CHAPTER IX

THE GERMAN DEFENSE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LUSITANIA

BLAMES BRITAIN FOR MISUSE OF FLAG -- INVESTIGATING CASES OF CUSHING AND GULFLIGHT -- DECLARES SHIP CARRIED MOUNTED CANNON -- SAYS IT ACTED IN JUSTIFIED SELF-DEFENSE -- FINAL DECISION ON DEMANDS DEFERRED -- AMERICAN OPINION OF GERMAN EXCUSES -- EVASIVE AND INSINCERE -- ATTACKS ON AMERICAN VESSELS MUST CEASE -- SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT.

The German defense for the destruction of the Lusitania and for other marine atrocities committed against non-combatant vessels in the famous, or infamous, war zone was contained in a note to the American government, transmitted May 31, in reply to President Wilson’s note of protest. The full text of the German note is as follows:

“The undersigned has the honor to submit to Ambassador Gerard the following answer to the communication of May 13 regarding the injury to American interests through German submarine warfare.

“The Imperial government has subjected the communication of the American government to a thorough investigation. It entertains also a keen wish to co-operate in a frank and friendly way in clearing up a possible misunderstanding which may have arisen in the relations between the two governments through the events mentioned by the American government.

“Regarding, firstly, the cases of the American steamers Cushing and Gulflight. The American embassy has already been informed that the German government has no intention of submitting neutral ships in the war zone, which are guilty of no hostile acts, to attacks by a submarine or submarines or aviators. On the contrary, the German forces have repeatedly been instructed most specifically to avoid attacks on such ships.

BLAMES BRITAIN FOR MISUSE OF FLAGS

“If neutral ships in recent months have suffered through the German submarine warfare, owing to mistakes in identification, it is a question only of quite isolated and exceptional cases, which can be attributed to the British government’s abuse of flags, together with the suspicious or culpable behavior of the masters of the ships.

“The German government, in all cases in which it has been shown by its investigations that a neutral ship, not itself at fault, was damaged by German submarines or aviators, has expressed regret over the unfortunate accident and, if justified by conditions, has offered indemnification.

INVESTIGATING CASES OF CUSHING AND GULFLIGHT

“The cases of the Cushing and the Gulflight will be treated on the same principles. An investigation of both cases is in progress, the result of which will presently be communicated to the embassy. The investigation can, if necessary, be supplemented by an international call on the international commission of inquiry as provided by Article III of The Hague agreement of October 18, 1907.

“When sinking the British steamer Falaba, the commander of the German submarine had the intention of allowing the passengers and crew a full opportunity for a safe escape. Only when the master did not obey the order to heave-to, but fled and summoned help by rocket signals, did the German commander order the crew and passengers by signals and megaphone to leave the ship within ten minutes. He actually allowed them twenty-three minutes time and fired the torpedo only when suspicious craft were hastening to the assistance of the Falaba.

“Regarding the loss of life by the sinking of the British passenger steamer Lusitania, the German government has already expressed to the neutral governments concerned its keen regret that citizens of their states lost their lives.

“On this occasion, the Imperial government, however, cannot escape the impression that certain important facts having a direct bearing on the sinking of the Lusitania may have escaped the attention of the American government.

“In the interest of a clear and complete understanding, which is the aim of both governments, the Imperial government considers it first necessary to convince itself that the information accessible to both governments about the facts of the case is complete and in accord.

“The government of the United States proceeds on the assumption that the Lusitania could be regarded as an ordinary unarmed merchantman. The Imperial government allows itself in this connection to point out that the Lusitania was one of the largest and fastest British merchant ships, built with government funds as an auxiliary cruiser and carried expressly as such in the ‘navy list’ issued by the British admiralty.

DECLARES SHIP CARRIED MOUNTED CANNON

“It is further known to the Imperial government from trustworthy reports from its agents and neutral passengers, that for a considerable time practically all the more valuable British merchantmen have been equipped with cannon and ammunition and other weapons and manned with persons who have been specially trained in serving guns. The Lusitania, too, according to information received here, had cannon aboard, which were mounted and concealed below decks.

“The Imperial government, further, has the honor to direct the particular attention of the American government to the fact that the British admiralty in a confidential instruction issued in February, 1915, recommended its mercantile shipping not only to seek protection under neutral flags and disguising marks, but also, while thus disguised, to attack German submarines by ramming. As a special incitation to merchantmen to destroy submarines, the British government also offered high prizes and has already paid such rewards.

“The Imperial government in view of these facts indubitably known to it, is unable to regard British merchantmen in the zone of naval operations specified by the admiralty staff of the German navy as ‘undefended.’ German commanders consequently are no longer able to observe the customary regulations of the prize law, which they always followed.

“Finally the Imperial government must point out particularly that the Lusitania on its last trip, as on earlier occasions, carried Canadian troops and war material, including no less than 5,400 cases of ammunition intended for the destruction of the brave German soldiers who are fulfilling their duty with self-sacrifice and devotion in the Fatherland’s service.

SAYS IT ACTED IN JUSTIFIED SELF-DEFENSE

“The German government believes that it was acting in justified self-defense in seeking with all the means of warfare at its disposition to protect the lives of its soldiers by destroying ammunition intended for the enemy.

“The British shipping company must have been aware of the danger to which the passengers aboard the Lusitania were exposed under these conditions. The company, in embarking them notwithstanding this, attempted deliberately to use the lives of American citizens as protection for the ammunition aboard, and acted against the clear provisions of the American law, which expressly prohibits the forwarding of passengers on ships carrying ammunition, and provides a penalty therefor. The company therefore is wantonly guilty of the death of so many passengers.

“There can be no doubt according to definite report of the submarine’s commander, which is further confirmed by all other information, that the quick sinking of the Lusitania is primarily attributed to the explosion of the ammunition shipment caused by a torpedo. The Lusitania’s passengers would otherwise, in all human probability, have been saved.

“The Imperial government considers the above-mentioned facts important enough to recommend them to the attentive examination of the American government.

FINAL DECISION ON DEMANDS DEFERRED

“The Imperial government, while withholding its final decision on the demands advanced in connection with the sinking of the Lusitania until receipt of an answer from the American government, feels impelled in conclusion to recall here and now that it took cognizance with satisfaction of the mediatory proposals submitted by the United States government to Berlin and London as a basis for a modus vivendi for conducting the maritime warfare between Germany and Great Britain.

“The Imperial government by its readiness to enter upon a discussion of these proposals, then demonstrated its good intentions in ample fashion. The realization of these proposals was defeated, as is well known, by the declinatory attitude of the British government.

“The undersigned takes occasion, etc.

“JAGOW.”

AMERICAN OPINION OF GERMAN EXCUSES

The effect of the German note on American opinion was to create a sense of angry disappointment. The newspapers were a unit in calling it evasive. It “does not meet the issue,” declared the New York World, while the New York Times viewed it as being “not responsive to our demand. It tends rather to becloud understanding.” The Albany Knickerbocker Press denounced it as “an answer which purposely does not answer. Germany evidently is playing for time.” This thought was reiterated by the Pittsburgh Gazette-Times, which pointed out that “it is palpable that Germany proposes to consume time by raising points which call for further correspondence, in the meanwhile continuing in the course to which the United States has objected.”

United States’ Note of Protest and Germany’s Reply Compared

_President Wilson Demanded_:

Practical cessation of submarine attacks on non-combatant vessels.

Observance of the rule of visit and search in the case of all suspected merchantmen before any such ship shall be subjected to capture or destruction.

Protection of non-combatants who may be on suspected merchantmen.

Disavowal of official German responsibility for injury to Americans in the Cushing, Gulflight and Lusitania cases.

Reparation, so far as reparation is possible, for irreparable damage.

Immediate steps by Germany to prevent the recurrence of incidents “so obviously subversive of the principles of warfare.”

The first three items, as noted above, were stated not as actual demands, but as assumptions of what Germany would agree to in view of previous communications from this country in the matter of what is allowable in maritime warfare according to previously acknowledged international law and the dictates of humanity.

_Germany Conceded_:

No intention of attacking neutral ships not guilty of hostile acts in “war zone.”

Regrets and indemnity where neutral ship, not itself at fault, is damaged.

Attacks on the American ships Gulflight and Cushing unintentional, the circumstances being rigidly investigated.

Keen regret at loss of lives of neutral citizens on Lusitania.

_Germany Evaded_:

Issue as to humanitarian aspect and facts in Lusitania case.

Giving of any direct promise to abandon submarine warfare.

Any attempt to justify such warfare, except as “self-defense.”

_Germany Countered_:

By raising question as to Lusitania being an “auxiliary armed cruiser,” and not of the “undefended merchantmen” class.

By accusing Cunard company of using American citizens to protect the “ammunition” carried by Lusitania, and of being guilty of their death.

The Chicago Herald more specifically pointed out the evasiveness of the German reply, claiming that it “fails wholly to meet the main points at issue, both the specific point of the slaughter of American citizens on the Lusitania and the general point of the impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding rules of fairness, reason, justice and humanity--established principles of international law.”

EVASIVE AND INSINCERE

The Philadelphia Public Ledger also criticized it for ignoring altogether “the protest in the name of humanity against submarine warfare upon non-combatants,” and the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune laid bare the “absolute ignoring of the vital principles set forth in the Wilson letter,” adding that “there is a half contemptuous, albeit entirely courteous, suggestion of ‘Well, they are still dead; now, what do you propose to do about it?’”

The German claim that the Lusitania was in effect a warship, with mounted guns, and carried ammunition and Canadian soldiers, was emphatically denied in a public statement by Dudley Field Malone, collector of the port of New York, and the New York World vehemently answered the German claim by declaring that “the Lusitania was a warship in the same way that Belgium was an aggressor against Germany; in the same way that the University of Louvain and Rheims Cathedral were ‘fortifications’; in the same way that various seaside resorts in England, raided by Germans, were ‘defended.’”

ATTACKS ON AMERICAN VESSELS MUST CEASE

Many newspapers joined in calling for more drastic action on the part of the United States government. “We have but one thing in mind,” announced the New York Tribune, “that these crimes shall cease. Any answer, therefore, which fails to guarantee their stoppage as a condition precedent to diplomatic rectification cannot be expected to satisfy the just expectation of the United States.” The Washington Herald followed this by saying: “The patience of the American people in the face of contemptuous disregard of their rights and a series of outrages against their countrymen has been sublime, but surely it has a limit. Surely a way will be found, without much longer delay, to compel Germany to cease her attacks on American vessels engaged in neutral commerce and to guarantee the safety of American lives and property.”

SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT

On the other hand there was a strong element that counseled coolness and restraint. “This is not a time,” declared the Albany Knickerbocker Press, “to suggest to President Wilson what ought to be done. It is not a time to become impatient. It is a time for restraint. Nothing can be gained now by playing upon the strings of excitable public opinion in America. The President must find his way out and every true American must support him loyally.” Echoing this sentiment, the Springfield Republican added, “but the German government may fairly be required to give definite assurances that during the period of the negotiations no more torpedo attacks on passenger ships which may be carrying American citizens will be permitted.”