File No. 763.72/2400½
The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Grey) to the British Ambassador at Washington (Spring Rice)
[Left at the Department of State
by the Ambassador, February 5.]
I think Secretary of State ought to realise the point of view from which question is naturally regarded here.
Germany, having sunk the Frye and Dutch ship Maria with food for civilian population of Great Britain, cynically declared submarine warfare on British and neutral merchant vessels in zone in alleged retaliation for Great Britain’s interference with food supply of Germany.
For a year British merchant vessels, and in some cases neutral vessels, even when bound from one neutral port to another neutral port, have been sunk by German submarines without regard for safety of passengers or crew.
United States Government have taken up the case of passengers and have after months of controversy obtained, it is understood, promise not to sink passenger vessels without warning. It is not clear whether this gives complete protection to British passengers or applies to the so-called war zone, but it gives no protection to cargo boats.
United States Government now propose to deprive merchant vessels of defensive armament which was recognised as fair against armed cruisers [and] is still more necessary when used for defence, not only of vessel, but of lives of crew against submarine attack.
It appears that the United States Government contemplate altering their regulations as to defensive armament even before an undertaking is obtained from Germany to provide for the safety of crew or any definition of what safety means.
In short, after a year of submarine warfare British and Allied merchant vessels will be deprived of previously recognised chance of defence and nothing will have been obtained except uncertain and partial mitigation of attacks in the case of passenger vessels only. Net result will be that new development of warfare to suit submarines and ensure their effectiveness will have been recognised to suit Germany. Previously recognised means of defence for merchant vessels will have been taken away to great disadvantage of Great Britain and Allies. Any development of old principles of interfering with enemy commerce to suit modern conditions will have been refused Great Britain and Allies.
We shall have been deprived of or restricted in the exercise of old rights to enable new German methods to be effective.
Reference to the Baralong case is not relevant, as no attack was then made on submarine by a merchant vessel but only by an armed cruiser.
I should like Secretary of State to realise that this is how proposed alteration of regulations will appear to us and sense of grievance which we shall feel.
[Page 159]If, however, you think it inopportune to make this communication while the Appam case is occupying attention of State Department, you can defer it for a little.