THE SECOND "LUSITANIA" CRISIS
In Germany, and particularly before the Committee of the National
Assembly, the American Government has been reproached with _mala
fides_ for having unnecessarily reopened the _Lusitania_ question.
The line of argument is approximately as follows:
After the settlement of the _Arabic_ case one can suspect the obstinate
harping on the _Lusitania_ affair, which had really died down, as
a sign of _mala fides_. Did the Americans want to secure a fresh
diplomatic success against us? They had already carried their principle
with the settlement of the _Arabic_ case; was their object now
to make a still greater splash? The continued possibility of a
conflict with Germany--which was quite within practical politics
if nothing intervened--made a very favorable background to make
clear to American public opinion, in conjunction with a campaign
on the same lines by Wilson himself, the following point: "We must
get ourselves out of this situation pregnant with war by vindicating
our right with both sides."
Apart from the fact that the negotiations on the _Lusitania_ question
had been allowed to hang fire for about six weeks I believe that in
this case we have again underestimated the significance of hostile
public opinion in America. The best way of making clear the situation
in the United States will probably be for me to reproduce here the
telegrams and reports in which I informed Berlin of the reopening
of the _Lusitania_ negotiations.
1. REPORT IN CIPHER
Washington, 23rd November, 1915.
Secretary of State Lansing after long hesitation took up the _Lusitania_
question again with me. At the beginning of October I had handed
to him a draft of a letter which contained what I thought myself
able to write to him within the scope of my instructions. This
draft was merely intended to serve as a basis for more detailed
negotiations and was only to be regarded as official in case the
American Government should regard the whole incident as satisfactorily
settled. There was nothing to be gained by stirring up public opinion
again here by publishing documents which were regarded from the
beginning as unsatisfactory.
As I have several times had the honor to report, there is, in my
opinion, no hope of settling the _Lusitania_ question, as the American
Government does not think that it can agree to refer it to a court
of arbitration _now_. They are, however, counting here on a decision
at a later date by such a court, which would be sure to award the
Americans an indemnity, because the Hague court of arbitration
from its very nature is obliged to stand for the protection of
neutral non-combatants. Consequently, Mr. Lansing cannot understand
why we do not pay the indemnity of our own accord and so settle
the whole matter, especially as, in view of our pledge for the
future, it is of no practical importance to us. Mr. Lansing is
primarily concerned with the indemnity, whereas President Wilson
now, as formerly, lays the chief weight on the pledge for the future
and the humanitarian aspect of the question. Mr. Wilson always keeps
his eye fixed on the two closely connected goals: the development
of international law with regard to the freedom of the seas and
the restoration of peace.
Mr. Lansing now reopens the _Lusitania_ question for the following
reasons, part of which he has himself openly stated, and the rest
have become known to me through other channels. In the first place
the Government is afraid of attacks in the impending Congress.
It was, therefore, eminently desirable that it should be able to
inform Congress that something had been done in the _Lusitania_
affair. Even if nothing comes of it they could answer that they
are waiting for a reply from Germany. President Wilson himself
does not believe in the possibility of the question being solved,
and hopes to keep the matter in the air until the conclusion of
peace, provided that public opinion does not become restive or new
eventualities occur. The _Ancona_ affair has had an unfavorable
effect in this respect. Even though it has not aroused any great
excitement, it has caused the whole question to be reopened, and
everyone on this side lays at our door the responsibility for the
Austrian act; for they base their reasoning on the assumption that
the war is directed entirely from Berlin. Whenever mention is made
of the _Ancona_ incident it recalls the fact that the _Lusitania_
question still remains unsettled.
It is a well known fact that we are faced here with an anti-German
ring of great influence. I have repeatedly pointed this out in my
reports. This ring is trying to exploit the _Ancona_ and _Lusitania_
questions with a view to driving into the background the American
Note to England and the British infringements of international
law. The Government is treating this anti-German ring with the
same weakness as are the majority of American private citizens.
They are submitting patiently to terrorization as well as continual
baiting and sneering. The recluse at the White House has, indeed,
great plans, but his freedom of decision is seriously compromised
by his anxiety to be re-elected. He refuses to allow himself to be
drawn into too serious extravagances; and so he certainly deserves
the credit for having prevented war with Germany, but he allows
himself, nevertheless, to be influenced by the anti-German ring
and hampered in the pursuit of his plans.
2. TELEGRAM IN CIPHER
"Washington, 2nd December, 1915.
"The Government here have lost their nerve as a result of the impending
Congress, the Hapag case, the _Ancona_ incident, and the explosions and
fires in munition and powder works, and like all private individuals
here are allowing themselves to be terrorized by the anti-German
ring. Hence the anxiety for the recall of Papen and Boy-Ed. The
Government fear that Congress will take the above questions, as
well as the _Lusitania_ affair, into their own hands, and deal with
them in more radical fashion than the Government. This is the reason
for the present demand for the recall--which is intended to serve as
a safety-valve--lest Congress should break off diplomatic relations
with us. Whether there is any real danger of this happening it is
difficult to say. Lansing thinks there is. In any case everything
is possible in the present state of public feeling. They have not
the courage to swim against the stream. Perhaps the recall of the
attaches will still the storm for a time, as was the case with
Dernburg and Dumba; meanwhile everything turns on the attitude of
Congress, who, it is to be hoped, will not be anxious to declare
war on us. Colonel House, who is a good reader of the barometer here,
sees no danger. I, personally, also do not believe that Congress
will decide to resort to extremes on one side,--_i.e._, without
attacking England--for the breaking-off of diplomatic relations
would certainly be quickly followed by war.
"In any case it is my sacred duty to inform your Excellency that
Congress may produce unpleasant surprises, and that we must, therefore,
be prepared to do _something_ with regard to the _Lusitania_ question.
How far we can approach the Lansing draft it is difficult to judge
from here. It depends in the first place on the state of public
opinion in Germany, for the matter has no further practical importance
since we have pledged ourselves to spare passenger-ships.
"Hitherto my personal relations with the American Government have been
so good that it was always possible to prevent the worst happening.
Lansing volunteered yesterday to send this telegram. But if the
matter once gets into the hands of Congress it will be much more
difficult to exert influence, especially as nothing can be kept
secret here. It is not yet possible to say when Congress will ask
for the _Lusitania_ documents, but it will probably be in a few
weeks' time, provided that no diplomatic understanding can be reached
meanwhile."
3. REPORT IN CIPHER
"Washington, 7th December, 1915.
"The action that _Congress_ will take with regard to the _Lusitania
question_ is of primary importance for us. It is my opinion that
President Wilson, when he asked for the recall of our two attaches,
had the thought in the back of his mind that Congress would let the
_Lusitania_ question rest for a time, because relations with Germany
are already sufficiently strained and only the rabid pro-English
want war. One cannot, however, count on anything now, because the
anti-German ring are seeking to terrorize all who do not agree
with them. The senators and members of Congress from the west are
certainly more difficult to influence, as their constituents have
only a slight economic interest in the cause of our enemies. It
is also probable that the senators from the south will all stand
by us, because they are very much embittered against England on
account of the cotton question. Nevertheless, we must, as I have
already pointed out by telegram, be fully prepared for further
negotiations on the subject of the _Lusitania_. If we refuse to
give way at all, the breaking of diplomatic relations, followed
by war, is inevitable. In my opinion it is out of the question to
find a formula that will satisfy public opinion on both sides. It
may, however, be possible to find a formula that will skim over the
points of contention, as was done in the _Arabic_ case. In spite
of all the outcry over here there is no doubt that the American
Government and the greater part of public opinion would be only
too delighted if we could find a graceful way of settling the
_Lusitania_ question without a conflict. What is required in the
first place is:
"1. A. declaration on our side that the attack on the _Lusitania_
should be regarded as an act of reprisal and, therefore, not within
the scope of existing international law.
"2. The payment of an indemnity, which in my opinion could be made
without committing ourselves on the question of responsibility.
"President Wilson had hoped that the whole question could be shelved
until after the end of the war. Now the war still drags on, and Mr.
Wilson is afraid of radical intervention on the part of Congress.
Over here it is quite impossible to prophesy. The unexpected is the
only thing that consistently recurs. No one can say what Congress
will do. Meanwhile, it is my duty to describe the situation as I
see it to-day. Whether the _Lusitania_ question is of sufficient
practical importance to allow it to bring upon us the breaking-off
of diplomatic relations and war with the United States I must leave
it to the exalted judgment of your Excellency to decide."
* * * * * *
The American Government had established a basis for the negotiations
with regard to the _Lusitania_ and "the Freedom of the Seas" which
was in our favor when, on the 21st October, they sent a very
circumstantial Note to London in which they demonstrated that the
English blockade was a breach of international law and definitely
stated that this blockade was neither effective, legal nor defensible.
Further, that the United States could not, therefore, submit to an
infringement of her rights as a neutral through measures which were
admittedly reprisals, and, consequently, contrary to international
law. That she could not with equanimity allow her rights to be
subordinated to the plea that the peculiar geographical position
of the enemies of Great Britain justified measures contrary to
international law.
The conclusion of the Note read as follows:
"It is of the highest importance to neutrals not only of the present
day, but of the future, that the principles of international right
be maintained unimpaired.
"This task of championing the integrity of neutral rights, which
have received the sanction of the civilized world against the lawless
conduct of belligerents arising out of the bitterness of the great
conflict which is now wasting the countries of Europe, the United
States unhesitatingly assumes, and to the accomplishment of that
task it will devote its energies, exercising always that impartiality
which from the outbreak of the war it has sought to exercise in
its relations with the warring nations."
The above programme was in accordance with the proposal of the
American Note of 21st July, which had touched on the subject of
co-operation in realizing the "Freedom of the Seas." It was, however,
clear to me, apart from anything else, that the United States would
not expend energy in championing the rights of neutrals so long as
a conflict with Germany threatened. The settlement of the _Arabic_
question gave grounds for hope that the views of the two Governments
on the question of submarine warfare would coincide. This appeared
to me to be the most important point; the American Government,
however, insisted on the settlement of the _Lusitania_ incident,
which I foresaw was going to prove a very difficult problem. Even
in the _Arabic_ affair it was only by my own independent action
that it was possible to avoid a break. The _Lusitania_ question,
however, was much more unfavorable to us because at that time the
old instructions to submarine captains were still in force. I should,
therefore, have been glad to avoid negotiations on the _Lusitania_
question, but Mr. Lansing insisted on a settlement before he spoke
on the future "Freedom of the Seas." The reason for this attitude
of the Secretary of State, as appears in my reports reproduced
above, lay in the state of public opinion. It was unfortunately
impossible for the American Government to carry through the policy
they had adopted in respect to England so long as the _Lusitania_
question was brought forward daily in the American Press.
The negotiations should have been carried through orally and
confidentially between Mr. Lansing and myself. Unfortunately, however,
it was impossible to keep anything confidential in Washington,
particularly as, very much against my wishes, the conversations
were protracted for weeks. The state department was continually
besieged by journalists, who reported in their papers a medley
of truth and fiction about each of my visits. In this way they
provoked denials, and so ended by getting a good idea of how the
situation stood. In addition to this, authoritative persons in
Berlin gave interviews to American journalists, who reported to
the United States papers everything that they did not already know.
Consequently, the negotiations did not progress in the way Mr.
Lansing and I had expected. We wanted to arrive quickly at a formula
and make it known at once. Public opinion in both countries would
then have been set at rest, and the past would have been buried
so long as no fresh differences of opinion and conflict arose out
of the submarine war. The formula, however, was not so easy to
arrive at. The wording of the Memorandum which I was to present
to the American Government had to be repeatedly cabled to Berlin,
where each time some alteration was required in the text that Mr.
Lansing wanted.
The American Government held to the point of view which they had
formulated in the Note of the 21st July, as follows:
"...for a belligerent act of retaliation is _per se_ an act beyond
the law and the defense of an act as retaliatory is an admission
that it is illegal."
The standpoint of the American Note of the 21st July, 1915, shows
clearly the mistake of treating the submarine war as reprisals.
It shows how every surrender of a position compromises the next.
The German Government, on the other hand, refused under any
circumstances to admit the illegality of the submarine warfare within
the war-zone, because they regarded the right to make reprisals as
a recognized part of the existing international law. Further, the
American demand was regarded in Germany as a deliberate humiliation,
as well as an attempt to coerce us unconditionally to renounce
unrestricted submarine warfare once and for all. To have admitted
that the submarine war was a breach of international law would
have involved us in the same unpleasant consequences to which now,
after our defeat, we are compelled to submit. If we admitted the
illegality of the submarine campaign we should have been obliged,
on the conclusion of peace, to meet all the demands for damages
arising out of it.
For the third time, then, the word "illegal" brought us face to
face with a crisis which was within an ace of causing a rupture
of diplomatic relations. The last days of the negotiations turned
out very unfortunately for us. Mr. Lansing and I had agreed upon
a formula in which the word "illegal" did not occur, because my
instructions categorically prohibited its use. In Berlin it was
not yet known that we had arrived at the desired agreement, and
it was there thought necessary to call public attention to the
danger of the situation, and explain the seriousness of the position
in the hope that by this means the American Government might be
moved to adopt a more conciliatory attitude.
On 5th February, Under-Secretary of State Zimmermann gave an interview
to the Associated Press in which he said he did not wish to conceal
the seriousness of the position. That Germany could under no
circumstances admit the illegality of the submarine campaign within
the war-zone. The whole crisis arose from the new demand of America
that Germany should admit the sinking of the _Lusitania_ to be an
act infringing the law of nations. Germany could not renounce the
submarine as a weapon. If the United States insisted on bringing
about a break Germany could do nothing further to avoid it. The
Imperial Chancellor confirmed these statements in a conversation
with the Berlin correspondent of _The World_.
These interviews compromised once more the settlement of the
negotiations, because the American Government were doubtful as to
whether they could allow the word "illegal" to be omitted, after the
sharp difference of opinion between the two Governments had become
public property. The agreement which had been reached voluntarily
now looked like a weak surrender before a German threat. In the
end, however, a compromise was arrived at. I handed to Mr. Lansing
in writing a declaration amounting to an admission that reprisals
were admissible, but that they should not be allowed to injure
neutrals, and that therefore the German Government regretted the
incident and were prepared to offer satisfaction and compensation.
The American Government were willing to confirm the receipt of
this Memorandum and declare themselves satisfied. Fate, however,
had decreed that I should play the role of Sisyphus at Washington.
Scarcely were the negotiations terminated when the German Government,
on the 8th February, declared the so-called "ruthless submarine
war," _i.e._ announced to the sea powers their intention of sinking
armed merchantmen without warning and without regard to crew or
passengers. In view of this the American Government refused to
complete the exchange of letters on the subject of the _Lusitania_.
Instead of this there began a new controversy on the question of
"armed merchantmen." My hope of settling the _Lusitania_ question
and then passing on to the discussion of "Freedom of the Seas"
was shattered. This hit me all the harder as I was convinced that
the conversations on the latter question would have developed into
peace negotiations.
The opinion has been expressed in Germany that the breaking-off of
diplomatic relations at this stage was regarded, even in America,
as precipitate, since no really acute provocation had been given.
That it was a shamelessly engineered break after we had in principle
yielded on every point. That the Americans had apparently been
bluffing and continually increasing their demands with a view of
enhancing their own prestige by scoring further diplomatic successes
against us which, in view of the previous course of events, they
could regard as certain.
In this case I do not myself believe that the American Government
were really thinking seriously of breaking off diplomatic relations.
They only wanted to pacify public opinion by a settlement of the
_Lusitania_ question, which was essential before passing on to
negotiations with regard to the "Freedom of the Seas" or to steps
for peace. Threats of war arose only because the negotiations were
protracted for weeks, and the word "illegal" was discussed in the
Press in every possible tone. It was a misfortune that these
negotiations were not carried on--like the subsequent conversations
with regard to peace--in secret. I had actually persuaded the American
Government to give way on the word "illegal," which had become
much more difficult for them owing to the publicity that was given
to the negotiations. Had it not been for the ruthless submarine
campaign the _Lusitania_ question would have been finally buried
and the negotiations could have been continued in a friendly spirit.
Moreover, the so-called ruthless submarine campaign was, according
to the opinion of Admiral von Tirpitz, who was at that time still
in office, although he was not consulted until the decision was
taken, a military farce. He declared the order to be technically
nonsense, and the pompous way in which it was issued as unnecessarily
provocative and a challenge. The whole thing was neither "fish nor
flesh."
The controversy over the "armed merchantmen" had a prologue which
could only be described as a comedy of errors, were the matter not
so serious. It is well known that the constitution of the United
States allows the President the right of independent political
action. He alone is responsible, and his Secretary of State and
the other Ministers are only his assistants, without personal
responsibility. Mr. Wilson has made much greater use of his rights
in this respect than even Mr. Roosevelt. From the very beginning
his administration was a one-man Government.
In general terms the development of democracy in America amounts
to this, that the electors vest unlimited rights in one man for a
short time, and after that they re-elect or replace him according
to whether he has won or lost their confidence.
Thus arises a sort of temporary autocracy which combines the advantages
of a monarchy and a democracy. Whether this historically developed
system really coincides with our idea of formal democracy is another
question.
However this may be, the political life of a nation is not to be
ruled by catch-words. History is the only builder of state organisms.
No one can foretell in what direction our young democracy will
develop. In view of the indifference of the German people to politics
it may be assumed, however, that it will develop on similar lines
to that of America when we have once accepted the principle of the
election of the President by the people. Such a President will
always possess great power and authority in his relation to other
bodies, while it is probable that the German people will be willing
to leave political affairs in the hands of the man they have elected,
and will even give him charge of their economic affairs. The German
President of the future will certainly find himself involved in the
same differences with the Ministers responsible to the majority
in the Reichstag as the American President has had so frequently
with the Senate. In such cases the American people nearly always
support the President, directly chosen by them, and so bring
corresponding pressure to bear on the Senate.
The brief constitutional diversion from the question of "armed
merchantmen" was to give an opportunity for announcing the surprising
catastrophes which had occurred in the course of the development of
this question. About the end of the year 1915 Mr. Wilson had married
for the second time and was absent for a time from Washington.
Consequently the President seems not to have exerted the same close
control as usual over the political actions of his Ministers. In any
case he had not read, or only hastily glanced through, a Memorandum
on the submarine campaign which Mr. Lansing had handed on the 18th
January, 1916, to the representatives of the Entente, and had not
therefore realized its far-reaching importance. This Memorandum
only came to the knowledge of the Central Powers at a later date,
through the medium of the Press, which had got to know of it from
one of the Entente representatives or through some indiscretion.
The Memorandum went even further than the Note of the 21st July,
1915, and recognized that the use of submarines could not be prohibited
to the combatants after they had proved their value in attacking
enemy commerce. It laid down, however, that the submarine campaign
must, without interfering with its effectiveness be brought into
harmony with the general provisions of international law and with
the principles of humanity. It was, therefore, necessary on the
one side that the submarines should be instructed to conduct their
campaign within the limits laid down for cruiser-warfare against
merchant shipping, _i.e._, they must not sink without first stopping
and examining the ship and giving the passengers and crew a chance
to save themselves. On the other side, the merchant ships were not
to carry arms, since, owing to the nature of the submarines, it
would be impossible for them to conduct their operations on the
lines of cruiser-warfare if the merchantmen were even lightly armed,
as had hitherto been permitted by the principles of international
law for purposes of defense. Under the prevailing circumstances any
arming of a merchant ship would have an offensive character.
The Memorandum concluded as follows:
"I should add that my Government is impressed with the reasonableness
of the argument that a merchant vessel carrying an armament of any
sort, in view of the character of submarine warfare and the defensive
weakness of undersea craft, should be held to be an auxiliary cruiser
and so treated by a neutral as well as by a belligerent Government,
and is seriously considering instructing its officials accordingly."
Although this Memorandum bears no historical weight I deal with it
in detail here because it plated a leading part before the Committee
of the National Assembly as a proof that no confidence could be
placed in Mr. Wilson as a peace mediator.
I have no doubt that the Memorandum was intended to carry on the
policy of the American Notes of the 21st July and 21st October,
1915, which had given rise to the American struggle for the "Freedom
of the Seas." It was not, however, in keeping with Mr. Wilson's
usual methods to make such a sharp thrust at the Entente as the
concluding paragraph of the Memorandum represented, so long as the
negotiations with me on the subject of the _Lusitania_ incident
were not yet concluded and so long as it was not absolutely sure
of the support of public opinion. Just as the Note of the 21st
October, 1915, was not sent to London until the President thought
he had cleared the way with respect to us by the settlement of
the _Arabic_ question, so in January, 1916, he wanted to keep his
hands free until the chance of a conflict with us was past. The
popular saying in America is that Wilson has a single-line brain
and only deals with one matter at a time. Moreover, out of regard
for the state of public feeling in the country the President wanted
to take each political step without being openly coerced by us. It
is not my intention to defend Mr. Wilson's conception of neutrality
to-day, after I have opposed it for years, but I will only attempt,
without any personal ill-will, to contribute to Klio's work of
discovering the real truth. To me personally the matter of paramount
interest today, as at that time, is not what Mr. Wilson did or did
not do, but the question what we ought to have done in the interest
of Germany.
I shall often have to return to the developments which, after the
31st January, 1917, made the President our open enemy. If we wish
to be lovers of truth we must distinguish sharply between the two
periods before and after the 31st January, 1917. It is certain that
Mr. Wilson was never even near to being pro-German. By descent,
education and training he was unconsciously much too much under the
English influence already mentioned. But until the 31st January,
1917, the President had striven to be neutral. All his speeches
testify to this. No un-neutral remark of Mr. Wilson, even in private,
has ever reached my ears. He always resisted the pressure of the
Entente party, in spite of the fact that he was almost entirely
surrounded by anti-Germans. The only one I could mention whose
advice to the President was always definitely neutral was Mr. House.
For the rest in the east of the United States we found ourselves
morally in an enemy country. Every neutral step taken by Mr. Wilson
was immediately hailed as "pro-German." For instance, I am convinced
that the President could never have carried out the threat contained
in the final clause of the Memorandum of the 18th January. Gradually
all the Entente merchantmen were armed. If these were to be treated
in American ports as auxiliary cruisers the whole of American commerce
would of necessity have come to a standstill, for it was already
suffering seriously from lack of freight space. The Entente knew
exactly how much value all Americans placed on their commerce,
and could therefore reject the proposal of the United States with
equanimity.
Nevertheless, it is well worthy of notice that in the Memorandum
of the 18th January, 1916, the legally trained and legally minded
Secretary of State Lansing, as well as Mr. Bryan, brought forward
or attempted to bring forward a different kind of neutrality from
that of the President. The only question is whether Mr. Wilson
could at that time have carried through the Lansing policy. I do
not think so. This does not in itself relieve the President of the
responsibility of not wishing to make such a sharp thrust against
the Entente as was represented by the Memorandum so long as the
negotiations on the _Lusitania_ affair still remained unsettled. Yet
throughout the whole war Holland has never followed the regulations
of the Memorandum. This fact remains. Mr. Wilson did not enforce
the Memorandum because he could not do so without prejudicing the
interests of American commerce. In this case Mr. Lansing was the
neutral advocate and the President the American politician, whose
decisions on foreign questions, as usually happens in the United
States, were actuated by domestic politics.
After the issue of Mr. Wilson's protest against the English blockade,
and in view of the turn that the Lansing action against armed
merchantmen had taken, it can be understood that the German Imperial
Government hence-forward was suspicious of the good-will and power
of the President as a peace mediator. Meanwhile there came a change
in the domestic situation, and this, as I have already mentioned,
is always the decisive factor in the United States in all questions
of foreign policy.
It would have been a good move on our part to wait for the result
of the _Lusitania_ negotiations, and then to give Mr. Wilson time to
take in hand his policy with regard to the "Freedom of the Seas" on
his own initiative. Berlin, however, was always in a hurry to bring
in the new measures of submarine warfare, although the disadvantages
that this would cause us always outweighed the advantages. However,
the Americans themselves will perhaps some day have occasion to
regret that they did not seize the opportunity of the war to insure
the "Freedom of the Seas." If during the five years of war--from
the mobilization to the peace offer and the armistice--we Germans
were always in too great a hurry with our decisions, the American
Government, on the other hand, lost through hesitation many an
opportunity of keeping out of the war. There could be no doubt
that the United States could, as a neutral power, have brought
about a better peace than they have done as the decisive combatant
power.
In January, 1916, there occurred an unfortunate misunderstanding,
which must have strengthened the German Government in their intention
of declaring the unrestricted submarine war. The Austrian representative
had an interview with Mr. Lansing with reference to the _Ancona_
incident, in which he understood the Secretary of State to say that
it would be agreeable to the American Government if the Central
Powers in future regarded armed enemy merchantmen as auxiliary
cruisers. Baron Zwiedineck sent a wireless report of this interview
to his Government via Nauen. As has already been mentioned, all our
wireless messages were read by the American Government departments,
and it had often occurred that objection had been raised. As this
message of Baron Zwiedineck was sent without protest I assumed
that Mr. Lansing had agreed to its contents. Later a confidential
discussion took place between the Secretary of State, Baron Zwiedineck
and myself, on the subject of this incident. Mr. Lansing said that
he had not read the wireless message, as such messages were only
examined by the censor, with a view to seeing that they did not
compromise the neutrality of the United States. Further, he maintained,
that Baron Zwiedineck must have misunderstood him, as he had not
made the statement imputed to him in the message. We did not treat
the conversation as official, in order not to put any greater
difficulties in Mr. Lansing's way than he already had to face as
a result of his Memorandum of 18th January.
The German Memorandum of 8th February, 1915, proclaiming the
unrestricted submarine campaign, was handed to Mr. Gerard in Berlin.
I had for the moment no further negotiations to conduct, as the
_Lusitania_ question was never again reopened and the question
of the "Freedom of the Seas" had been quashed by the unrestricted
submarine campaign.
Meanwhile Colonel House had gone for a second time to Europe, this
time as the official representative of the President. He was in
Berlin just at the time when the second _Lusitania_ crisis reached
its apogee.
I had announced his visit to Berlin, and prepared everything so
that he might have every opportunity for conversation with the
authoritative political personages.
When Colonel House returned to America he told me that the time
had not yet come for the mediation of the United States. He had,
however, had the opportunity to state his views in London, Paris
and Berlin, and had met with the greatest opposition in Paris,
because France had suffered so seriously in the war that she had
little more to lose by prolonging it.
In Berlin, on the other hand, he had found a disposition to agree
to mediation by Mr. Wilson when a favorable opportunity occurred.
In accordance with the wish of the President I had discussed the
peace question exclusively with Colonel House since his second
visit to Europe. This made it possible for the conversations to
be kept strictly confidential. I could call on Colonel House at
his private residence in New York at any time without attracting
attention, whereas the State Department and the White House were
always besieged by journalists as I have already mentioned. As a
rule, I took the night train to New York and called on Colonel
House in the morning, before the Press were aware that I had left
Washington.
On the 8th March, according to my instructions, I handed to the
American Government a further Memorandum, which set out in concise
terms the German standpoint.
After recapitulating the various phases of the negotiations which
are already known to the reader, it defined the existing situation
with regard to the war at sea as follows:
England was making it impossible for the submarines to carry on
their campaign against commerce in accordance with the provisions
of international law by arming practically all merchantmen, and
ordering the use of their guns for offence. Photographs of the
English orders had been sent to the neutral Governments, with the
Memorandum of the 8th February, 1916. These orders are directly
contrary to the declarations of the English Ambassador in Washington
on the 25th August, 1914. The Imperial German Government had hoped
that these facts would prompt the neutral Governments to carry out
the disarmament of merchant vessels on the lines of the proposals
for disarmament made by the United States Government on 23rd January,
1916. Actually, however, the arming of these ships with guns provided
by our enemies has been energetically pursued.
Advantage was taken by England and her Allies of the American
Government's decision not to keep her citizens off enemy merchant
ships to arm merchantmen for attack. This makes it easy for merchantmen
to destroy the submarines, and, in case of the failure of their
attack, to count themselves secure owing to the presence on board
of American citizens.
The order as to the use of arms was supplemented by instructions
given to the masters of the merchant vessels to fly false colors
and to ram the submarines. The news that prize-money was paid to
successful captains of merchant ships and honors conferred upon
them increased the effectiveness of these orders. The Allies have
associated themselves with these English measures.
Germany now finds herself faced with the following facts:
(_a_) That for a year a blockade contrary to international law
has kept neutral commerce away from German ports and made export
from Germany impossible.
(_b_) That for six months an extension, contrary to international
law, of the laws of contraband has hampered the maritime commerce
of neutral neighbors in respect of Germany.
(_c_) That interference with the post, contrary to international
law, is striving to cut Germany off from all communication with
the outside world.
(_d_) That systematically increased coercion of neutrals, on the
principle that "Might is right," is stopping trade with Germany
across the land frontiers, with a view to completing the starvation
blockade of the non-combatant population of the Central Powers.
(_e_) That Germans who are found at sea by our enemies are robbed
of their liberty regardless of whether they are combatants or
non-combatants.
(_f_) That our enemies have armed their merchant ships for attack,
and have thus made impossible the use of submarines in accordance
with the principles of the Declaration of London.
The English White Book, of the 5th January, 1916, with regard to the
restriction of German commerce, boasts that through these measures
Germany's export trade has been almost completely stopped, and that
her imports have been made dependent on the good-will of England.
The Imperial Government may hope that, in view of the friendly
relations that have existed between the two countries for a hundred
years, the standpoint herein laid down will meet with the sympathy of
the people of the United States, in spite of the increased difficulty
of mutual understanding brought about by the conduct of our enemies.
The last words of this Memorandum were vigorously commented on
by the American Press as a proof that we wished to appeal, not to
the American Government, but to the American people, as a result of
the movement which had been set on foot in Congress, and especially
in the Senate, that American citizens should be prohibited from
travelling on the armed merchant vessels of combatant States.
The struggle which was at that time being waged in Congress has
been greatly exaggerated in Germany. At home it was thought that the
weight of opinion in Congress in favor of the warning of passengers
was very great. On the pro-German side in New York it was thought
that Congress was anxious to avert danger of a conflict. If this
could have happened through a yielding on the part of Germany, it
would, of course, have made things much easier for the Americans;
if, however, Germany refused to give way, they thought the United
States would have found a more conciliatory formula, as the country
was seeking before all things to avert war. They believed that the
re-election of 1916 had been largely won through the battle-cry,
"He kept us out of the war," which showed that Congress, with its
love of freedom, reflected the general opinion. It was, moreover,
doubted in the same quarter whether Wilson, as a pacifist candidate
for the Presidency, could declare war at that time, when there
was as yet no definite provocation--as, for example, the Mexico
Dispatch. The theory of this small pro-German group in New York
was that Congress would at that time have done anything to avoid
war, and that they had only accepted the Gore resolution in order
to humiliate the President in the eyes of the world as no head
of a State had ever been disavowed before.
In the same quarter--as also happened before the Committee of the
German National Assembly--the whole question aroused indignation.
It was said that when the Germans read that it had been pompously
brought forward as a point of honor whether a few Americans should
travel by enemy armed vessels, they bristled with anger. It looked
to them as though the alternatives were whether these few Americans
should travel in the war-zone on neutral ships, or whether a great
civilized nation like Germany should go under! The matter developed
from the "too proud to fight" attitude--when Wilson really believed
there was a danger of war, and so drew back--to the tone of February,
1916--when he no longer believed in the possibility of war, but
felt sure that he could subdue us with hard words. They thought it
strange, moreover, to hear Wilson speaking of the gradual breakdown
of the delicate structure of international law. That had resulted
from England's attitude, and in 1812 America had declared war on
the English because of an illegal blockade.
Politics are not to be carried on by indignation, but only with a
cool head and a clear vision for political realities. We could not
alter the American situation, but must strive to conduct ourselves
in such a way as to prejudice the position of the United States as
little as possible.
I had from the beginning little doubt that Mr. Wilson would make
his will prevail, because the domestic position in the United States
made any other issue impossible. The presidential election was
imminent, and the Democratic party had no likely candidate apart
from Mr. Wilson. If a split occurred within the party the Republicans
would be bound to win. Senators Stone and Gore were the leaders of the
Democratic Opposition, while the Republicans in this case supported
the policy of the President, partly because they were on the side of
the Entente, partly because they wanted to assure the interests of
American commerce. As has already been mentioned, Senator Stone had
always maintained a neutral attitude to the last, chiefly because he
was one of the two representatives of Missouri, and could not ignore
the large number of Germans among his constituents. For this reason
he was called by the pro-Entente Press, like the _New York Herald_,
"pro-German Mr. Stone." Senator Gore was a Pacifist on principle,
and thought that the resolution for which he was responsible, to
prohibit Americans from travelling on armed merchantmen, would
avert the danger of war.
The whole Congress story can only be read as a domestic party skirmish,
with a view to the approaching Presidential election; one section of
the Democratic party wanted a candidate other than Wilson. Just as it
was at that time a mistake to expect any advantage from the Congress
Opposition, so to-day a similar mistake is made in Germany, when it
is assumed that the struggle in the Senate over the ratification
of the Peace Treaty has a pro-German background.
The debate in Congress was not in any way connected with an acute
German-American situation. It seems necessary to give here a short
survey of the negotiations, as they appeared from my point of view.
Our first concession occurred after the _Arabic_ incident, our second
later, after the _Sussex_ incident. Between these two there was never
any concession to America on the part of Germany, for the shelving
of the second _Lusitania_ crisis constituted a compromise. Between
February, 1915, and the _Lusitania_ incident we were conducting
an unrestricted submarine campaign, subsequently a limited one,
though this was not known to America until after the sinking of
the _Arabic_; after February, 1916, the unrestricted campaign was
renewed until the _Sussex_ incident, after which cruiser warfare was
begun. This is all that concerned me in this connection. Internal
differences of opinion within the German Government, such as occurred
after February, 1915, did not make their way across the Atlantic;
for instance, the resumption of the unrestricted submarine campaign
in February, 1916, was discussed with me as little as it was with
the American Government itself.
From these facts it is evident that the action of Congress was
of no practical importance for us, for when, after this debate,
the _Sussex_ incident occurred--when, moreover, it was a question
of an unarmed ship--Mr. Wilson was free to issue his ultimatum,
and could also have broken off diplomatic relations, if we had
refused to give way. The American Government had then no thought of
a complete defeat of Germany, such as later occurred, for otherwise
they could easily have found an excuse for coming into the war. At
that time Mr. Wilson was convinced that the war would end in a
peace without victory, for which he intended to use his influence.
The whole question was merely whether we realized these facts and
would avail ourselves of them or not. Our one asset in America
was the disinclination of the majority of the people for war, for
otherwise--as appeared later--it would have been only too easy
for the United States to make war upon us with success.
The President wanted to continue the policy he had adopted hitherto,
by standing firm to the point of view that the submarine war must
be conducted according to the principles of international law, and,
further, was waiting to see whether the unrestricted submarine
campaign would give rise to any further incidents.
In a letter written to Senator Stone, on the 24th February, the
President defined his policy in the following terms:
"You are right in assuming that I shall do everything in my power to
keep the United States out of the war. I think the country will feel
no anxiety about my line of action in this respect. I have devoted
many anxious months to this task under much greater difficulties
than appeared on the surface, and so far with success. The course
which the Central Powers intend to adopt in future with regard
to submarine warfare, as shown by their Memorandum, seems at the
moment to raise insuperable difficulties; but its contents are at
first sight so difficult to reconcile with the specific assurances
which the Central Powers have recently given us as to the treatment
of merchant shipping on the high seas, that I think that explanations
will shortly be forthcoming which will throw a different light on
the matter. We have in the past had no reason to doubt their good
faith, or the sincerity of their promises, and I, for my part, am
confident that we shall have none in the future.
"But in any event our duty is clear. No nation, no group of nations,
has the right, while war is in progress, to alter or disregard
the principles which all nations have agreed upon in mitigation
of the horrors and sufferings of war; and if the clear rights of
American citizens should ever unhappily be abridged or denied by
any such action, we should, it seems to me, have in honor no choice
as to what our own course should be.
"For my own part, I cannot consent to any abridgment of the rights
of American citizens in any respect. The honor and self-respect
of the Nation is involved. We covet peace, and shall preserve it
at any cost but the loss of honor.
"To forbid our people to exercise their rights for fear we might be
called upon to vindicate them would be a deep humiliation indeed.
It would be an implicit, all but an explicit, acquiescence in the
violation of the rights of mankind everywhere and of whatever nation
or allegiance. It would be a deliberate abdication of our hitherto
proud position as spokesmen, even amid the turmoil of war, for
the law and the right. It would make everything this Government
has attempted and everything that it has accomplished during this
terrible struggle of nations meaningless and futile.
"It is important to reflect that if in this instance we allowed
expediency to take the place of principle the door would inevitably
be opened to still further concessions. Once accept a single abatement
of right, and many other humiliations would certainly follow, and
the whole fine fabric of international law might crumble under our
hands piece by piece. What we are contending for in this matter is
of the very essence of the things that have made America a sovereign
nation. She cannot yield them without conceding her own impotency as
a Nation and making virtual surrender of her independent position
among the nations of the world."
Soon afterwards--on the 3rd March--the Senate decided by 68 votes
to 14 to postpone the discussion of the Gore resolution _sine die_.
The struggle had then already ended in a victory for Mr. Wilson
when I handed over the above-mentioned Memorandum.
Regarded from our own point of view, the declaration of the
"unrestricted submarine war" was a serious political mistake, which
was not even justified by the results of the measure. The least we
could have done was to wait for the settlement of the Lusitania
question and the subsequent action of Mr. Wilson. The "unrestricted
submarine war" was not the right way to improve our situation, but
was bound inevitably to lead to a new conflict with America. It
was absolutely impossible for the submarine captains to ascertain
with certainty through the periscope whether an enemy merchant
ship was armed or not. Mistakes, therefore, were sure to arise
sooner or later. On the other hand, the Americans would not refrain
from travelling on enemy passenger ships, as their business took
them mostly to England and France, and there were not enough of
their own or neutral ships at their disposal.
The one hope for the continued avoidance of a conflict was that
the Imperial Government should not withdraw the concessions they
had made on the 5th October, 1915, with regard to "liners," and
that enemy passenger ships should not be unarmed out of regard
for their neutral passengers.
There were, as a rule, no Americans on cargo ships, for there were at
that time few sailors in the United States. From the above-mentioned
letter of Mr. Wilson to Mr. Stone, however, it appeared that the
American Government regarded our concessions as applying to all
merchant vessels, while, as I have already stated, the German naval
authorities had only intended to include passenger steamers.
This misunderstanding might now give rise to a fresh conflict,
even if mistakes on the part of submarine captains were by special
good fortune avoided.