with fresh instructions, left for Berlin on the 5th December. When
later the Ambassador, at the much discussed Adlon dinner, declared
that the relations between the United States and Germany had never
been so good as at that moment since the beginning of the war,
this speech was the keynote of his instructions. If on the other
hand Herr Helfferich said that the exuberance of the Ambassador
astonished him, this is explained by the fact that Berlin never
believed in Mr. Wilson's intention to bring about peace. Why such
incredulity should persist notwithstanding that Colonel House had
twice travelled to Berlin for this very purpose, and that the
President's peace policy had been the burden of all my reports,
I shall never be able to understand, while, on the other hand, I
can quite understand that Mr. Wilson's passivity with regard to
the English breaches of international law had engendered strong
distrust of him in Germany.
For the rest, Mr. Gerard seemed to be imperfectly informed about
the situation in Berlin. He was certainly right in his prediction
of the unrestricted submarine campaign, but in this case the wish
was father to the thought. It accorded with Mr. Gerard's anti-German
feeling, to which he gave expression later in his gossipy literature
and film production, that he should welcome the submarine campaign,
and with it the rupture with the United States, as well as our
defeat. But after all, the Ambassador' proved at the Adlon dinner
that he could sing another tune.
When Mr. Gerard lunched with me in Washington, I had just learned
by cable from Berlin that Herr von Jagow had resigned and had been
replaced by Herr Zimmermann. On hearing this news, the Ambassador
said that now there would be no rupture between Germany and the
United States, for Herr Zimmermann was his personal friend and
was opposed to war, while Herr von Jagow, as an aristocrat, did
not love the Americans, and looked down on bourgeois Gerard. A
grosser misreading of the actual situation in Berlin can scarcely
be conceived, as the unrestricted submarine campaign was only made
possible by the resignation of Herr von Jagow, who was the chief
opponent in Berlin of the submarine campaign, and the pillar on
which the idea of American intervention rested. As long as Herr
von Jagow remained Secretary of State, a breach with the United
States was regarded as impossible. One of his last official acts
was to write a private letter to me on the 20th November, 1916,
concluding with the following sentence:
"As you have seen from your instructions, we are thoroughly in
sympathy with the peace tendencies of President Wilson. His activity
in this direction is to be strongly encouraged. Naturally his mediation
tendencies must not extend to concrete proposals (because these
would be unfavorable to us.)"
We now come to the moment in this account when the peace offer of
the Imperial Government got involved with Mr. Wilson's plans for
mediation. It is not my intention to go closely into the events
that occurred in Berlin or the considerations that took effect there,
as I only know them through their reaction on the instructions
sent to me. I will only mention briefly, that, according to the
statement of Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg before the Commission of
the National Assembly, the peace offer of the Imperial Government
was made with a view to influencing the pacifist minorities in
the Entente countries, and working, through the people, on the
Governments. Beyond this there was no intention of cutting out
Mr. Wilson's peace move, but the Imperial Government wanted to
have "two irons in the fire." Finally, all the utterances of the
Imperial Government, which do not seem to tally with these two
principles of their policy, are to be regarded as based on purely
tactical motives. Accordingly, the decisive turn in our policy
did not occur until the 9th January, 1917, when the decision to
resort to the unrestricted submarine war was taken. Until then
the policy followed was that of "two irons in the fire."
This is the way in which I read the situation in Washington at
the time. If I had been convinced that the resignation of Herr von
Jagow and the German peace offer meant a definite departure from
the policy which we had hitherto followed with regard to Mr. Wilson's
peace step, I should have immediately sent in my resignation, as
I was completely identified with this policy. However, I shall
return to this side of the question later.
The following telegram from the Foreign Office gave me the official
information of our peace offer:
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 128
"Berlin, 9th December, 1916.
"Confidential, for your personal information.
"We have decided to make use of the favorable position created
by the fall of Bukarest in order, according to telegram number
116 of the 21st November, to make a peace offer in conjunction
with our Allies, probably on Thursday, the 12th December. We do
not at the present moment run any risk of damaging our prestige
or showing signs of weakness. Should the enemy reject the offer
the odium of continuing the war will fall upon them. For reasons
stated in telegram number 121 we could not wait any longer for
President Wilson to make up his mind to take action.
"The American Embassy here will at the given moment receive a Note
in which the American Government will be requested to communicate
our peace offer to those of our enemies with whom they represent
our interests. Our other enemies will be informed through the medium
of Switzerland and Spain respectively. American representative in
conversation with Chancellor on 5th December expressed himself,
in confidence, on the President's mission, among other things, as
follows: 'What the President now most earnestly desires is practical
cooperation on the part of German authorities in bringing about
a favorable opportunity for soon and affirmative action by the
President looking to an early restoration of peace.' Chancellor
replied to American representative, he was 'extremely gratified
to see from the President's message that in the given moment he
could count upon the sincere and practical co-operation of the
President in the restoration of peace, as much as the President
could count upon the practical co-operation of German authorities.'
We think we may assume that our action meets the wishes of the
President.
"Please interpret it in any case in this sense to the President
and House.
"VON STUMM."
To this telegram I replied as follows:
CIPHER TELEGRAM
"Washington, 13th December, 1916.
"In reply to Telegram No. 128.
"Have carried out instructions with House, who is at present staying
at the White House. I have not yet received answer from Wilson,
but it is generally believed here that he will strongly support
peace proposals.
"Mr. Gerard, in a speech at a farewell dinner given to him in New
York, declared that Germany had won, and could not be robbed of her
victory. Although not published, this speech attracted attention,
especially as Mr. Gerard emphasized the fact that he had reported
to Mr. Wilson in this sense."
Before the Commission of the National Assembly I was asked whether
I had made an attempt to stand in the way of our peace offer, lest
it should interfere with Mr. Wilson's action. I took no such steps,
because I thought that I was faced with a firm resolve of the Imperial
Government, and because I did not think that our peace offer would
substantially compromise Mr. Wilson's action.
It was also stated before the commission that I might have helped
my policy to prevail in Berlin if I had insisted on it more strongly.
With regard to this, I must say at once, that I did not consider
stronger influence on my side really called for, as my instructions
had always categorically laid down that I was to encourage Mr.
Wilson to take peace action. I had also been informed that the
Imperial Government would prefer such action to a peace offer from
our side, and that the correct moment for the latter would have
to depend on the military situation. I was, therefore, until the
arrival of the Berlin telegram, number 128, not clear as to which
of the actions would come first, especially as, according to my
instructions, I was to keep our peace offer secret and could not
discuss it with Colonel House.
Under ordinary circumstances, I should have travelled to Berlin
several times during the war to confer with the authorities.
Unfortunately, however, that was impossible, as the English would
never have allowed me to travel to and fro. If I had had the ways
and means to enlighten German public opinion on the situation in
America, it would certainly have done a lot of good. According to
the evidence given before the Commission of the National Assembly,
the chief reason for our rejection of mediation was distrust of
Mr. Wilson. Nevertheless, I still believe that ignorance and
undervaluation of America was a stronger influence. At least I
cannot conceive that all the authorities concerned would have voted
for unrestricted submarine war if they had been firmly convinced
that the United States would come into the war with all her military
and economic power. However that may be, I tried at least to do what
I could and I made an attempt to send Herr Albert, who was completely
in accord with me, to Berlin on the submarine _Deutschland_. The
captain of the _Deutschland_, however, had scruples against carrying
passengers, and Herr Albert's voyage had therefore to be given up.
After my experience of the journeys of Herren Meyer Gerhardt and
Dernburg, I certainly do not think that Herr Albert would have done
very much in Berlin. Even I could hardly have hindered the opening
of the unrestricted submarine campaign where Herr von Jagow, Herr
von Kuehlmann and others had failed, and after all, that was the
main point.
Mr. Wilson's intention of bringing about peace had been reported
to me so definitely and so often that I took it for granted that
the President would carry through his plan in spite of our peace
offer. As I had received no instructions to the contrary, I held
to my previous interpretation of the situation, and assumed that,
although it was true that we had ourselves made a peace offer because
Wilson's action was so long in coming, we should nevertheless still
be glad to avail ourselves of the President's help. In my opinion,
this was the only interpretation that could be put on the Foreign
Office telegram number 128, given above. The President himself,
as Colonel House told me, was very disappointed when he received
the news of our peace offer. Colonel House told me that he would
naturally have liked to take the first step himself. Apart from
this, he had always warned us against mentioning peace, because
this would be interpreted by the Entente as weakness. He therefore
regarded our peace offer as an obstacle to action on his part,
as it was bound to diminish the enemy's readiness to enter into
negotiations. On the other hand, the step of the Imperial Government
exerted a favorable influence on American public opinion, and this
influence would have been even more favorable if the offer had been
made less in the tone of a victor. The attitude of American public
opinion, and the fear lest peace negotiations might be opened without
his co-operation, must have been the chief reasons that influenced
Mr. Wilson publicly to support our peace offer. In connection with
this I sent the following information to Berlin:
CIPHER TELEGRAM
"Washington, 16th December, 1916.
"Lansing tells me the following statement, which I could not send
by wireless to-day, comes from Wilson personally.
"President Wilson has decided that the Notes of the Central Powers,
proposing a discussion of peace to the Entente Allies, will be
sent forward by the American Government acting as intermediary
without any accompanying offer of his own. He has not determined
whether any action on behalf of peace will be taken later by the
United States on its own account, but is holding himself in readiness
to serve in any possible way towards bringing the warring nations
together."
"From Lansing's remarks I gather that he is convinced that our enemies
will agree to a conference and that then the American Government will
have an opportunity to speak in favor of peace. As the Press here
is also in general of the opinion that our enemies cannot refuse
a conference without turning public opinion against themselves,
I have grounds for assuming that the American Embassy in London,
in spite of the official statement mentioned above, will assert
this view."
As I expected, the President did not allow himself to be turned
from his purpose, and on the 18th December dispatched the Note which
had long been ready, with certain alterations, to the belligerent
Powers. He certainly would not have taken this step if he had not
reckoned on certain success. Mr. Wilson's Note could not help but
bear out our peace plans, and was therefore regarded throughout
America as "pro-German." For this very reason it caused a sensation.
On the New York Exchange it was followed by a slump in war industry
values. A few anti-German newspapers, which began to suspect that
I was the only diplomatist in Washington who knew anything of the
President's intentions, declared that I had made millions by speculating
on this probability. I had already been accused of every other
imaginable crime by the Jingo and Entente Press. Mr. Wilson's
son-in-law, Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo, was also suspected
of having abused his political information to speculate on the
Exchange. Soon afterwards, when I was dining with the President,
he asked me in jest what I had to say to the accusation of the
American Press that I had made millions in this way. I replied
that I had gradually got used to such attacks, and they only amused
me. Mr. Wilson replied: "That is right. My son-in-law takes the
matter much too seriously. I tell him 'If you get so angry, people
will think the story is true.'"
The American Press was thrown into the greatest excitement by the
President's Note and stormed the State Department. Mr. Lansing
was surrounded by questioners and remarked that the United States
had the greatest interest in bringing the war to an end, because
otherwise she would be drawn in herself. As of late, as has already
been mentioned, several doubtful submarine incidents had occurred,
the Press took this remark to mean that the United States would
enter the war against us if the intervention move came to nothing.
Mr. Wilson immediately, realized that such an interpretation of
Mr. Lansing's words would seriously jeopardize his peace move.
If the Entente could hope for American participation in the war,
there would be no prospect of their consenting to a "peace without
victory." In that case the direction of their policy was defined
beforehand. They only required to reject the offer of mediation
to reach the goal of their long-cherished hopes. The President
therefore at once requested Mr. Lansing to contradict the statements
of the Press. This was done, with the observation that there was
no probability of the United States entering the war. The harm
could not, however, be completely wiped out, as denials are always
regarded with doubt.
The vital parts of Mr. Wilson's Note read as follows:
"The President suggests that an early occasion be sought to call out
from all the nations now at war such an avowal of their respective
views as to the terms upon which the war might be concluded and
the arrangements which would be deemed satisfactory as a guaranty
against its renewal or the kindling of any similar conflict in
the future, as would make it possible frankly to compare them.
He is indifferent as to the means taken to accomplish this. He
would be happy himself to serve, or even to take the initiative
in its accomplishment, in any way that might prove acceptable, but
he has no desire to determine the method or the instrumentality.
One way will be as acceptable to him as another if only the great
object he has in mind be attained.
"In the measures taken to secure the future peace of the world
the people and the Government of the United States are as vitally
and as directly interested as the Governments now at war.
"The President does not feel that it is right and his duty to point
out their intimate interest in its conclusion, lest it should presently
be too late to accomplish the greater things which lie beyond its
conclusion, lest the situation of neutral nations, now exceedingly
hard to endure, be rendered altogether intolerable, and lest, more
than all, an inquiry be done civilization itself which can never
be atoned for, or repaired.
"Yet the concrete objects for which it is being waged have never
been definitely stated.
"The leaders of the several belligerents have, as has been said
stated those objects in general terms. But, stated in general terms,
they seem the same on both sides. Never yet have the authoritative
spokesmen of either side avowed the precise objects which would,
if attained, satisfy them and their people that the war had been
fought out. The world has been left to conjecture what definite
results, what actual exchange of guaranties, what political or
territorial changes or readjustments, what stage of military success
even, would bring the war to an end.
"It may be that peace is nearer than we know; that the terms which
the belligerents on the one side and on the other would deem it
necessary to insist upon are not so irreconcilable as some have
feared; that an interchange of views would clear the way at least
for conference and make the permanent concord of the nations a
hope of the immediate future, a concert of nations immediately
practicable.
"The President is not proposing peace; he is not even offering
mediation. He is merely proposing that soundings be taken in order
that we may learn, the neutral with the belligerent, how near the
haven of peace may be for which all mankind longs with an intense
and increasing longing. He believes that the spirit in which he
speaks and the objects which he seeks will be understood by all
concerned, and he confidently hopes for a response which will bring
a new light into the affairs of the world."
As this Note in its positive proposals was considered rather tentative
and obscure--with the intention, of course, of making a direct
negative answer impossible--I asked Mr. Lansing what procedure the
President would like. With regard to this conversation I reported
to Berlin in the following telegram:
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 188
"Washington, 21st December, 1916.
"Lansing informed me a few days ago of Wilson's Peace Note, and said
that the American Government were becoming more and more involved
in an intolerable position as a result of repeated infringements
of their rights. Therefore they hoped for frank statements from
the belligerent Powers on their peace conditions. I gave it as
my personal opinion that this would be difficult except through
a conference because of the press, etc. Lansing replied that the
statements could be confidential, and might gradually lead to a
conference. This seems to bear out the view, widely held here,
that Wilson would like to act as a 'clearing house' for the further
steps towards peace. He has American public opinion behind him
with the exception of our inveterate enemies, who regard Wilson's
Note as pro-German."
My conversation with Mr. Lansing, and the wording of the American
Note, made it perfectly clear that the President, in the first
place, only wished to be informed of the peace conditions of both
sides. This was just what the Berlin Government did not want, because
it would have aroused a bitter struggle between the different shades
of public opinion as to the "war aims." My telegram therefore received
the following negative reply:
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 142
"Berlin, 26th December, 1916.
"In reply to Telegram No. 188.
"I would reply to the American Peace Note that a direct interchange
of ideas seems to us most likely to attain the desired result. We
should, therefore, propose immediate conference of delegates of
belligerent States in neutral place. We share President's view that
work of preventing future wars could only begin after conclusion
of present war.
"For your exclusive personal information: as place for possible
conference of delegates only neutral Europe can be considered. Apart
from the difficulty of getting to and from America, the Portsmouth
experiences teach that American indiscretion and interference make
appropriate negotiations impossible. Interference by President, even
in form of 'clearing house,' would be detrimental to our interests
and is, therefore, to be prevented. The basis for future conclusion
of peace we must decide in direct conference with our enemies if
we are not to run the risk of being robbed of our gains by neutral
pressure. We, therefore, reject the idea of a conference. On the
other hand, there is no objection, after conclusion of peace, to
sending delegates to an international congress to confer on problem
of safeguarding future world peace.
"ZIMMERMANN."
From this telegram it might be assumed that the Imperial Government
wished to limit Mr. Wilson's activity to bringing the belligerent
parties to the conference table. We might also very well have gone
on working with the President if the unrestricted submarine campaign
had not intervened. It was, however, understandable that the Imperial
Government, on grounds of domestic politics, should not want to
name our peace terms at once. Accordingly the answer to the Wilson
Note, which reached Berlin with extraordinary promptness on the
26th December, amounted to a friendly negative.
The German Note ran as follows:
"The Imperial Government have received and considered the President's
magnanimous suggestion, that the foundation should be laid on which
to build a lasting peace, in the friendly spirit which permeates
the President's communication. The President points to the goal
which is dear to his heart, and leaves the choice of the way open.
To the Imperial Government a direct interchange of ideas would
seem the most appropriate way of attaining the desired result.
They, therefore, have the honor to suggest, in the sense of their
statement of the 12th inst., in which they offered the hand to
peace negotiations, an immediate conference of delegates of the
belligerent States in a neutral place.
"The Imperial Government are also of the opinion that the great
work of preventing future wars cannot be begun until after the
conclusion of the present struggle of the nations. When this time
has come they will gladly be ready to co-operate with the United
States of America in this noble work."
The reasons of domestic politics which prevented the Imperial Government
from naming our peace conditions were not understood in America.
When Secretary of State Lansing discussed with me the German Note
of 26th December he said that he did not understand why we refused
to name our conditions. If both the belligerent parties communicated
their conditions a compromise would eventually be reached. To my
objection that our demands were so moderate that they would be
interpreted as weakness he replied that we ought to ask for more,
indeed, ask for anything at all so long as we said something that
would provide a starting-point from which negotiations could be
opened and settled.
This conversation had no immediate practical results, as Colonel
House asked me on the same day to call on him in New York With
regard to the result of our conversation I telegraphed to Berlin
as follows:
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 192
"Washington, 29th December, 1916.
"House told me it is Wilson's opinion that a conference will not
come about without previous confidential negotiations, for our
enemies, as things are at present, would refuse the invitation or
make their consent dependent on conditions. These words of Colonel
House were accompanied by an invitation to strictly confidential
negotiations, of which only he and Mr. Wilson should know. Under
these circumstances complete discretion was assured, as Wilson and
House, unlike most Americans, are both fairly clever at keeping
secrets.
"I beg for early instructions as to whether I should reject such
negotiations, or whether your Excellency wishes to authorize me
to accept and will furnish me with instructions accordingly. As I
have always reported, Wilson lays comparatively little importance
on the territorial side of the peace conditions. I am still of the
opinion that the chief emphasis should be laid on what are here
called the guarantees for the future. If we could give Wilson these
as fully as possible he thinks he could bring about a conference,
for with that the chief argument of our enemies would be disposed
of. The latter maintain that we would like to make peace now in
order to begin the war when a more favorable opportunity occurs,
while our enemies are obliged to hold together the coalition that
has been formed against us in order to attain a lasting peace.
Wilson's ideas about such guarantees are known to Your Excellency.
They consist, in the first place, of disarmament by land and sea
(freedom of the seas), provisions for arbitration and a peace league.
I think, from Your Excellency's speech in the Reichstag, that the
Imperial Government would give such guarantees on condition that
peace was restored.
"With House I adopted chiefly a listening attitude in order not
to compromise Your Excellency in any way. However, I agree with
Colonel House's view that a peace conference cannot be brought
about without the help of the United States. Our enemies will try
to put us in the wrong by saying that we did, indeed, propose a
conference but would not breathe a word about our conditions or
guarantees. I can, of course, only judge from the American standpoint.
We have, by our peace offer, brought about a great change in public
opinion over here. This advantage we shall lose entirely if the
idea spread by our enemies that we have only made a deliberately
theatrical peace gesture for the benefit of German public opinion
is confirmed. What steps Wilson will take should Your Excellency
empower me to enter upon such negotiations is not yet certain and
depends entirely on Your Excellency's instructions. House had an
idea of travelling to England in person. The more detailed the
information Your Excellency can give me as to our conditions and
readiness to give guarantees the better from my point of view.
However, I do not know whether Your Excellency may not perhaps
prefer to let the negotiations break down rather than accept American
help. In my opinion it is not necessary that the United States
should take part in all the negotiations. All that is necessary
would be for us to pledge ourselves to the guarantees, which would
be settled in detail at a general conference, after a conference
of the belligerents had concluded a preliminary peace.
"I submit to Your Excellency the above proposal because I am convinced
that our enemies will not consent to negotiations unless strong
pressure is brought to bear. This, however, will, in my opinion,
occur if Your Excellency thinks it possible to accept American
intervention. With the exception of the Belgian question the American
Government ought to bring us more advantage than disadvantage, as
the Americans have only just come to realize what England's mastery
of the seas means."
This telegram I consider the most important of the entire negotiations,
inasmuch as it reached Berlin on the 3rd January, therefore six days
before the decision in favor of unrestricted submarine war. When
I re-read my telegrams to-day, I still--even after the evidence
given before the Commission of the National Assembly--have the same
impression as at that time, that Mr. Wilson agreed with our wishes
and regarded it as his principal task to bring about a conference of
the belligerent parties. I cannot, therefore, understand how it was
possible to regard this American offer as anything but an offer of
peace mediation, and how the Foreign Office could declare to G. H.
Q. that there had never been any question of peace mediation by Mr.
Wilson. On the other hand, I quite understand that Bethmann-Hollweg,
as he stated before the Commission of the National Assembly, was
very sceptical with regard to the President's policy. Nevertheless,
an offer of mediation was made which had to be accepted or refused.
In the first case it was necessary to bring forward the submarine
war as little as possible; in the other we should have to create a
clear diplomatic situation in Washington, if we were to avoid the
reproach of having negotiated with Wilson on the subject of peace
while at the same time planning the submarine campaign, which was
bound to bring about a rupture with the United States.
When I spoke with Colonel House at that time I assumed that the
principal aim of the German Note of the 26th December was to lay
particular emphasis on our old point of view, already known to
Mr. Wilson, according to which the regulation of territory was to
be dealt with by the belligerent Powers, and the League of Nations
question in a world conference under the American presidency. At the
time Colonel House himself always spoke of two conferences which
the President hoped to bring together at the Hague. The one was
to consist only of the belligerent Powers and settle the territorial
questions, the other was to be a world conference to found the
League of Nations. Mr. Wilson did not wish to invite the conference
to Washington because of the great distance from Europe and the
peculiar position of the American Press.
As I have already mentioned, their opening of the "intensified
submarine campaign" had been planned weeks before. This question
had now become acute, and I received the two following Foreign
Office telegrams on this subject:
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 145
"Berlin, 4th January, 1917.
"Question of armed merchantmen in opinion of navy and G. H. Q. cannot
be further postponed.
"Request you discuss with Lansing following memorandum which is
closely connected with American memorandum of 25th March and leave
with him as _aide-memoire_. Our action against armed merchantmen,
which will follow the lines of the memorandum, does not, of course,
imply any withdrawal of our assurance in the Note of 4th May, 1916,
as to sinking of merchantmen.
"ZIMMERMANN."
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 148
"Berlin, 5th January, 1917.
"Pursuant to Telegram No. 145 of 4th January.
"Please telegraph to me immediately Your Excellency's personal
opinion as to impression and consequent action with regard to Telegram
No. 145. This must, not, however, be discussed with Lansing, as,
for your own strictly personal information, action against armed
ships will begin immediately.
"VON STUMM."
As the question of the "intensified submarine war," in consequence
of the further course of events, became of no importance, there
is no need for me to go into detail, and I will confine myself
to giving my two answers as follows:
(1) CODED WIRELESS TELEGRAM
"Washington, 9th January, 1917.
"Telegrams Nos. 145 and 148 received to-day.
"Request most urgently to postpone further steps till you have received
my answer."
(2) CIPHER TELEGRAM
"Washington, 10th January, 1917.
"In reply to Telegram 1488.
"Memorandum Lansing received. In my opinion steps in sense of this
memorandum will cause collapse of Wilson's peace mediation, and bring
about instead a rupture with America, unless action is postponed at
least until agreement is reached with American Government. It may
perhaps be possible to arrange that Americans should be warned against
serving on ships armed for attack. In any case, however, time must
be allowed the Government here to bring this about. As everything
is decided by Wilson, discussion with Lansing is mere formality.
He never gives an answer until he has received instructions from
Wilson. In present case latter must read memorandum first.
"How much importance Your Excellency attaches to Wilson's peace
mediation I cannot judge from here. Apart from that it is my duty to
state clearly that I consider rupture with the United States inevitable
if immediate action be taken on the lines of the memorandum."
At the time of sending the telegram I received, in the following
telegram, the reply of the Foreign Office to Mr. Wilson's last
proposals, which had been communicated to me through Colonel House:
CIPHER TELEGRAM NO. 149
"Berlin, 7th January, 1917.
"In reply to Telegram No. 192 of 29th December.
"For your personal information.
"American intervention for definite peace negotiations is entirely
undesirable to us owing to public opinion here. Also at the present
moment we must avoid anything that might deepen the impression
among our enemies that our peace offer is in any way the result
of our finding ourselves in a desperate position. That is not the
case. We are convinced that economically and from a military point
of view, we can bring the war to victorious conclusion. The question
of stating our conditions, therefore, Your Excellency will handle
dilatorily. On the other hand, I authorize you to state now our
readiness to cooperate in that part of the programme in which the
President is particularly interesting himself, and which seems
to be identical with the so-called 'Second Convention' outlined
by Colonel House here. In this we include arbitration machinery,
peace league, and examination of the question of disarmament and of
the freedom of the seas. We are, therefore, in principle, prepared
for those guarantees which could be settled in detail in a general
conference after a conference of the belligerents has brought about
a preliminary peace. To prove our _bona fides_ in this direction,
we are also ready in principle to open immediate negotiations with
the United States.
"Your Excellency will be so good as to inform the President of this,
and request him to work out the programme for the conference to
secure world peace, and to communicate it to us as soon as possible.
"Please also emphasize to Colonel House and President Wilson that
our actual peace conditions are very moderate, and, in contrast
to those of the Entente, are kept within thoroughly reasonable
limits; this is also particularly the case with regard to Belgium,
which we do not wish to annex. Moreover, we desire regulation of
commercial and traffic communications after the war without any
idea of a boycott, a demand which we think will be understood at
once by all sane people. On the other hand, the question of Alsace
and Lorraine we cannot consent to discuss.
"I should like to know how Your Excellency thinks that pressure
could be brought to bear by President Wilson to incline the Entente
to peace negotiations. In the light of our experience during the
two years of war, it seems to us that a prohibition of the export
of war material and foodstuffs, which would be the step most likely
to bring the Entente into line and would also be the best for us,
is unfortunately little likely to be realized. Only an effective
pressure in this direction could relieve us on our side of the urgent
necessity of resorting again to unrestricted submarine warfare. Should
Your Excellency have proposals to make as to how the unrestricted
submarine warfare can be conducted without causing a rupture with
America, I request you to report, immediately by telegram.
"ZIMMERMANN."
I understood from this telegram that I was to continue the negotiations
with Colonel House. The refusal contained in this telegram was only
concerned with a demand which had never been made by the United
States. Moreover, I have never personally had much faith in the
appeal to public opinion which would have nothing to do with Mr.
Wilson. If the Imperial Government had a few weeks before desired
such intervention, they must have believed that German public opinion
would agree to it. In my opinion, too, an agitation in favor of
American intervention would have set in in Germany quite on its
own account if the German people had known that such action by
President Wilson offered good prospects of leading to a peace by
understanding. Later, when I returned from America to Germany,
I was struck by the small number of my countrymen who privately
favored the submarine war. I therefore still think that German public
opinion could easily have been persuaded to accept Mr. Wilson's
mediation, if the terrorism of the supporters of submarine war
had been dealt with in time. Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg has spoken
before the Commission of the National Assembly of the hypnotic
effect exerted on German public opinion by the submarine war.
Though the Foreign Office telegram of the 7th January mentions
the ways in which President Wilson could bring pressure to bear
on the Entente, it had already struck me at that time that the
first step taken by the United States to force the conclusion of
peace had not made the impression in Germany that its importance
warranted.
The various "War Memories" that have now been published in Germany
do not touch on this point. As has already been mentioned, the
"Federal Reserve Board," which corresponds to our Reichsbank, had
issued a warning against the raising of loans for belligerent States.
In this way the American source of funds was practically cut off.
Already foreign securities were in general unwillingly handled.
If the loans had been completely forbidden, such results would
not have transpired, as the American avails himself of bank credit
to a far greater extent than is usual in other countries. It is
well known that the Government of the United States, after they had
entered the war, themselves raised "Liberty loans," and advanced
money to their Allies because this procedure accorded much more
closely with American inclinations than the raising of foreign
loans.
As is well known, after the German peace action had failed, the
definite decision to declare unrestricted submarine war was taken in
Pless on the 9th January. In this way, as the Chancellor said, the
Rubicon was crossed. War with the United States seemed inevitable,
unless it were found possible at the eleventh hour to annul the
decision of the German Government. Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg has
declared before the Commission of the National Assembly that he had
not sufficient faith in Mr. Wilson's peace intervention to advise
the Emperor to oppose the demand of G. H. Q. for the declaration
of unrestricted submarine war.
At the end of this chapter I give a report which I drew up on the
attitude of American public opinion towards intervention.
I should like once more to emphasize that in judging and estimating
American politics I have always given more weight to public opinion
than to the views or intentions of any individual statesman.
"Washington, 11th December, 1916.
"During the last phases of the presidential elections the American
Press used to be so much occupied with questions of domestic policy
that there was little space left for the discussion of foreign
events. In contrast with this, in this year's campaign the Press
politics on questions of foreign policy played a very important
part, but the discussion was naturally so much under the influence
of the aims and considerations of party politics that a report
on the attitude of the Press towards the European belligerents
at that time could not have given a true picture. This was quite
particularly the case with regard to Germany. On one hand the Republican
organs, out of regard for the votes of the German-Americans, found
it necessary considerably to moderate their speech, while on the
other the Democratic Press branded the Republican candidate as a
'Kaiserite,' owing to his German-American following, and at the
same time threw more mud than ever over Germany and everything
German; until in the last weeks of the election campaign the dawning
hope of bringing over great masses of _Bindestrichler_ into the
Democratic camp brought about a sudden moderation in the tone of
this organ.
"Only now, after the absurdities of the presidential election are
over, is it again possible to arrive at an approximately clear
judgment as to the attitude of the Press towards Germany and the
other belligerent nations.
"This judgment may be briefly stated as follows:
"The American Press in general takes sides less passionately with
either party than was formerly the case, and is heartily tired of
the war. This does not in any way imply that our enemies have not
still the support of a number of very influential partisans, who
are all the time fighting loyally for the 'Cause of the Allies,'
let slip no opportunity to malign Germany and, in the event of a
threatened crisis, form an element of danger for us which should
not be underestimated. It may even be admitted that the tone which
the organs of this tendency, particularly strongly represented
in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, adopt against Germany has
become, if possible, more bitter during the last few months. But it
is questionable whether the great mass of the influential papers,
particularly in the remoter districts of the Atlantic coast, have
become more impartial. They don't like us and don't trust us, but
have also gradually got to know but not to esteem England.
"The present attitude of America towards the cause of the Entente
Powers, with which that of the greater part of the independent Press
coincide, was defined as follows by the _New York Tribune_, one
of the most inveterate champions of our enemies at the present time:
'Despite a very widespread sympathy for France and a well-defined
affection for Great Britain in a limited circle of Americans, there
has been no acceptance of the Allied points of view as to the war,
and there is not now the smallest chance that this will be the
case.... The thing that the British have failed to get before the
American people is the belief that the war was one in which the
question of humanity and of civilization was uppermost for the
British. The Germans have succeeded in making Americans in very
great numbers believe that it is purely and simply a war of trade
and commerce between the British and the Germans, and the various
economic conference proposals have served to emphasize this idea.'
"The violation of Greece, the ruthless procedure against Ireland
since the Easter rebellion--on which a well-directed Press service
of American-Irish, in spite of the strict English censorship, keeps
public opinion constantly informed--the selfish sacrifice of Serbia,
Montenegro and Rumania, as well as the illegal economic measures
against Holland and Scandinavia, have seriously shaken England's
reputation here as the protectress of the small nations.
"Certain remarks of the English Press of altogether too free a
nature on the American Government, their disparaging cartoons of
the President and the patronizing air adopted by many English war
journals and often in the English daily Press towards America--as,
for example, in a recent number of the _Morning Post_, alleged
former German hankerings for colonies in South America, from the
realization of which the Union is said to have been protected by
England--are arousing increasing dissatisfaction here. The persistent
and systematic attempts of the British Press Bureau to sow dissension
between America and Germany on the question of the submarine war
are resented. The sharp British replies to American representations
on the question of the 'black list' and the 'post-blockade,' and,
England's latest pin-prick, the refusal of the request for a free
passage for the Austrian Ambassador, condemned even by such a
pro-British paper as the Philadelphian _Public Ledger_ as a 'British
affront,' have created a very bad impression. 'It is unmistakable,'
says the pro-Entente _Evening Sun_, 'that American opinion has been
irritated and sympathy estranged by many acts which have damaged
our interests and wounded our national self-respect.'
"Above all, however, the serious shortcomings of the enemy General
Staffs, which are criticised here with unprofessional exaggeration,
and their ineffectiveness--'a lamentable succession of false moves,'
as they are called by the respected _Springfield Republican_--have
produced a general disillusionment as to the efficiency of our
enemies, which has damped even the old enthusiasm over the heroic
bearing of the French army and its commander-in-chief, who is very
popular over here. 'We give thanks for Joffre,' was the heading of
a typical leading article in the _New York Sun_ on Thanksgiving
Day. The recent warning of the American banks by the Federal Board
against accepting through the post large quantities of unsecured
foreign treasury notes--a warning which could only refer to the issue
by the Morgan bank of English and French short-dated securities--has
also shattered the belief in the inexhaustible economic resources
of France and England. With a quite exceptional expenditure of
effort the newspapers under British or French influence, of which
the most important are the _New York Times_, _New York Herald_
and _Evening Telegram_; the Philadelphian _Public Ledger_, the
_Chicago Herald_, and the _Providence Journal_, in addition to
a number of other sworn partisans of the Entente Powers, among
which may be mentioned particularly the _New York Tribune_, New
York _Sun_ and _Evening Sun_; _New York Evening Post_, _Journal
of Commerce_, _New York Globe_; Brooklyn _Daily Eagle_, Boston
_Evening Transcript_ and Philadelphian _Inquirer_, have lately
been trying to raise our enemies in the esteem of public opinion
here. This is shown particularly in the headlines and the arrangement
of the war news in these papers. All news that is detrimental to
the German cause, even when it comes from an unreliable source,
is printed in heavy type in the most striking position. Every gain
of ground by the Allies, however, slight, is hailed as a great
victory, and even the communications of private agencies which
are in contradiction to the official reports of the enemy, and
obviously inventions, appear as accomplished facts in the headlines
of the papers. Their leading articles pour out hatred and malice
against Germany. Their letter boxes are filled with contributions
which are full of venom and gall against Germany and her allies, and
their feuilletons or Sunday supplements contain about the strongest
attacks that have ever been brought against us even in the American
Press. But it looks as though their tactics no longer have the same
success as of old. Their utterances, apart from such as deal with
the Belgian or _Lusitania_ themes, no longer make any impression.
"On the other side the consistently friendly attitude of the ten
papers of the Hearst syndicate, which come daily into the hands of
more than three million readers in all parts of the country, has
of late become even much more friendly as a result of the English
boycott of the International News Service and the exclusion of all
the Hearst publications from circulation in Canada. Mr. Hearst
has replied to the inconceivably shortsighted policy of the British
authorities towards his news service in a series of forcible, full-page
leading articles against the British censorship which must have
seriously shaken the confidence, apart from this already weakened
long ago, of the American Press in all news coming from England.
Not only did the articles in question contain a crushing criticism
of the English system of suppressing and distorting the truth,
but they also proved that for years America had been misled
systematically from London in its judgment of foreign nations--e.g.,
the 'degenerate' French. Apart from this the Hearst newspapers
repeatedly explained in detail how in the autumn of 1916 the position
of the Central Powers was excellent, while that of England and
her allies was completely hopeless. It should be emphasized that
the Hearst newspapers are, nevertheless, not to be regarded as
blindly pro-German, for they publish a good deal that can hardly be
desirable for us--e.g., occasional articles on the 'German Peril,'
for which new food was provided by the exploits of the _Deutschland_,
and more especially U53, and was exploited here to support the
idea of increasing the army and navy. The papers named are based
on a sound American policy, but with their sharp, anti-English
tendency do us much more good than papers with admitted pro-German
bias. The chief value of the pro-German attitude of the organs of
the Hearst syndicate lies in the fact that their influence is not
limited to any particular town or district, but extends over the
whole Union. An English critic, S. K. Ratcliffe, recently wrote
about American newspapers in the _Manchester Guardian_.... 'Northern
papers are of no account in the South; the most influential New
York journals do not exist for the people of the Pacific coast,
and carry little weight in the Middle States. Hence, summaries of
opinion--confined to a small number of papers published east of
the Mississippi--are imperfectly representative of the Republic.'
This accurately observed geographical limitation of the influence
of the leading American newspapers is substantially overcome by
the Hearst organization, for the leading articles which appear
in the _New York American_ to-day will appear to-morrow in the
allied papers of Boston, Chicago and Atlanta, and the day after
in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
"Another factor that has improved the attitude of the American
Press towards Germany is the recent important development of the
wireless news service. By this I do not mean so much the extension
of the trans-Atlantic service in the communications of which a
considerable part of the Press here seems unfortunately to take
little interest, but the radiographic transmission of the full
reports of American correspondents in Berlin and on the German
fronts to the American newspapers or news agencies. Among the
interesting reports that have been received direct and unmutilated
in this way those of Messrs. William B. Hale, Karl von Wiegand, Cyril
Brown and Karl W. Ackerman have exerted a particularly favorable
influence for us, especially at the critical moments of the
break-through in southern Galicia and the battles of the Somme,
when, without the special news service via Nauen, the American
Press would have been completely misled by the mass of reports
that were flowing in from London. Among American journalists who
worked in Germany, Herbert Swope should be particularly mentioned,
who, after his return, published in _The World_ and other Pulitzer
papers, a series of fourteen articles on the situation and feeling
in Germany which attracted the attention of both the Press and the
reading public. In a most undesirable way Mr. Swope in his first
articles which appeared immediately before the election--it was
simply an electioneering manoeuvre--emphasized the deep hatred
of the German people for the United States and the alleged general
wish of all German circles to see Mr. Wilson defeated at the election
as a punishment for his unneutral attitude. To compensate for this
he performed a very valuable service for us in his later articles
by giving a convincing account of the economic situation in Germany
at that time, which removed all doubt over here as to the ability
of our enemies to starve Germany out, and revived public respect
for Germany's efficiency and organizing-power.
"The great and respectful tribute which the American Press pays
to German 'efficiency' at every opportunity--and during the last
few months there have been many such opportunities--can, however,
do little or nothing to alter the deep 'sentiment' against Germany.
As soon as the above-mentioned themes of Belgium and the _Lusitania_
are mentioned, there are few papers that do not indulge, either
in aggressive or more moderate terms, in expressions of horror
at German 'frightfulness' and 'ruthlessness.'
"This deep-rooted feeling of the whole Press has been once more
revived in very regrettable fashion by the recent Belgian deportations.
The indignation of the Press at this 'slavery' which is being imposed
on Belgium is general, deep-rooted and genuine. Even newspapers
which express themselves in pretty harsh terms on the subject of
the English illegalities condemn these deportations in no measured
terms. The interview given by Governor-General von Bissing to the
journalist Cyril Brown on the subject of these deportations, published
on the front page of the _New York Times_, has unfortunately not
made the slightest impression here. General von Bissing's second
statement on the same subject in which, among other things, he
emphatically declared it his duty to see that as few Germans as
possible should be kept out of the firing line to guard Belgium, was
grist for the mill of the enemy Press. 'The cat is out of the bag,'
writes the _New York Times_, which does not miss the opportunity of
reminding its readers of General von Bissing's responsibility for
the shooting of Edith Cavell. 'Not a word about economic necessity,
Germany needs men at the front. Simple, almost crude in fact, and
completely German.' The Philadelphian _Public Ledger_ says: 'The
original offence, the invasion of Belgian territory, regardless of
treaty obligations, has almost been obliterated by the cruelty which
is now depopulating the land, stripping it of all its resources,
sending its people into exile and slavery, making a wilderness
and calling it order. There has not been such a tragedy since the
fierce barbarian tribes swept over Europe; none would have believed
two years ago that it could be enacted.' Such expressions as 'Huns,'
'Attila,' 'Hohenzollern slave trade,' and others of a similar nature
are the order of the day, and the excitement is further fanned by
reports from London and Le Havre, which no one here can verify,
and provocative interviews, among which special mention must be made
of that of Herr Carton de Wiart with the _World_ correspondent.
The news that Mr. Lansing had forwarded to Berlin a protest against
the Belgian deportations was received with great applause by the
whole of the Press. The resulting official statement that this
protest had been made not in the name of the United States but in
the name of the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by the American
Government, caused dissatisfaction and a demand that the United
States Government should also protest to Berlin on its own account.
Resolutions of protest were sent to the President and published in
the Press, and indignation meetings on a large scale are announced
to take place in Boston and New York which will offer the Press
further opportunities for anti-German demonstrations.
"With regard to the question of submarine warfare the American
Press are quite unanimous on one point, that a withdrawal of the
assurances given by Germany after the _Sussex_ incident, or even
an intentional breach of these, is bound to bring about, as it
were, automatically, a breaking-off of diplomatic relations with
Germany; and it is also clear that such a rupture would only be
the first step towards open war. The great majority of the leading
American newspapers express at every opportunity the genuine hope
that such a contingency will not arise. Only the chauvinistic,
anti-German element in the Press holds that the _casus ruptionis_
has actually arisen and devotes itself to publishing and commenting
on, in the most sensational manner, the alleged crimes of the German
submarines. The newspapers of this order are abundantly supplied
with pertinent material, particularly news of alleged sinkings
without warnings, of which they on their side--probably with the
co-operation of the British authorities here--know how to increase
the effect by means of exaggerated reports of out-of-date 'sacrifices
to German frightfulness,' which are eagerly swallowed here. In spite
of the masterly skill with which this working on public feeling
against the handling of our submarine war is managed, it may be
taken for granted that it does not get a hold. However deep and
however genuine may be the horror with which the American people
regard such incidents as the sinking of the _Lusitania_--a fact
that must be continually emphasized--equally great is obviously
their indifference towards the destruction of non-American neutral
shipping, _so long as the rules of cruiser warfare continue to
be observed_. People over here have gradually got accustomed to
reading daily reports of the sinking of another half dozen British
or other vessels. The daily papers print them quite as a matter of
course, and only in a prominent position when the bag reaches an
unusually high figure. In the editorial columns of many papers a
certain malicious joy is even observable, that England, who boasts
of having mastered the submarine, should now be so mercilessly
and persistently bled.
"One phase of the submarine war has, indeed, thrown nearly the
whole of the American Press into a state of excitement, namely, the
piratic exploits of U53 off the coast of New England. The destruction
wrought by this boat so close at hand, and the consequent paralysis
for several days of all merchant shipping, was too much even for
the moderate papers, and resulted in strong outbursts against our
'ruthlessness.' Apparently this circumstance has recently been
exploited by our enemies as a new way of influencing public opinion
against us. Mysterious British battleships off the Atlantic coast are
supposed to send out wireless warnings against the alleged approach
of German submarines, and these are published in the American Press
partly under panic headlines, and arouse indignation. This shady
procedure, in which the pro-English press naturally takes the lead,
recently aroused Mr. Lansing to make a forceful speech against
the unknown originators of these rumors. It may be particularly
emphasized, speaking quite generally, that the great influence
exerted by the State Department on the Washington correspondents
of the leading newspapers during the last few months, during which
there has been a constant threat of the submarine question coming
to a head, has always been on the side of peace, with the result
that in more than one case, and particularly in the cases of the
sinking of the _Marina_ and _Arabia_, any serious agitation on
the part of the Press has been avoided. With regard to the general
war situation, the conviction has for some time been gaining ground
with the great majority of the leading American newspapers, that a
decisive victory by either of the two belligerent groups of Powers
is no longer to be expected. With the exception of a continually
dwindling minority which even to-day still promise their readers
the 'ultimate victory' of the Entente Powers, the verdict of the
American Press on the probable result of the war is 'a draw,' 'a
stalemate.' Only a few newspapers, to which belong those of the
Hearst Syndicate, confess to the belief in 'a stalemate, or a victory
of the Teutonic Allies.' How those newspapers which are at the
service of our enemies, and which still hold to the legend of a
miscarried German war of aggression, really judge the situation is
only seen occasionally from incidental statements like the following
confession of the _New York Tribune_, which preaches against a
peace on the basis of the present position; this paper says that
the American people should see that if the Allies were to conclude
peace now the result would be a tremendous victory for Germany.
Such isolated, misleading views as this do not, however, succeed
in affecting in any way the general impression that by far the
greater part of the leading newspapers regard the war as indecisive,
especially after the fruitless conclusion of our operations before
Verdun, the collapse of the great offensives on the Somme and in
southern Galicia, as well as in view of the fact, confirmed on
many sides, that the British blockade has not attained its end,
the starvation of Germany.
"Our recent feats of arms in Rumania have hardly affected this
opinion. In view of the great hopes, placed by our enemies and
the newspapers in their service, on Rumania's entry into the war,
these successes are recognized on all sides readily or grudgingly
and without any spark of sympathy for the defeated country, and in
some cases are even hailed as brilliant military achievements of
the first rank. The preponderating opinion of the Press, however,
passes over the fact that the conquest of Rumania, although opening
up to Germany important new resources, is scarcely likely to influence
to any considerable degree the situation which has resulted from the
war of positions in East and West, and the still unbroken British
mastery of the seas.
"The view that the war has reached a stalemate which, since President
Wilson's speech at Charlotte in May of this year, had been maintained
by several papers, but which has recently become general, apart
from the definitely pro-Ally organs, is closely connected with
the discussion of the question of peace restoration which for the
American Press is in many cases synonymous with the question of
intervention by the United States or all the neutral nations.
"There was a time when a very important part of the American Press
seemed to stand on the level of the catch-phrase which was going
the round at that time: 'Wall Street now fears nothing except the
outbreak of peace.' These times, however, are long since past. The
desire for a speedy end of the hostilities in Europe is to-day
genuine, and shared by almost the whole Press. From the enemy camp
we get the following testimony in the _New York Tribune_, which would
like to convert its readers to less humane views: 'For millions of
Americans this war is a tragedy, a crime, the offspring of collective
madness,' and in its view the greatest service that America can
render to the world--an allusion to the catch-phrase coined by
Henry Ford for his ill-starred peace mission is--'to fetch the
lads out of the trenches.' The discussion of the premises for the
conclusion of peace, therefore, has for some time occupied an important
place in the daily papers, and also to some extent in the reviews.
Reports on the meetings of the many American peace societies are
given with the greatest fulness, and anything in the overseas news
connected with the question of a restoration of peace is printed in
a prominent position and duly discussed in the leading articles.
"It would lead me too far to give even an approximately complete
picture of this discussion with which the whole Press is occupied.
But one point demands closer examination: the attitude of the leading
papers to the German readiness for peace, publicly expressed by
Your Excellency on three different occasions in the last few weeks.
"Your Excellency's great speech before the Budget Committee of
the Reichstag unfortunately reached here at a time when the whole
interest of the Press and public was directed to the at first uncertain
result of the presidential election. Though generally printed, in
the evening papers for the most part only in extracts, it was
practically passed over in the editorial columns. An attempt to
start a belated Press discussion of the speech by circulating it
in the form of specially printed brochures, or at least to induce
those papers which had only given extracts to publish the whole
text, unfortunately failed; only the _Current History_, a special
war magazine of the _New York Times_, felt itself called upon to
reprint the speech _in extenso_ in its December number. On the
other hand, the passage of the speech which stated our readiness
after this war to take a part in international organizations for
insuring peace was widely circulated here, and attracted corresponding
attention. As I, according to instructions, communicated this passage
to the 'League to Enforce Peace' as the official German message
for their banquet held here on the 24th inst., it was circulated
throughout the country in the detailed Press reports on this
association, which is greatly respected here, and commented on by
many newspapers with all the more sympathy since Germany's sceptical
reserve hitherto towards the question of a peaceful settlement of
international differences has always worked strongly against us
here.
"The interview granted by Your Excellency to the American journalist
Hale has been printed particularly fully by the ten Hearst newspapers,
and further by all the other subscribers to the International News
Service. In the _New York American_ on Thanksgiving Day it occupied,
together with a portrait of Your Excellency, the whole front page.
At special request from many quarters the paper repeated the report
three days later.
"Germany's readiness to enter into peace negotiations, expressed
once more by Your Excellency at this interview, as well as Your
Excellency's statement in the Reichstag on the 29th inst., that
Germany is ready for any peace that will guarantee her existence
and future, have during the last few days been fairly thoroughly
discussed in the New York papers, which particularly dwell on the
words 'a peace guaranteeing our existence and future,' and agree
unanimously as to the urgent desirability of a further and more
exact formulation of the German peace conditions.
"The _New York Times_ says: 'All depends on what guarantees of
the existence and the future of Germany are expected.' The paper
goes on to ask how Germany could imagine her future assured from
a territorial point of view, but points out in conclusion that
these are only external details, and concludes, returning to its
favorite theme, as follows: 'Deeper than all, fundamental in any
discussion of peace, is the question of the German political ideals,
of German _Machtpolitik_ and _Weltpolitik_, of Prussian militarism.'
... 'The fear, the practical certainty, that Von Bethmann-Hollweg's
guarantees would be not merely guarantees of the existence and
future of Germany, but of new and not distant wars with her, stands
in the way of any serious discussion of his remarks.'
"The _Evening Sun_ remarks sarcastically that obviously no such
guarantees as _Deutschland ueber Alles_ should be given to any country.
Its verdict, too, is that: 'The peace that Germany craves still is
a peace that will enable her to begin the next war in five or ten
years, with a certainty of immediate victory and complete conquest
of the overlordship of Europe, if not America.' The _Brooklyn Daily
Eagle_ writes: 'If an inconclusive peace, a peace based upon the
theory that the war is a draw, a peace fertile in the liabilities
to future trouble, is not in the mind of the German Chancellor, what
is in his mind? He should speak out. He will never have a better
opportunity to be specific. The whole neutral world is listening,
ready to give careful and intelligent consideration to his words.'
"More important than these and other utterances of the papers which
follow in our enemies' wake is the trenchant leading article of
the _World_, which on foreign questions generally expresses the
point of view of the Administration. This paper says: 'If Germany
is ready to end the war, the first thing for the Imperial Government
to do is to make definite proposals for peace. Those proposals need
not be made officially to the Allies, to the United States, or any
other intermediary. They could be made to the world at large. The
Chancellor could describe to the Reichstag the conditions under which
Germany would regard her Existence and Future assured.' 'Germany
began the war. It is proper that Germany should take the first
steps towards ending the war, but something more than vague
generalizations is necessary. At present there is nothing to talk
about. There are no terms, not even extravagant and ridiculous
terms, that can be discussed as a possible basis of settlement.
Thus far there has been no evidence of good faith in the repeated
German professions of a desire for peace. In consequence nobody
takes them seriously until there is at least a tentative proposal
of terms. When that is made, the responsible Ministers of other
belligerent Governments will be forced to meet the issue. Public
opinion in Great Britain and France, no less than in Germany and
Austria-Hungary, will have a chance to make itself heard. When
peace comes it cannot be merely the peace of diplomats and of
Governments. It must be a peace in which popular sentiment has
the final word, and popular sentiment has no means of expression
until there is something tangible to discuss.'
"The general impression left by the utterances of the American
Press on the subject of peace is that on the one hand--apart from
a small number of influential papers--it is anxious for peace,
from which anxiety it is obvious that it intends to pass over the
extravagant war aims so often heard from the Entente statesmen;
but that on the other hand it cannot as yet find any practicable
way of bringing about an early conclusion of peace, and also that
it cannot see any advance in this direction in the last statements
of Your Excellency, which only a few papers have discussed to any
extent.
"The change in the direction of the Foreign Office has been discussed
at comparative length in the leading articles of the important
newspapers, which, as a rule, deal with European Ministerial changes
only in their news columns--less with regard to the personality of
the retiring Minister, who was not very well known here, than that
of the new Secretary of State. The only paper which devoted a few
friendly words to Herr von Jagow was the _New York Times_, which
described him, in connection with his conferences with Baron Beyens
and Sir Edward Goschen at the outbreak of war, as a 'Gentleman in
War and Peace,' and also recognized his sympathetic attitude during
the negotiations on the submarine war controversy. Herr Zimmermann's
appointment as Secretary of State, on the other hand, was greeted by
many papers, and indeed by the Press in general--only a few papers
were made somewhat uneasy by the news received lately by telegram,
of his attitude towards the question of armed merchantmen--with
great applause. The tone of these comments must have been set by
the flattering and sympathetic utterances of Ambassador Gerard
and the journalist Swope, on the subject of the new Secretary of
State, and a longer article by Gilbert Hirsch published by the
_New York Evening Post_ and other papers under the heading 'Our
Friend Zimmermann.' The note struck by this article and by the
German Press comments transmitted and printed everywhere over here,
that Herr Zimmermann is a particularly warm friend of the United
States was joyfully echoed by the whole American Press. Also the
fact was everywhere emphasized that in Herr Zimmermann the important
post of chief of the Foreign Office hitherto reserved for 'Prussian
Junkerdom,' had been given to a member not of the diplomatic, but
of the humbler consular service, and indeed, to a bourgeois. Here
and there speculation was indulged in as to whether this appointment
might not be interpreted as the first step towards a 'Liberal regime,'
in which a not unimportant section of the American Press still sees
the future salvation of Germany and of the world.
"The announcement of autonomy for Poland is, to say the least of
it, received with scepticism by the American Press which is
comparatively well informed on the Polish question. The words of
the virtuoso Paderewski, who is working here in the interests of the
Polish sufferers through the war: 'This means only more suffering
for my people; it means that another army will be raised, and that
there will be more killing and more devastating,' were reproduced
by many newspapers and regarded as an authoritative statement of
what might be expected from the German-Austrian proclamations.
Many papers declared it to be simply a move to raise more recruits.
Others sarcastically pointed out that the proclamation left the
most vital questions, such as the boundaries of the new State and
its form of government, to be settled later. Only a few of the
leading newspapers, among them the _New York Evening Post_ and
the Philadelphia _North American_, allowed the Allied Governments
a certain modicum of recognition, for, as they pointed out, in no
case could the heavy hand of Russia, which had so long oppressed
the country, be forgotten. The Polish Press here was at first very
reserved. Their point of view is represented by the following leading
article of the weekly paper _Free Poland_, founded since the war
and published by the Polish National Council of America: 'What the
Poles desire is an independent Poland. The Powers have acknowledged
Poland's right to live, but either with a limitation of independence
or diminution of territory. The Russians would fain lop off eastern
Galicia. And now the Germans grant Poland an autonomy, but without
Posen, West Prussia, or Silesia, in return demanding a Polish army
to take up their cause against Russia. Though this move on the
part of Germany will at least draw the world's attention to the
inalienable rights of Poland as a nation, and make of the Polish
question an international one, yet it must not be forgotten that
the Poles in Europe will vehemently protest against any curtailment
of their national aims and aspirations.
"The impression, on the whole unfavorable, made by the Polish measures
on the American Press was gradually in part balanced by the announcement
that the Polish Jews had been recognized as an independent religious
community. Since it was thought in many quarters that this might be
taken to be the first step towards cultural and political emancipation
of the Eastern Jews, it was discussed with great interest, in view
of the strong influence exerted by the American Jewish community on
an important section of the American Press, particularly that of
New York.
"Finally, there remains to be examined the attitude of the Press
towards one question, in itself of a purely domestic, economic
interest, but which promises to become of the most wide-reaching
importance for foreign politics, namely, that of an embargo on corn.
The price of most articles of food has risen to such an abnormal
height during the last few months that the _New York Sun_ can say
without too great exaggeration, that if the war had lasted two more
years the cost of living in Berlin and Vienna would have risen to
the level of that of New York. In particular the serious position
of the wheat market and the fairly certain prospect of an acute
rise in the price of wheat in the course of the winter or next
spring prompt the Press to constant discussion, the burden of which
is the question whether the Government of the United States should
or should not prohibit the exportation of corn. The opponents of
such a measure, among which are the _World_, _New York Times_,
_New York Evening Post_, _Journal of Commerce_, the Boston _Evening
Transcript_, the Philadelphia _Public Ledger_, the Saint Louis
_Globe-Democrat_, the _Pittsburg Post_, the Saint Paul _Pioneer
Press_, the Indianapolis _News_ and many others, maintain that
the supporters of the embargo, whose main object is to injure the
Allies, represent the situation as much more threatening than it is
in reality. The _World_ tries to console its readers by explaining
that the high price of food represents the American people's
contribution to the cost of the greatest war of destruction in the
history of the world; while the _New York Times_ points out the
danger of estranging the Allies through an embargo. The newspapers
which are friendly to Germany, particularly the Hearst newspapers,
and the Milwaukee _Free Press_, energetically urge an embargo on
all articles of food, by which, as they more or less openly allow
it to appear, England would be forced to make peace. But in addition
a number of the most bitter opponents of Germany, for example the
Philadelphia _Inquirer_, favor an early embargo for purely material
reasons. It is to be expected that this question will be one of
the first to come up at the opening of the approaching session of
Congress, when the Press polemics of the opponents of the embargo,
with the _arriere pensee_ of protecting England's interests and
those of her Allies, should reach their climax."