The German answer to the United States with regard to submarine
warfare was reported from Berlin on July 10 as having caused the most
intense satisfaction among the Germans and brought relief to them, for
the mere thought that the submarine war would be abandoned would cause
widespread resentment.
The Berlin newspapers printed long editorials approving the
Government's stand and "conciliatory" tone. Captain Perseus, in the
Tageblatt, said that the "new note makes clearer that the present
course will be continued with the greatest possible consideration for
American interests." The note "stands under the motto, 'On the way to
an understanding,' without, however, failing to emphasize the firm
determination that our interests must hold first place," in other
words, that Germany "cannot surrender the advantages that the use of
the submarine weapon gives to the German people."
The Lokal Anzeiger of Berlin commented:
"Feeling has undoubtedly cooled down somewhat on the other side of the
water, and Americans will undoubtedly admit that it is not Germany
that tries to monopolize the freedom of the seas for itself alone.
"In any event, we have now done our utmost and can quietly await what
answer President Wilson and his advisers will think suitable."
George Bernhard in the Vossische Zeitung remarked that the publication
of the note means "liberation from many of the doubts that have
excited a large part of the German people in recent weeks. The note
... means unconditional refusal to let any outsider prescribe to us
how far and with what weapons we may defend ourselves against
England's hunger war."
What they considered the moderation of the note impressed most Berlin
newspapers. Thus the Morgen Post said: "Those who had advised that we
ought to humble ourselves before America will be just as disappointed
as those who thought we ought to bring the fist down on the table and
answer America's representations with a war threat."
Count von Reventlow, radical editor of the Tageszeitung, said: "The
substance of the proposals is to create a situation making it
unnecessary for Americans to travel to Europe on ships under an enemy
flag," and the Taegliche Rundschau said that the "answer with
gratifying decisiveness, guards the conscience of the nation in the
question of continuing the submarine war," but it criticises the note
for possibly going too far in making concessions, which "may prove
impracticable and result in weakening the submarine war."
The unfavorable reception of Germany's note in the United States, as
reported through English and French agencies, was read in Berlin with
incredulity.
The Kreuz-Zeitung, the Tageszeitung, and the Boersen Zeitung expressed
the belief that British and French news agencies had purposely
selected unfavorable editorial expressions from the American
newspapers for the sake of the effect they would have in Great Britain
and France.
"Regarding the reception of the German note in America," the
Kreuz-Zeitung said, "several additional reports from British sources
are now at hand. Reuter's Telegram Company presents about a dozen
short sentences from as many American papers. Were these really
approximately a faithful picture of the thought of the American press
as a unit, we should have to discard every hope of a possibility of an
understanding. The conception of a great majority of the German people
is that we showed in our note an earnest desire to meet, as far as
possibly justified, American interests."
Like the Berlin press, German-American newspapers were unanimous in
praise of the German note; to the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung it
appeared a "sincere effort to meet the questions involved" and as
"eminently satisfactory." The New Yorker Herold thought that any one
with "even a spark of impartiality" would have to admit the "quiet,
conciliatory tone of the German note" as "born of the consciousness in
the heart of every German that Germany did not want the war"; that
after it was forced on her she "waged it with honorable means." The
Illinois Staats-Zeitung of Chicago declared it to be the "just demand
of Germany" that Americans should not "by their presence on hostile
boats try to protect war materials to be delivered by a friendly
nation at a hostile shore." From the Cincinnati Freie Presse came the
comment that Washington "has no business to procure safety on the
ocean for British ships carrying ammunition."
The American newspapers were nearly unanimous in adverse criticism of
the note. THE NEW YORK TIMES said that Germany's request was "to
suspend the law of nations, the laws of war and of humanity for her
benefit." The Chicago Herald declared that the German answer "is
disappointing to all who had hoped that it would clearly open the way
to a continuance of friendly relations." While the San Francisco
Chronicle discerned in the note "an entire absence of the belligerent
spirit," it found that "Germany is asking us to abridge certain of our
rights on the high seas." To the Denver Post the reply was the
"extreme of arrogance, selfishness, and obstinacy," while The Atlanta
(Ga.) Constitution remarks that German words and German deeds are
separate matters: "The all-important fact remains that since President
Wilson's first note was transmitted to that country, Germany has given
us no single reasonable cause of complaint." The Louisville (Ky.)
Courier-Journal believes the German reply would carry more weight and
persuasion "if it could be considered wholly and apart as an _ex
parte_ statement." "Without equivocation and with a politeness of
offensively insinuating," the Boston Transcript concludes, "Germany
rejects each and all of our demands and attempts to bargain with
respect to the future."