124.556/7: Telegram

The Minister in Belgium (Whitlock) to the Secretary of State

416. The wide publication in England and America of the full correspondence in the case of the late Edith Cavell so highly incensed the German authorities, and so greatly increased the difficulty of our position here, that it was only after conferences lasting throughout a trying day that I was able to prevent serious complications. I therefore felt that I should report in full for the Department’s information and for such instruction as it may care to give.

The Baron von der Lancken, Chief of the Political Department of the General Government, here, made two specific complaints: First, that the publication of the correspondence was a violation of diplomatic etiquette: that it placed, as it were, an arm in the hands of Germany’s enemies and therefore affected our neutrality, and: Secondly: That this seemed to be due to the fact that in the person of Maître de Leval we have in our Legation a Belgian subject and therefore an enemy of Germany. Baron von der Lancken thereupon said that he felt that the German Government was entitled to an expression of regret on my part that the correspondence had been published and he asked that Maître de Leval be immediately dismissed from the Legation adding that if this were not done he feared the military authorities regarding Maître de Leval as “undesirable” might take steps that he and the Governor General would be powerless to prevent. My first concern being to prevent any difficulties arising between Germany and our Government, I said to the Baron that the correspondence had been sent to our Ambassador at London for his information and that I did not know whether or not my Government under its reserved right to make public the official correspondence of its officers abroad had given its assent to its publication by British Foreign Office but that whether this was so or not the responsibility for the publication was not mine and that I could not assume to express regret for it. I told the Baron that he and his Government could rest confident in the assurance that the United States Government would do full and complete justice in the matter and that I should at once communicate to my Government the views of the German authorities here.

As for the case of Maître de Leval, I stated that I of course was responsible for his actions and I protested energetically against any interference with his liberty, adding that I should not dismiss him and that in any event he could be dismissed only by my Government. The objections to Maître de Leval were based upon that portion of [Page 63] his report to me in which he said that he had made frequent inquiries at the Political Department and that he had been assured during the day that the Legation would be informed when judgment was pronounced upon Miss Cavell.17 From this statement Baron von der Lancken said that the inference had been drawn in England and elsewhere that he, the Baron, had broken his word to me, whereas according to his views the conversations of that nature on the day in question were between Maître de Leval and the Chancellor of his Department, neither of whom he insisted had any diplomatic capacity. He raised other objections to statements in the report, but whatever might be the ultimate determination on these points, and feeling that the statements in Maître de Leval’s report were substantially accurate, I pointed out that in the various reports we had expressed no conclusions, had made no comments and advanced no opinions, and that I had had no intention of charging Baron von der Lancken with having broken his word or of making any observation on the action of the German authorities.

The feeling against Maître de Leval was indeed an old grievance, for on several occasions the Baron von der Lancken had complained to me of our having a Belgian in our Legation and at the opening of our adjourned conversation in the afternoon he said to me that Maître de Leval was distinctly persona non grata and that they must refuse to have relations with him or to recognize him in any diplomatic connection or in any capacity other than that of a Belgian subject. I then said to the Baron that neither my Government nor [apparent omission] would wish to impose upon the German authorities a person who was not to their liking and that upon that basis it would be possible, I had no doubt, in the future to relieve that [them?] of any embarrassment that Maître de Leval’s relation to the Legation might cause. I told him that I should communicate with my Government in an effort to adjust that question as well as the first one he had raised in a manner satisfactory to the German Government and that in the meantime Maître de Leval would perform no diplomatic functions. I then told Baron von der Lancken that I would rely upon him to see that Maître de Leval be given every protection and he gave me that assurance.

The Department will realize that the publication in full of this correspondence has rendered still more uncomfortable the already difficult and delicate situation of the Legation: that it has not only aroused resentment which I have with the greatest difficulty succeeded in partially allaying, but it has imperilled those mentioned in the report, such as Maître de Leval and the rector who has done such good charitable work in the English colony. I venture therefore [Page 64] to lay the Baron’s views before the Department for appropriate action. In this connection I think it is only due to state that a confusion may have arisen as to the General Government, which is under the command of His Excellency Baron von Bissing as Governor General, and the military authorities. The case of Miss Cavell did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Governor General and it is due Baron von der Lancken to say that he visited the military authorities on that fateful night in an effort to have the execution at least postponed. The embarrassing feature of the publication was perhaps not so much the facts it set forth as the exposure of names, letters and documents and the resulting comments thereon. Baron von der Lancken also requested that I ask the Department to take some action that would moderate criticism of the affair in the American press. I explained to him that my Government had no control over the press but I venture to report his request to the Department.

As far as Maître de Leval is concerned although he has rendered devoted and efficient service and his conduct has been beyond criticism and beyond reproach, I feel that in view of all the circumstances and especially in view of the expressed statement on the part of the German authorities that he is persona non grata his usefulness here is unfortunately at an end: this of course as I trust I have made it plain, without involving any reflection upon him. I feel that consideration for his safety would dictate that he be not dismissed and left in this country but that provision for his dignified departure from Belgium be made. Anticipating the possibility of opposition to his going, I respectfully suggest that the Department, in case there should be concurrence in my views, render my task in that respect easier by authorizing me to express to Baron von Bissing, the Governor General, the desire of our Government that Mr. de Leval be granted safe conduct for himself and his family out of Belgium, and that if necessary the Department make a similar request at Berlin. I think this would be the better way to deal with the situation. Although Maître de Leval has been recognized by the German authorities to the extent of the courtesy of passports for use in Belgium, I feel it would be better to avoid if possible raising the question of his diplomatic status. Inasmuch as Maître de Leval’s departure from Belgium will entail a considerable financial sacrifice to him I recommend that the Department continue to pay him his salary for a reasonable period of time. He has served us faithfully and I am brought to consider his departure only because I realize that his situation here is insupportable and that his continuance here might create further difficulties which it is of course in the interest of all to avoid. He himself is willing and indeed anxious to go.

[Page 65]

I, therefore, request instruction as to what to say to the German authorities as to the publication of the documents and as to the course to be pursued in reference to Maître de Leval, and any further advice and assistance the Department sees fit to give me.

Whitlock
  1. See enclosure 9, p. 56.