiations
had been entirely in the hands of Berlin.
The Washington Government then for the present assumed a waiting
attitude, until such time as loss of American lives through our
submarine activities should compel its intervention. With regard
to damage to property, the standpoint was consistently maintained
that claims for compensation for financial loss must be fully met.
Every day might see a serious conflict, and this possibility was a
source of constant anxiety to us Germans in the United States. The
American Government, we thought, still underestimated the dangers
of the situation, and failed to take any measures of precaution.
In the middle of April I held a meeting in New York, with the
representatives of the other German administrative departments, and
in view of the great responsibility incumbent on us, we resolved
on the motion of Dr. Dernburg to issue a warning to the Press in
the form usually adopted for shipping notices. As a rule, these
shipping notices were published by the Consulate as a matter of
routine. Dr. Dernburg having, however, been unable to come to an
agreement with the New York Consulate on the matter, I took upon
myself to issue the advertisement as from the German Ambassador.
It ran as follows:
"Travellers intending to embark for an Atlantic voyage are reminded
that a state of war exists between Germany and her Allies and Great
Britain and her Allies; that the zone of war includes the waters
adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with the formal
notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the
flag of Great Britain or any of her Allies are liable to destruction
in those waters; and that travellers sailing in the war zone in
ships of Great Britain or her Allies do so at their own risk."
"IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY, Washington.
"_April 22nd_, 1915."
This notice was intended to appear in the Press on April 24th and
the two following Saturdays. By one of those fatal coincidences
beloved of history, it happened that owing to technical difficulties
the _communique_ was not actually published until May 1st--the very
date on which the _Lusitania_ left New York harbor. This conjunction
was bound to appear intentional rather than fortuitous, and even
to-day the majority of Americans believe that I must have known
beforehand of the design to torpedo the _Lusitania_.
As the true facts of the matter are not yet clear, and were never
explained officially, I have no means of saying whether the destruction
of the _Lusitania_ was the result of a deliberate purpose on the
part of our naval authorities. To the best of my belief technical
factors render it impossible for a submarine commander to make any
one particular ship the object of his attack, so that the officer
responsible for the sinking of the _Lusitania_ could not have been
certain what vessel he had to deal with. In any case, whether the
action of our naval authorities was planned out beforehand or not,
we in America had no knowledge of any such plan; indeed, until it
actually occurred, I believed the destruction of the _Lusitania_
to be unthinkable, not merely for humanitarian reasons, but because
it was obviously sound policy to refrain as far as possible from
any attack on passenger ships. I did not at the time realize how
difficult it was for our naval forces to insure the safety of such
vessels without impairing the efficiency of the submarine blockade.
Again, I did not believe it possible to torpedo a rapidly-moving
ship like the _Lusitania_ if she were going at full speed; and,
finally, I supposed that a modern liner, if actually struck, would
remain afloat long enough to allow of the rescue of her passengers.
The captain of the _Lusitania_ himself seems to have been quite
at ease in his mind on the matter; at all events, he took no
precautionary measures to avoid the danger threatening him, or
to insure the safety of the people on board in case of need. The
rapidity with which the ship went down and the resulting heavy
death-roll can only be attributed to the explosion of the masses
of ammunition which formed part of the cargo.
Let me once more lay stress on the fact that our notice to the
Press had no particular reference to the _Lusitania_, but was simply
a general warning, the publication of which was motived simply
by humanity and wise policy, and was rendered necessary by the
apathetic behavior of the Washington authorities in the matter.
We rightly imagined that many Americans had not taken the trouble
to read the Notes officially exchanged, and would thus rush blindly
into danger. Our failure to achieve any result by our efforts may
be appreciated from an extract from the London _Daily Telegraph_ of
May 3rd, which is before me as I write. The New York correspondent
of this paper dealt with our warning in the following headlines:
"GERMAN THREAT TO ATLANTIC LINERS."
"BERLIN'S LATEST BLUFF."
"RIDICULED IN AMERICA."
On May 7th I travelled to New York in the afternoon--a fact in
itself sufficient to prove that I was not expecting the disaster to
the _Lusitania_. It chanced that Paul Warburg and another American
banker were on the same train. I bought an evening paper at
Philadelphia, and there read the first news about the sinking of
the great liner; I read them to my two travelling companions, both
of whom disbelieved the story at the time; but Jacob Schiff met
us in New York with the news that it was all too true, and that
in the first moment of excitement he had hurried to the station
to inform his brother-in-law, Warburg, of what had happened. I had
come to New York with the intention of being present at a performance
of _The Bat_, given by a German company for the benefit of the German
Red Cross; but when I learned on my arrival at the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel that over one hundred Americans, including many women and
children, had lost their lives in the sinking of the _Lusitania_,
I at once gave up all idea of attending the performance. As the
hotel was soon surrounded on all sides by newspaper reporters,
I remained indoors until my departure on the morrow; I should have
returned to Washington at once, but for having to interview certain
German gentlemen in New York.
Unfortunately it so happened that Dr. Dernburg was then away at
Cleveland, addressing a meeting; he took the opportunity of defending
the destruction of the _Lusitania_ on the ground that she was carrying
munitions of war. This speech aroused a storm of execration throughout
the country, which was already indignant enough over the fatal event
itself. Even to-day no German seems to realize the full violence
of the passion thus aroused; we, accustomed as we have been to
daily reports of battles and casualties, were little impressed by
the destruction of a solitary passenger ship. America, however,
execrated us whole-heartedly as murderers of women and children,
oblivious of the fact that the victims of the submarine campaign
were far less numerous than the women and children killed by the
English blockade, and that death by drowning is no more dreadful
than slow starvation. Everyone naturally realizes his own misfortunes
more vividly than those of others, and the _Lusitania_ incident
first brought home to the United States the horrors of war, and
convinced all her people that a flagrant injury had been done them.
On my departure from New York I found myself at once face to face
with this immense popular excitement. I left my hotel by a side
door, but did not manage to escape notice; several cars filled
with reporters followed me to the station, and pressed round me
so persistently that I was unable to shake them off. I could only
refuse to make any statement, which only increased the excitement
of the reporters; but had I said anything at that time, I should
but have added fuel to the fire which was already raging in the
minds of all. Finally I succeeded in forcing my way through the
infuriated and howling mob of pressmen and reaching the train.
For the first few days after my return to Washington I remained in
seclusion, so as to avoid any possibility of unpleasant incidents.
Those Germans who live in the congenial surroundings of their homes
can have little conception of the hostility with which we in America
had to contend. We had many true friends, who right up to the final
breach between the two countries never deserted us. To them I shall
ever feel myself indebted, more particularly in view of their harsh
treatment at the hands of their fellow-countrymen and enemy
diplomatists, as a result of their staunchness. The pro-Entente
elements of the country proposed not only to boycott us socially,
but also to terrorize all pro-German Americans. In this connection
it is of interest to note that a certain neutral representative was
accused by his Government of having taken our part; he was led to
believe that this charge had originated in the Russian Embassy, and
taxed M. Bakmetieff with the fact. The latter had no better proof
of it to adduce than the report that the Dutch Ambassador--for
he it was who had been thus attacked--occasionally had breakfast
with me at my club, and always stayed at the German headquarters,
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, whenever he came to New York. The above
example is typical of the attitude usually adopted towards us;
despite it all, throughout the war I never wanted for true and
loyal friends in America, even though, particularly after the
_Lusitania_ incident, one or other shrank from braving the resulting
public odium. Such halfhearted champions we could easily dispense
with; the situation at the moment was so strained that we had no
use for any save trustworthy and reliable men on our side. I may
take this opportunity to place it on record that my relations with
all the State Departments remained to the last of the friendliest;
I should be doing them an injustice, did I not expressly affirm
this.
President Wilson must certainly have under-estimated the spirit
of angry hostility towards Germany which then held sway over his
people's minds, otherwise he would probably not have gone directly
counter to it, as he did in a speech which has now become famous.
On May 10th at Philadelphia he gave evidence of his peaceful
inclinations in the following words:
"The example of America must be a special example. The example of
America must be the example not merely of peace because it will
not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing and elevating
influence of the world and strife is not. There is such a thing as
a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation
being so right that it does not need to convince others by force
that it is right."
This speech did but increase the indignation raging throughout the
country, and the phrase "Too proud to fight" became the favorite joke
of the Jingo and Entente party against Mr. Wilson. Public opinion
with one voice demanded the severance of diplomatic relations with
Germany; and before this powerful pressure the President deemed
it advisable to explain away his words.
It may be said, perhaps, in answer to the above, that America was
indeed bitterly angry, but still not resolved on war; and that
public opinion was indignant, not at Wilson's desire to keep the
peace, but at the unfortunate expression "Too proud to fight."
This view was held, for example, by von Tirpitz, and also found
expression more than once in the reports of the so-called German
Chamber of Commerce in New York, which were regularly transmitted
to Germany, and exercised considerable influence on opinion in that
country, although their author was a man of no political insight,
and the Chamber of Commerce had, as a matter of fact, no actual
existence.
They were simply a journalistic device on the part of the paper which
published these reports. During the war, and under the influence of
the passions which it aroused, there was continually going on in
America any amount of mischievous gossip and intrigue concerning
which many interesting stories might be told. I have no intention,
however, of concerning myself with these unworthy matters now, any
more than I allowed them at the time to color my official reports
to the home Government; I can only say that if the reports of the
Chamber of Commerce had any sort of influence on German opinion,
it was much to be regretted. The opinion, therein expressed, that
the United States would never, under any circumstances, embark on
hostilities against us was unfortunately belied by later events,
and the idea that America was at that time compelled to keep the
peace by defects in her military equipment, had no foundation in
fact. Admittedly, she was in the year 1917 insufficiently equipped
for war, and the question of making good her deficiencies had not
got beyond the stage of discussion. I should, of course, have been
only too pleased if my repeated warnings as to the danger of war
with America had proved to be unfounded; in point of fact, after
the _Lusitania_ incident, America was, for a period of three weeks,
on the verge of breaking off diplomatic relations, and panic reigned
on the Stock Exchanges throughout the country. The fact that Congress
was not sitting at the time prevented a flood of speeches which
would only have increased the tension. It will be remembered that
by the American Constitution the annual sessions of Congress are
short and long alternately; the short session had come to an end
on March 4, 1915, and the President had refrained from summoning
Congress again, as he wished to avoid discussion on the question
of war.
The irresistible strength of the popular indignation may be accurately
estimated from the fact that even the German-Americans were
terror-stricken by its violence. Not only did our propaganda collapse
completely, but even our political friends dared not open their
mouths, and only ventured to assert themselves once more after
the settlement of the _Arabic_ case. Germanism in America may be
said to have been absolutely killed by the _Lusitania_ incident,
and only gradually came to life again.
The first expressions of opinion which I received from the President
and Mr. Bryan gave me good grounds for hope that these gentlemen
would do everything in their power to preserve peace. I append
the two telegrams which I sent to the Foreign Office:
(1). "Washington, May 9th, 1915.
"_Lusitania_ incident has caused great excitement, especially in New
York, which is most affected, but I hope that no serious consequences
will ensue. Mr. Wilson regards matters calmly. I recommend expression
of regret for loss of so many American lives, in whatever form may
be possible without admission of our responsibility."
(2). "Washington, May 10th, 1915.
"Bryan spoke to me very seriously concerning _Lusitania_ incident.
His influence will, in any case be exercised in favor of peace. This
influence is great, as Wilson depends on Bryan for his re-election.
Roosevelt, on the other hand, is beating the patriotic drum, in
order to win over the Jingo elements. It is significant of Bryan's
real views that he regrets that we did not support his well-known
attempt at mediation; therefore, I again recommend that we should
endeavor to bring about an attempt at mediation in some form, in
case the position here becomes critical. This would be a good
_argumentum ad hominem_ in order to avoid war. Another way out,
which is recommended, is that we should renew our offer to give up
submarine warfare provided that England adheres to the principles
of International Law, and gives up her policy of starvation. The
position is in any case _very serious_; I hope and believe that
we shall find a way out of the present crisis, but in case of any
such recurrence, no solution can be guaranteed."
American indignation was directed particularly against Dr. Dernburg,
who had defended, in public, the torpedoing of the _Lusitania_. I
had, therefore, no other resource but to advise him to leave the
country of his own accord. He would probably have been deported
in any case, and his continued presence in America could no longer
serve any useful purpose, while it was to be hoped that his voluntary
departure would appease the popular wrath in some degree, and postpone
the imminent rupture of diplomatic relations. The sea was raging
and demanded a sacrifice. I sent the following report to Berlin
on the subject of Dr. Dernburg's resolve to leave the country:
"Washington, May 17th, 1915.
"As I have already wired to your Excellency, Dr. Dernburg has decided
to leave the country of his own free will. I believe that, in so
doing, he is rendering a great service to the Fatherland, a service
rendered easier by the fact that he could no longer hope to continue
in the exercise of his former duties. As I have already reported,
he had exposed himself to attack by our enemies by his action in
going counter to the present outbreak of hysterical feeling in a
speech and an interview which were, unfortunately, not in accordance
with your Excellency's instructions, received by me on the following
day. So long as Dernburg only wrote articles for the papers, he
rendered distinguished and highly appreciated service, but when he
commenced to deliver speeches at German-American meetings he trod
on very dangerous ground. On this point we are all in agreement
here. In any case, in war every possible method must be tried, and
if any individual is sacrificed it must be regarded as unfortunately
unavoidable.
"When I informed Mr. Bryan that Dr. Dernburg had decided to return
home if the American Government would secure him a safe conduct
from our enemies, the satisfaction of the Secretary of State was
even more pronounced than I had expected. He remarked that Dr.
Dernburg's speeches had given rise to the suspicion that the German
Government wished to inflame the minds of the American people against
President Wilson's administration. It might be possible, now that
there were no longer any grounds for this idea, to avoid an immediate
rupture of diplomatic relations."
On May 13th the American Government dispatched a strongly worded
Note to Berlin, which restated their point of view, as previously
given. I reproduce textually the following passage from the Note,
which, from the point of view of subsequent events, is of fundamental
importance.
"The Government of the United States, therefore, desires to call
the attention of the Imperial German Government with the utmost
earnestness to the fact that the objection to their present method
of attack against the trade of their enemies lies in the practical
impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction of commerce
without disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice, and
humanity, which all modern opinion regards as imperative. It is
practically impossible for the officers of a submarine to visit a
merchantman at sea and examine her papers and cargo. It is practically
impossible for them to make a prize of her; and, if they cannot
put a prize crew on board of her, they cannot sink her without
leaving her crew and all on board of her to the mercy of the sea
in her small boats.... Manifestly submarines cannot be used against
merchantmen, as the last few weeks have shown, without an inevitable
violation of many sacred principles of justice and humanity.
"American citizens act within their indisputable rights in taking
their ships and in travelling wherever their legitimate business
calls them on the high seas, and exercise those rights in what
should be the well-justified confidence that their lives will not be
endangered by acts done in clear violation of universally acknowledged
international obligations, and certainly in the confidence that
their own Government will sustain them in the exercise of their
rights.
"There was recently published in the newspapers of the United States,
I regret to inform the Imperial German Government, a formal warning,
purporting to come from the Imperial Germany Embassy at Washington,
addressed to the people of the United States, and stating, in effect,
that any citizen of the United States who exercised his right of
free travel upon the seas, would do so at his peril if his journey
should take him within the zone of waters within which the Imperial
German Navy was using submarines against the commerce of Great
Britain and France, notwithstanding the respectful, but very earnest
protests of his Government, the Government of the United States.
I do not refer to this for the purpose of calling the attention
of the Imperial German Government at this time to the surprising
irregularity of a communication from the Imperial Germany Embassy
at Washington addressed to the people of the United States through
the newspapers, but only for the purpose of pointing out that no
warning that an unlawful and inhumane act will be committed can
possibly be accepted as an excuse or palliation for that act or
as an abatement of the responsibility for its commission.
* * * * * *
"The Government of the United States cannot believe that the commanders
of the vessels which committed these acts of lawlessness did so
except under a misapprehension of the orders issued by the Imperial
German naval authorities.... It confidently expects, therefore,
that the Imperial German Government will disavow the acts of which
the Government of the United States complains, that they will make
reparation so far as reparation is possible for injuries which
are without measure, and that they will take immediate steps to
prevent the recurrence of anything so obviously subversive of the
principles of warfare for which the Imperial German Government
have in the past so wisely and firmly contended.
* * * * * *
"The Imperial German Government will not expect the Government
of the United States to omit any word or any act necessary to the
performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of the
United States and its citizens and of safeguarding their free exercise
and enjoyment."
The demands contained in the above Note would have made the continuance
of the submarine campaign impossible, and this was, no doubt, the
intention of the Union Government. The German answer of May 28th,
which defended the torpedoing of the _Lusitania_ on the grounds
that she should be considered as an auxiliary cruiser and provided
with guns, changed the situation in no way. Besides, the _Lusitania_
had ammunition and Canadian troops on board; there can be no doubt
that the main reason why she sank so rapidly was the exploding
of her cargo of ammunition by the torpedo which struck her. With
regard to the loss of human life, the German Government had already
expressed, to the neutral Powers concerned, its deep regret for the
death of their subjects--I had in person conveyed these regrets
to the United States Government a few days after the destruction
of the _Lusitania_.
After this first exchange of Notes, the gulf between the two points
of view appeared fixed, and was bound in face of the prevalent
excitement to lead to a severance of diplomatic relations, unless
sufficient time were gained to allow the storms of passion to abate.
Telegraphic communication between the German Government and the
Embassy at Washington was carried out by a circuitous route, which
made it extremely slow; thus I was compelled to decide on my own
responsibility and take immediate action. I fully realized that
the rupture of diplomatic relations would mean war. In America
we were face to face with a vigorous hostile propaganda, which
had as its sole object to draw the United States into war, and
thus bring about a decision by force of arms. From the time of
the _Lusitania_ incident onwards, the diplomatic struggle between
ourselves and the Entente was centred entirely around the question
of the future action of the United States. The threatened rupture
of relations between that country and Germany would have left the
field open for hostile propaganda, by taking from us all chance
of combating it. War would thus have been inevitable sooner or
later. The first and most urgent necessity was, therefore, the
avoidance of such a rupture at whatever cost, and my efforts were
now solely directed to this end. As things turned out, it might,
perhaps, have been better if the United States had actually gone
to war at this moment. Her military pressure, and our consequent
defeat, would have come two years earlier, before the German people
had been demoralized and exhausted by four years of war and blockade.
But at that time I had good hopes of being able to bring about
peace through American mediation, and consequently wished to gain
time at all costs.
I resolved, without waiting for instructions from Berlin, to make
use of my privileged position as Ambassador to demand an audience
with the President. I heard later, among other things when I was at
Manila, that on this very day, June 2nd, all preparations had been
made for breaking off relations, and for the inevitable resulting
war. As a result of my interview, however, they were cancelled. I
had a long conversation with the President and two of his advisers.
Mr. Wilson felt the position acutely, and was animated solely by a
desire to preserve peace. We both realized that it was a question
of gaining time, and succeeded in coming to an agreement on the
measures to be taken to mitigate the crisis. We took the view that
the isolation of Germany had given rise to an atmosphere of
misunderstanding between her and the United States, and that the
establishment of some sort of personal relationship might be expected
to ease this tension; I, therefore, proposed, and the President
agreed, that Meyer Gerhardt, a member of the Privy Council, who had
accompanied Dr. Dernburg to America, and was then acting on behalf
of the German Red Cross, should at once go to Germany and report in
person to the Government. Mr. Wilson, for his part, undertook that
no final decision should be taken until Meyer Gerhardt had reported
the results of his mission.
At the end of this interview I was convinced in my own mind that
the President would never enter on war with Germany, otherwise I
could not conceive why he should have concurred in my proposals
instead of breaking off relations at once. He would, had he chosen
the latter course, have had American public opinion more decidedly
behind him than it was later, at the time of the final breach. Not
a voice would have been raised in opposition, except that of the
Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, who, as it was, resigned his office
on the ground that the exchange of Notes threatened to involve the
United States in war, and could not be reconciled, therefore, with
his own pacific intentions.
It is certain that if I had not at this stage of the _Lusitania_
crisis had my interview with the President, relations would have
been broken off and war between the United States and Germany must
inevitably have followed. The view is still held in many quarters
that we might safely have disregarded American susceptibilities, as
President Wilson was entirely averse to war and would have avoided
it by whatever means; then we should have been free to carry on
our submarine campaign. This was not the opinion held by myself
or any of my colleagues at the Embassy, and later events proved
us to have been in the right, as against those Germans and
German-Americans, who, in May, 1915, and afterwards, averred that
the United States would never declare war on us, and maintained
the same view in January and February, 1917. The principles of my
later policy were based on the events of this _Lusitania_ crisis;
I had then gathered the conviction that Mr. Wilson wanted peace
but the country wanted war; that the President alone had prevented
an immediate rupture, but that as the responsible leader of the
American people, he would be compelled to bow eventually to public
opinion. When Mr. Wilson had to explain away his unlucky speech
at Philadelphia, no action was taken from the German side, and
no information given him which might lead him to understand that
Germany desired to avoid a _casus belli_ at all costs, for fear
of giving Mr. Wilson an opportunity to gain a cheap triumph over
Germany in a verbal wrangle.
I believe it unjust to Mr. Wilson to suppose that he wished to
bluff us into surrender at this time. He had, while fully realizing
the danger of war, sought all ways and means to avoid it, and on
this hypothesis my whole policy was founded. Moreover the President
had then mentioned to me for the first time that he was considering
an attempt at mediation between the belligerents.
After my audience at the White House I sent the following wire to
the Foreign Office:
CIPHER
"Washington, June 2nd, 1915.
"Seriousness of the present situation here induced me to seek interview
with President Wilson. In most cordial exchange of views, in course
of which we repeatedly emphasized our mutual desire to find some
solution of the present difficulties, Wilson always came back to
point that he was concerned purely with humanitarian aspect of
matter, and that question of indemnification for loss of American
lives in _Lusitania_ was only of secondary importance. His main
object was complete cessation of submarine warfare, and from point
of view of this ultimate aim, smaller concessions on our part could
only be regarded as half measures. It behooved us by giving up
submarine campaign to appeal to moral sense of world; for issue of
the war could never be finally decided by armies but only by peace
of understanding. Our voluntary cessation of submarine warfare would
inspire Wilson to press for a raising of English hunger blockade.
_Reliable reports from London state that present Cabinet would
agree to this._ Wilson hopes that this might be first stage in a
peace movement on large scale, which he would introduce as head
of leading neutral Powers.
"American reply may be expected to lay little stress on purely
legal aspect of matter and to dwell rather on question of humanity,
emphatically enough, but as Wilson told me, in a sharper form.
"President remarked that on one point at least we should be in
agreement, as both Germany and United States of America had always
been in favor of freedom of seas.
"Cordiality of conversation must not blind our eyes to seriousness
of situation. If our next Note does not tend to tranquilize matters,
Wilson is bound to recall his Ambassador. I recommend most earnestly
that this should be avoided at all costs, in view of its disastrous
moral effect and fact that this result would be immediate increase
in export of munitions, and in financial support for our enemies on
immense scale. Good prospect exists of success of present movement
for forbidding export of arms should understanding be reached; and
also movement by Wilson in direction of peace is sure to follow.
Decisive factor in result is that our reply should strike correct
note from point of view of public opinion, which is decisive factor
in balance here. For this essential to leave out legal details
and to lift discussion to level of humanitarian standpoint. Meyer
Gerhardt leaves tomorrow for Germany as Red Cross representative;
he will report fully in Berlin on situation. Beg that our reply
be held up till his arrival. Wilson concurs in this."
Meyer Gerhardt was in a position to give for the first time a full and
accurate review of the American situation to the Berlin authorities.
I had given him most precise information of my own views and had
placed him in full possession of the details of my interview with
Mr. Wilson. For the rest I had to content myself with short telegrams
by circuitous routes. During our conversation, however, the President
offered for the first time to permit me to dispatch a cipher telegram
through the State Department, to be sent on by the American Embassy
in Berlin. My reports as a matter of fact were somewhat infrequent
and always short, as we had to put all our messages into cipher,
and this was not always possible. In explanation of the inevitable
incompleteness of my communication with the Foreign Office, I may
remark that the telegrams of the Wolff and Trans-Ocean Bureaus
were regarded as the main sources of information for either side,
and that I made use of various arrangements of words, to which
the Foreign Office alone had the key, for the purpose of making
my own views easily distinguishable in these telegrams.
Meyer Gerhardt, armed with a certificate from Mr. Bryan, to the
effect that he was undertaking his journey at the express desire of
the American Government, crossed over to Germany with all possible
speed. It may be doubted if the English authorities would have
taken any notice of this safe conduct, but by good fortune the
Norwegian vessel which took him over escaped the attention of their
cruisers. His mission was so far successful that the excitement
in the United States had time to die down somewhat and the first
crisis in German-American relations was thereby tided over
satisfactorily. Apart from that, Meyer Gerhardt's mission had no
effect on the future course of negotiations. The exchange of Notes
between Washington and Berlin continued without an understanding
being arrived at; both Governments persisting in their original
points of view.
The second American Note, dispatched on June 10th, led to the
resignation of Mr. Bryan, the Secretary of State. He considered that
American citizens should be forbidden to take passage in vessels
bearing the flag of any belligerent nation, and holding these views as
he did, declined to make himself responsible for a further exchange
of Notes which he believed was bound in the end to result in war.
The resignation of the Secretary of State had another diplomatic
prelude of a tragi-comic character. The Austro-Hungarian Ambassador,
Dr. Dumba, besought Mr. Bryan to discuss the German-American conflict
with him; both gentlemen wished to find some solution to the dispute
and hoped that the Ambassadors not directly concerned in it might
profitably try to mediate. It was said later and probably with
truth, that there was a mutual misunderstanding on this subject;
but whatever be the truth of that, Dr. Dumba took upon himself
to send a radiogram to Vienna, by way of Nauen, in which he gave
the following resume of Mr. Bryan's views:
"The United States desire no war. Her Notes, however strongly worded,
meant no harm, but had to be written in order to pacify the excited
public opinion of America. The Berlin Government therefore need
not feel itself injured, but need only make suitable concessions
if it desires to put an end to the dispute."
This telegram from Dr. Dumba had just reached the German Foreign
Office at the moment when the American Ambassador arrived to inform
the Under Secretary of State, Zimmermann, in his customary blunt
and abrupt manner, that Germany must yield to America's demands or
war would inevitably follow. Zimmermann thereupon, with the object
of causing Mr. Gerard to moderate his tone, showed him Dumba's wire,
which pointed to the inference that the attitude of the American
Ambassador was merely a bluff. Mr. Gerard, as in duty bound, reported
the facts to Washington; mutual recriminations ensued and the Press
got hold of the story (nothing ever remained a secret for long
in the American capital). The general impression there was that
Germany, once she were convinced of America's serious intentions
to appeal if necessary to arms, would back down; and that now Mr.
Bryan was made to appear as a wrecker of the President's policy. His
resignation thus became more necessary than ever, and Mr. Lansing,
hitherto head of the State Department of Justice, replaced him.
American opinion, however, laid the chief blame for what had occurred
on Dr. Dumba, who was henceforward regarded as a dangerous intriguer.
Mr. Lansing was a lawyer, not a politician, and looked at everything
from the point of view of a lawyer and his position as the President's
sole legal adviser. He was, so to speak, Mr. Wilson's legal conscience.
My personal relations with him were always extremely cordial.
Mr. Bryan's point of view was in every sense that of a neutral.
The only really effective way of safeguarding American interests
was, of course, to forbid the use of hostile passenger ships by
citizens of the United States, who could perfectly well travel on
their own vessels, or those of Holland or Scandinavia. However,
the greater part of American public opinion did not accept this
strict view of neutrality, and Mr. Wilson, therefore, adapted himself
to the predominant opinion. It was useless for us to demand that
the President should interpret his neutrality in the manner most
convenient to us; we had to accept the fact that his ideas on this
subject were neither ours nor Mr. Bryan's, and, on this basis,
endeavor to come to an understanding with Mr. Wilson, if we did
not intend to bring the United States into the war. It must be
remembered that, as I have already said, we had no means of bringing
pressure to bear on America, whereas from her point of view war
with Germany would be a comparatively simple affair, which would
involve no vital risks for her, but would, on the contrary, greatly
benefit her from an industrial point of view, besides gratifying
the jingoes, by giving them an opportunity of making full use of
their long-desired Army, Navy and commercial fleet. There could
be considered, as factors tending to the preservation of peace,
only the pacific sentiment of the majority of the people working
in alliance with the dilatory policy of the President, who still
nourished a hope that some favorable turn or other in events, or
perhaps the advent of peace, would give him a chance to avoid breaking
of relations with Germany.
The diplomatic incident, mentioned above, made such an impression
on Mr. Gerard, as to induce him to make, on his own initiative
in Berlin, at the time when the American Note of 10th June had
to be answered, a proposal which met with a by no means cordial
reception. His suggestion was that a certain number of passenger
ships, detailed beforehand for the purpose, and rendered clearly
recognizable, should be used for the transport of Americans to
England; but though this scheme was embodied in the German Note
of 8th July, it was at once rejected at Washington. Any assent
to it would no doubt have involved a further departure from the
principles laid down by the American Government--principles which
it desired should be generally accepted, but which had already been
in some measure compromised. The vessels which it was suggested
should be employed in this service were to be marked in red, white
and blue stripes, and as barbers' shops in the United States are
decorated in this manner, they were called "Barber Ships."
On the 21st of July, the final American Note on the _Lusitania_ case
was dispatched. The Washington Government modified their position to
the extent that they recognized the legality of submarine warfare,
provided that before the sinking of any merchant ship, the crew and
passengers were given a chance to leave in safety; in the main,
however, the Note maintained the original American point of view.
It read as follows:
"If a belligerent cannot retaliate against an enemy without injuring
the lives of neutrals as well as their property, humanity as well
as justice and due regard for the dignity of neutral Powers should
dictate that the practice be discontinued. If persisted in it would
in such circumstances constitute an unpardonable offence against
the Sovereignty of the neutral nation affected ... the Government
of the United States cannot believe that the Imperial Government
will longer refrain from disavowing the wanton act of its naval
commander in sinking the _Lusitania_ or offering reparation for
the American lives lost, so far as reparation can be made for the
needless destruction of human life by that illegal act.
"In the meanwhile the very value which this Government sets upon
the long, unbroken friendship between the people and Government
of the United States and the people and Government of the German
nation, impels it to press most solemnly upon the Imperial German
Government the necessity for the scrupulous observance of neutral
rights. This is a critical matter. Friendship itself prompts it to
say to the Imperial Government that repetition by the commanders
of German naval vessels of acts in contravention of those rights
must be regarded by the Government of the United States when they
affect American citizens as deliberately unfriendly."
The first act of the German-American negotiations on the subject
of submarine warfare thus closed with this open threat that war
would follow any further action by Germany on the lines of the
torpedoing of the _Lusitania_.
I think it well to reproduce here four of my reports, dated from
Cedarhurst, a suburb of New York, where the Embassy usually had
its headquarters during the hot summer months.
(1) CIPHER
"Cedarhurst, June 9th, 1915.
"The political outlook in America appears at present as calm as a
summer's day. The position abroad is perhaps reacting on internal
affairs to some extent, as Mr. Wilson, as is usual in this country,
considers foreign affairs primarily from the point of view of their
influence on the prospects of next year's presidential campaign.
"The tide of anti-German feeling aroused by the _Lusitania_ incident
is still running pretty high, but it may now be regarded as certain,
that neither the President nor the American people want a war with
Germany. Mr. Wilson, then, will, I believe, have public opinion on
his side, if he can find an honorable solution to his differences
with us, and make use of this solution as the basis for a peace
movement on a large scale. I am now even more convinced than I was
a short time ago, at the time of my long interview with him, that
the President's ideas are developing in this direction, and that this
is the cause of his suddenly taking up the Mexican question again,
as he hopes to find in it a means of diverting public opinion. I am
unwilling to give any grounds for exaggerated optimism, but my recent
observations incline me to the belief that the President and his
Cabinet are more neutral than is commonly supposed. England's influence
here is tremendous, permeating as it does through many channels,
which we have no means of closing; but the Central Government,
none the less, is really trying to maintain a neutral attitude.
It is an astonishing thing, no doubt, but well established none
the less, that all influential Americans who come from New York,
Boston, and Philadelphia, the English headquarters in this country,
to Washington, complain about the pro-German feeling there. I feel
sure in my own mind that the Government hopes, by reviving the
Mexican question, to diminish the export of arms and munitions to
Europe. Public opinion, apart from the anti-German clique, would
probably welcome such a move, as it is widely felt that the traffic
in arms and munitions is hardly consistent with the continual appeals
to humanity sent out all over the world from Washington. My general
impression, as will be seen from the above, is that Mr. Wilson
considers his best chance of re-election lies in bringing peace
to Europe and restoring order in Mexico; for the latter purpose
he will probably employ General Iturbide, who spent the whole of
last winter in New York and Washington. He was at one time governor
of the district of Mexico City, where he acquitted himself with
courage and credit. He impressed me personally as a man of great
ability. He should be able to find sufficient partisans in Mexico
to enable him to raise an army, and the bankers of New York would
be prepared to advance him the necessary sums. General Iturbide
enjoys the full confidence of the present Administration, but only
the future can show whether he will succeed in establishing a stable
Government in Mexico, without the intervention of the United States."
(2) CIPHER
"Cedarhurst, 12th June, 1915.
"Since the publication of President Wilson's second Note on the
_Lusitania_ incident, the daily Press has been busy with conjectures
as to the real reasons for Mr. Bryan's resignation. It is generally
agreed that the Note itself could hardly have been the occasion of
the Cabinet crisis; as Bryan had concurred in the first Note, and
there was no reason, therefore, why he should not have assented
to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one can believe
that the controversy with Germany was in reality simply an excuse
for a personal trial of strength between Wilson and Bryan, after
the manner of the earlier rivalry between Taft and Roosevelt.
"Bryan has now published in the _World_ a manifesto addressed to
the German-American community defending his attitude in this matter;
but it is fortunately couched in terms which are unlikely to find
favor in the eyes of those for whose benefit it was written. It
would certainly be undesirable from our point of view that Bryan
should be regarded as the champion of the German cause in this
country; no useful result could follow from such advocacy. We must
use all our efforts to come to an understanding with Mr. Wilson,
if possible without compromising our present point of view; he is
undoubtedly at the moment the most influential man in the country,
and if he is antagonized we shall be powerless against him!"
(3) CIPHER
"Cedarhurst, July 2nd, 1915.
"In spite of the English interference with the American mails reported
here to-day, I hope that the reports dispatched in the ordinary
course of my duty have all reached your Excellency safely. In case
they have not done so, I may report that since my audience with
Mr. Wilson, the removal of the 'agitator' Dernburg, the mission
of Meyer Gerhardt, and the arrival of the Press telegrams from
Berlin giving details of the last-named, things have been pretty
quiet generally; the situation has reverted to the normal, and will
remain normal if our next Note shows a conciliatory disposition.
I might even go further, and say that the _Lusitania_ incident,
taking it all in all, despite the manner in which we dealt with it,
has exercised and will exercise in the future a favorable influence
on our mutual relations. Of course it has brought us into even
greater odium with our avowed enemies; Anglophile 'Society' in New
York, Philadelphia and Boston is infuriated, and the Wall Street
magnates are little better; but these two cliques have always been
inveterate supporters of England. The Government has lost ground
for the first time as a result of the _Lusitania_ incident, and
it now fully realizes the importance of these questions of sea
warfare; whereas when I first spoke in February, March and April
to various exalted personages about the submarine campaign and
kindred matters, no one would listen to me, and the full seriousness
of the situation was quite unrealized. Now, however, 'the freedom
of the seas' has become the test question of American politics.
Every preparation has been made to take energetic measures with
regard to England if our answer to the last American Note renders
further negotiations possible. Even the New York Press has become
more reasonable, and capable of discussing war questions impartially;
and this was notably the case over the torpedoing of the _Armenian_.
In a word, at no time since the outbreak of war have the omens
been so favorable for a rational policy on the part of America."
"Cedarhurst, July 22nd, 1915.
"If we ask what have-been the results of our eleven weeks' negotiations
over the _Lusitania_ incident, and which involved the employment
of all our available arts of persuasion, we may well reply that
we have, despite our grave difficulties, averted the severance of
diplomatic relations and the inevitable war that must have followed.
The former possibility, at all events, was at one time considerably
more probable than most people in Germany are aware of.
"There could have been but one opinion among those I who saw and
felt it as to the popular attitude of mind during the first few
weeks following the _Lusitania_ incident. In such circumstances
we had only one possible resource left to us, to gain time, and
hope for the restoration of a more friendly disposition in this
country. The continuation of negotiations rendered this contingency
possible; and so matters eventually turned out.
"We can hope for further results only if the American Government
decides to institute simultaneous negotiations with Berlin and
London, with the object of bringing about a settlement. Our own views
and those of America are radically divergent, and no mere one-sided
discussion between us can bridge the gulf. The American Government
went too far in its first Note to allow of its withdrawing now;
although it admits our submarine campaign to have been a legitimate
form of reprisal against the English hunger blockade, it still
persists in holding us responsible for damage to American lives
and limbs resulting from these reprisals. Put briefly the demands
of the United States are therefore:
"1. A full apology in some form or other, and indemnification for
the lives lost in the _Lusitania_.
"2. An undertaking that no passenger ships shall in future be sunk
without preliminary warning.
"The latest Note from America, which is already on its way to Berlin,
will in a sense bring the negotiations to a conclusion, as the
Government want to have a definite basis of agreement which may
form the foundation of their discussions with England. In my
conversations with Mr. Lansing I have been given to understand
that the Government wish to know verbally or in writing whether
we are in a position to incline somewhat to the American point of
view, and whether we can see our way to assist the present Government
to secure by means of joint conversations with Germany and England
the freedom of the seas, which has always been the main object
of Mr. Wilson's endeavors."
Dr. Dernburg returned to Germany in the middle of June, having
been provided, by request of the American Government, with a safe
conduct from the Entente. I went to New York to take leave of Dr.
Dernburg and invited a few friends to dinner in the roof-garden of
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on the eve of his departure. One incident
of our gathering may be regarded as typical of the atmosphere of
these _Lusitania_ days: a party of people for whom the next table
to ours had been reserved refused to take it, as they declined
to sit down in the neighborhood of Germans.
After Dr. Dernburg's departure I deemed it advisable, in view of
the popular hostility towards us, to redistribute the greater part
of Dr. Dernburg's duties. I did so, therefore, in agreement with
the Foreign Office, and with the assistance of Dernburg's former
colleague, Councillor Albert took over, in addition to his former
business with the Central Purchasing Company, all financial and
economic affairs, and was attached to the Embassy as commercial
adviser. Dr. Alexander Fuehr became Chief of the Press Bureau and
Captain Hecker took over the duties connected with the German Red
Cross. Unfortunately the generosity of many in America, and particularly
those of German descent, has not been fully recognized or appreciated
by the people of Germany. The total sum remitted to Germany for our
Red Cross and other similar societies amounts to over 20,000,000
marks. The disillusion of our people at home when they realized
the slight political influence exercised by the German-American
element in the United States has led them to overlook their great
achievements in the cause of charity, which were inspired by a
heartfelt sympathy with the sufferings of the German nation.