The Story of the Great War, Volume 5: Battle of Jutland Bank; Russian Offensive; Kut-El-Amara; East Africa; Verdun; The Great Somme Drive; United States and Belligerents; Summary of Two Years' War
History
The Story of the Great War, Volume 5: Battle of Jutland Bank; Russian Offensive; Kut-El-Amara; East Africa; Verdun; The Great Somme Drive; United States and Belligerents; Summary of Two Years' War
World War, 1914-1918
tonnage, that the pinch of hunger which they had experienced was also
being felt in England, and that the German submarine was the only
shield between Germany and starvation. So the German people were
behind the military and naval element for an unrestricted U-boat
warfare. The situation was such that the gravest doubt was felt
whether the chancellor, even with the kaiser's support, could adjust
the submarine issue in a way satisfactory alike to the United States
and to the clamorous radical militarists upheld by a misled people.
The German Government brooded over the ultimatum of the United
States for fifteen days before it decided upon a declaration that
averted a rupture of diplomatic relations. The German note,
dispatched May 5, 1916, grudgingly admitted "the possibility that
the ship mentioned in the note of April 10, 1916, as having been
torpedoed by a German submarine is actually identical with the
_Sussex_." It characteristically withheld an unreserved admission,
but "should it turn out that the commander was wrong in assuming the
vessel to be a man-of-war, the German Government will not fail to
draw the consequences resulting therefrom." This hesitating and
qualified acknowledgment was accepted as about as near to a
confession of guilt as Germany was then capable of making.
On the vital question of the conduct of submarine warfare, a change in
which the United States was determined upon forcing Germany to make,
the note was more explicit and thus yielded to the American demand:
"The German Government will only state that it has imposed
far-reaching restraint upon the use of the submarine weapon, solely in
consideration of neutrals' interests, in spite of the fact that these
restrictions are necessarily of advantage to Germany's enemies. No
such consideration has ever been shown neutrals by Great Britain and
her allies.
"The German submarine forces have had, in fact, orders to conduct the
submarine warfare in accordance with the general principles of visit
and search and the destruction of merchant vessels recognized by
international law, the sole exception being the conduct of warfare
against enemy trade carried on enemy freight ships encountered in the
war zone surrounding Great Britain.
"With regard to these no assurances have ever been given to the
Government of the United States. No such assurances are contained in
the declaration of February 8, 1916.
"The German Government cannot admit any doubt that these orders were
given or are executed in good faith."
Having said so much, the German note proceeded to cloud the issue by
virtually blaming the United States for the continued existence of
conditions calling for the sea warfare Germany practiced:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account