Volume 2 — German Press Opinion

Contrasting with the attitude of the German-American press since the issuance of President Wilson's note of May 13 to the German Imperial Government, the comment of the press in Germany has been in accordance with the German official statements put forth prior to the receipt of the American note. Under date of May 9, 1915, the following dispatch by The Associated Press was received from Berlin:

Commenting on the destruction Lusitania, the Berliner Tageblatt says:

With deep emotion we learn of the destruction of the Lusitania, in which countless men lost their lives. We lament with sincere hearts their hard fate, but we know we are completely devoid of blame.

We may be sure that through the English telegrams communicated to the world indignation will again be raised against Germany, but we must hope that calm reflection will later pronounce the verdict of condemnation against the British Admiralty.

The many who are now sorrowing may raise complaint against Winston Spencer Churchill, First Lord of the British Admiralty, who, by conscienceless instructions which must bring him the curse of mankind, conjured up this cruel warfare....

The Lusitania was a warship on the list of English auxiliary cruisers and carried armament of twelve strongly mounted guns. She was more strongly mounted with guns than any German armored cruiser. As an auxiliary cruiser she must have been prepared for attack.

Count von Reventlow, the naval expert, says, in the Tages Zeitung:

The American Government probably will make the case the basis for diplomatic action, but it could have prevented the loss of American lives by appropriate instructions. It is the American Government's fault, therefore, if it did not take Germany's war zone declarations seriously enough.

The writer declares, further, that Germany had full and trustworthy information that the Lusitania carried a cargo of war material, as she had on previous trips.

The Lokal Anzeiger also assumes that the steamship was carrying munitions of war, and maintains that this and "the fact that she was a fully armed cruiser completely justifies her destruction under the laws of warfare."

The Kreuz Zeitung, after referring to the warning issued by Ambassador von Bernstorff, adds:

If citizens of neutral States were lost with the sunken ship they must bear the full blame.

Some papers further testify the sinking of the steamer because on a previous occasion she had resorted to the expedient of flying the American flag. Germania, the clerical organ, deprecates probable attempts by Germany's antagonists to make moral capital against her out of the sinking of the Lusitania and the loss of life. The paper says:

We can look forward to such efforts with a clear conscience, for we have proceeded correctly. We can only answer to those who place their sympathies above justice, that war is war.

An editorial article in the Frankfurter Zeitung was quoted in an Amsterdam dispatch to The London Times of May 10, as follows:

The Lusitania has been sent to the bottom. That is the announcement which must arouse measureless horror among many thousands.

A giant ship of the British merchant fleet, a vessel of over 31,000 tons, one of the most famous of the fast steamers of the British-American passenger service, a ship full of people, who had little or nothing to do with the war, has been attacked and sunk by a German torpedo. This is the announcement which in a few words indicates a mighty catastrophe to a ship with 2,000 people aboard.

We always feel that it is tragic and all too hard when war inflicts wounds on those who do not carry its weapons.

We lament similarly the fate of the unfortunate villages and towns where war rages and the innocent victims of bombs who, far behind the trenches, and often without our being able to estimate the meaning of this murder, are snatched from the ranks of the unarmed.

Much more terrible is the fate of those who on the high sea, many hundreds in number, suddenly see death before their eyes.

A German war vessel has sunk the ship. It has done its duty.

For the German Navy the sinking of the Lusitania means an extraordinary success. Its destruction demolished the last fable with which the people of England consoled themselves; on which hostile shipping relied when it dared to defy the German warnings.

We do not need to seek grounds to justify the destruction of a British ship. She belonged to the enemy and brought us harm. She has fallen to our shots.

The enemy and the whole world were warned that he who ventured to trust himself within her staked his life.

The London Daily Mail of May 16 quotes from Der Tag the following article by Herr von Rath, who is described as a favorite spokesman in the Wilhelmstrasse:

President Wilson is very much troubled by the drowning of so many American citizens, and we Germans sincerely share his feelings, but we see in the Lusitania affair one of the many cruel necessities which the struggle for existence brings with it.

If, as English reports try to make us believe, Mr. Wilson is now meditating revenge, we will not disturb him in this occupation, but would only hope that his demands will be addressed to the right and not the wrong quarters.

The right address is England. On the German side, everything was done to warn American travelers from the impending peril, while British irresponsibility and arrogance nullified the effect of the German admonition.

Mr. Wilson is certainly in a precarious position. After showing himself so weak in the face of the long and ruthless British provocations, he has to play the strong man with Germany. Otherwise he will lose what prestige he has left, and he knows that in the background the pretender to the throne, Mr. Roosevelt, is lurking.

But what are the gallant shouters in the United States thinking about? Should the United States send troops to take part in the fighting in Flanders? The gigantic losses of their Canadian neighbors should not exactly encourage them, from a military standpoint. Moreover the United States are so weak that they have never even been able to impose their will on Mexico or to do anything to the still more unpleasant Japanese than to clench their fists in their pockets.

Should their superdreadnoughts cross the Atlantic Ocean? England has not even useful work for her own ironclads in this war. What would American warships do?

How about our Germanic brethren in the United States—the half million German and Austro-Hungarian reservists who are not permitted to take part in the defense of their home lands? Will they stand with folded arms and see their fatherlands attacked?

What the United States has already done to support our enemies is, apart from interference with private property, the worst which she could do to us. We have nothing more to expect or to fear. Therefore, the threats of our erstwhile friend Roosevelt leave us quite cold.

Let the United States also preserve up from warmed-up humanitarian platitudes, for her craven submission to England's will is promoting an outrageous scheme to deliver Germany's women and children to death by starvation.

A wireless dispatch from Berlin to Sayville, L.I., on May 16 reported this outgiving by the Overseas News Agency:

The whole German press, particularly the Cologne Gazette, the Frankfort Gazette and the Berliner Tageblatt, deeply regret the loss of American lives caused by the sinking of the Lusitania.

The Tages Zeitung and other newspapers state that the responsibility rests with the British Government, which, attempting to starve the peaceful civilian population of a big country, forced Germany in self-defense to declare British waters a war zone; with shipowners, who allowed passengers to embark on an armed steamer carrying war material, and neglected German warnings against entering the war zone, and, finally, with the English press.

Heartfelt sympathy is expressed by the German press and public for the victims of the catastrophe and their relatives.

From The Hague, via London, on May 19 a special cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that, acting apparently under official instructions, several leading German newspapers had on that day joined in a fierce attack on the United States, making a concerted demand that Germany refuse to yield to the American protest.

Practically all these newspapers repeat the same arguments, declaring that neutrals entering the war zone do so at their own risk, and that the Americans aboard the Lusitania "were shielding contraband goods with their persons." The Berliner Tageblatt said:

The demand of the Washington Government must be rejected. Indeed, the whole note hardly merits serious consideration. Its "firm tone" is only a cloak to hide America's consciousness of her own culpability. If American citizens, in spite of the warnings of the German Admiralty, intrusted themselves on the Lusitania, the blame for the consequences falls on themselves and their Government.

Can the United States affirm that there were no munitions aboard? If not, it has not the shadow of a right to protest.

GERMAN-AMERICAN PRESS COMMENTS.

Under the heading "The President's Note," Herman Ridder, editor of the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, one of the leading German-American newspapers, said in that publication on May 15:

The attitude assumed by the President, in the note delivered yesterday to the German Government, toward the infringement of our rights on the seas is diplomatically correct and must compel the support of the entire American people.

We have suffered grievously at the hands of more than one of the belligerent nations, but for the moment we are dealing only with Germany. The note recites a series of events which the Government of the United States could not silently pass by, and demands reparation for American lives lost and American property already destroyed and a guarantee that the rights of the United States and its citizens shall be observed in the future. All this the German Government may well grant, frankly and unreservedly and without loss of honor or prestige. It would be incomprehensible if it did not do so.

The note admits, as most diplomatic documents do, of two interpretations. They will be applied to it variously, as the reader is inclined to pessimism or to optimism. It is a document in which lies the choice of war or peace evenly balanced. I prefer to read into it all the optimism which can be derived from the knowledge that two nations, historically like-minded and bound to one another by strong ties of friendship, seldom go to war over matters which can be settled without resort to the arbitrament of arms. There is no question outstanding today between the United States and Germany which cannot be settled through diplomatic channels. I am inclined all the more to this optimism by the temperament and character of the President of the United for the time being.

I see in the note great possibilities for good. The undersea activities of the German Navy in their effect upon the rights of the United States and its citizens form, properly, the burden of its argument. We are addressing Germany, and it is only over her submarine policy that our interests have clashed with hers. The note takes cognizance, however, of the inter-relation of Germany's submarine policy and the British policy of "starving out Germany." The President has opened an avenue to the full discussion of the rights and obligations of submarines in naval warfare, and when Germany has stated her case it is not only not impossible but it is highly probable that he will be asked to suggest a modus vivendi by which the objectionable features of both these policies may be removed.

The situation is basically triangular and it is difficult to see how the settlement of our difficulties with Germany can escape involving at the same time the rectification of Great Britain's methods of dealing with the trade between neutral countries and her adversaries. It is but a step from the position of mediator in a question of this sort to that of mediator in the larger questions which make for war or peace. I believe that the note contains the hopeful sign that these things may come to pass.

The possibilities are there and the President, I am confident, will overlook no possibility of advancing the cause of an early return of peace to Europe nor leave any unturned stone to free this country of the dangers and inconveniences which have become the concomitants of the European struggle. Out of the troubled waters of our present relations with Germany may thus come a great and, we may hope, a lasting good. Should this happily be the case, the wisdom of the President will have been confirmed and the thankfulness of the nation secured to him. On the other hand, should his pacific hand be forced by those who wax fat and wealthy on strife and the end should be disaster untold to the country, he will still have the consolation of having fought a good battle and of knowing that he was worsted only by the irresistible force of demagogy in this country or abroad.

The subject with which the note deals is one of the same paramount importance to Germany as it is to this country, and we must wait in patience for Germany's reply; and I, for one, shall wait in the confidence that when it is received it will be found to offer a basis for a friendly solution of the questions which exist between Germany and the United States and, not unlikely, for those further steps which I have intimated.

Under the caption "A Word of Earnest Advice," the evening edition of the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung on May 14 issued the following warning to Germans and German-Americans:

The times are grave—even very grave.... A conflict between America and the old Fatherland is threatening. Such a conflict must rend the heart of every German-American who has acquired the rights of citizenship here, who has founded a new career for himself and brought up his children.

It is probably unnecessary to give any advice to the American citizens among our readers in regard to their conduct in this grave time. A series of years must pass before an immigrant can obtain his citizenship papers; nobody is forced to become a citizen. Of the man who has voluntarily become a citizen of the United States we may therefore expect that he knows the conditions here obtaining the institutions of the country of his adoption, as well as his rights and duties. But there are thousands upon thousands of our readers who are not citizens, and to them a serious word of advice shall now be addressed. In the grave time of the conflict let efforts be made to avoid every personal conflict. It is not necessarily cowardly to deny one's descent, but it is not necessary, either, to make demonstrations.

Where there is life there is hope. The hope still is entertained that the conflict will be eliminated, that the bond of friendship between Germany and America will not be torn. Through thoughtless Hotspurs, who allow themselves to be carried away by excitement and do not dam up the flood of their eloquence, much mischief can be done. Keeping away from the public places where the excited groups congregate and discuss the burning questions of the day must be urgently recommended. It was for many a sport to participate in these discussions, and with more or less skill, but always energetically to champion the German cause.

The American is in general very liberal in regard to expression of opinion. He likes to hear also the "other side," but it must not be forgotten that in times of conflict the "other side" may be regarded as the "enemy side." What has heretofore sounded harmless may now be interpreted as a criticism made against the United States. But the American as a rule repels a criticism made by strangers against the affairs of his own country. Through heated discussions and unwise demonstrations nothing is at present to be achieved but much can be spoiled.

Grave times!

Calmness is now the first duty of citizenship—for all non-citizens.

But whoever is a citizen—he would be doing well in any event to stay away from the streets and squares where the noisy ones congregate.

There are very many Germans whose motto here, too, is: "We Germans fear God and nothing else in the world." But whoever bellows that into the ears of hundreds of persons of hostile mind in the public market place is either a fool or—weary of life.

In submarine warfare the Germans may be superior to the British, but in undermining the latter are superior to the former. They have now succeeded in undermining the friendship between Uncle Sam and the Deutsche Michel. Let us hope that the fuse can be extinguished before the explosion follows.

Charles Neumeyer, editor of The Louisville (Ky.) Anzeiger, in a dispatch on May 14 to THE NEW YORK TIMES, said of President Wilson's note:

The American note to Berlin evidences the desire of the President to hold Germany to strict accountability for the loss of American lives in the Lusitania disaster. This proceeding on the part of the American Government is eminently just and proper. If the President had failed to hold Germany to strict accountability he would have failed of his official duty. The President's forceful action cannot be but of salutary effect in this country also. It gives the American people the assurance that the Government at Washington is prepared and ready for the protection of American citizens wherever they may chance to be.

There was a time when the Government did not resort to very vigorous measures in this respect. American citizens while traveling abroad were frequently subject to insult and violence, and the authorities at Washington seemingly paid little heed to complaints. The result was that the American citizen abroad was not held in that respect which emanates from the knowledge that his home Government is prepared to go to the length of its ability, if necessary, to accord him protection.

One or two of the demands formulated against Germany do not meet with our approval. The President demands a cessation of German submarine warfare on merchant vessels, but while the interruption of the starvation plan adopted by England against the civil population is urged upon the latter it will continue. The starvation plan is primarily being waged against the weak and helpless, and is, therefore, responsible. It is also in violation of the spirit if not the letter of international law. If the President can force a demand for the cessation of the submarine warfare, he ought also to have the right to demand the lifting of the starvation blockade. The tragedy was chiefly due to either stupidity or design on the part of the British Admiralty in failing to afford proper protection to the ship. While we do not agree with the President on some points in his note, we repose the fullest confidence in his patriotism as well as his deliberate judgment as giving assurance that, whatever the outcome, the case of the American people rests in trustworthy hands.

The people should by their action spare him unnecessary embarrassment and rely for a satisfactory solution of the grave questions confronting us on his patriotism and honesty.

A dispatch on May 14 to THE NEW YORK TIMES from Max Burgheim, editor of the Freie Presse of Cincinnati, Ohio, reads:

The part of the note referring to the Lusitania catastrophe had better been directed to London. England, not Germany, is responsible for the destruction of the Lusitania. England, through the violation of the rights of nations and the brutal threat to starve 70,000,000 Germans, has forced Germany to a policy against English commerce of which the Lusitania was a victim. Germany declared to our President her willingness to stop submarine warfare if England would allow the importation of food for the German civil population. England contemptuously cast aside the President's mediation.

It has not yet been proved that submarine warfare is not in keeping with international law. Distinguished authorities on international law have declared that Germany was not only justified but bound to adopt this method in the hour of need, because it is the only effective defense against England's warfare. Germany cannot cease this warfare unless she wishes to surrender with tied hands to a ruthless enemy. All we can justly ask of Germany is that neutral ships be not attacked, and that damages be paid in case of loss through mistakes. Germany has already agreed to this.