File No. 763.72/2411½
Memorandum of the Secretary of State of a conversation with the German Ambassador (Bernstorff), February 17, 1916
At my request the German Ambassador called upon me to-day and I told him that his letter of February 16, relative to the Lusitania case, I believed would be acceptable to this Government were it not for the fact that Germany had issued a new declaration of policy in regard to submarine warfare. I pointed out to him that there had been in the Lusitania controversy two questions—one as to the future conduct of submarine warfare, and the other as to proper amends for past conduct; that I had assumed the assurances which had been given by Germany in regard to the future conduct of her submarine commanders settled that branch of the controversy; that in our informal conversations we had only discussed what amends Germany should make for the sinking of the Lusitania; and that now, when the branch of the controversy which related to past conduct was substantially settled, this declaration of new policy appeared to open up again the part of the controversy which related to the future.
The Ambassador replied that he did not see how this directly affected the assurances which had been given, as the assurances related to liners. I told him that the declaration of principle as to submarine warfare in the Mediterranean was not limited in any way, nor was anything said about vessels being armed or unarmed; that that declaration was very comprehensive and would certainly be modified very materially if the present policy was put into effect.
The Ambassador asked me if I thought it would be advisable for Germany to postpone the time for a month at least before putting the new policy into operation. I told him that might temporarily relieve apprehension and make easier our future negotiations which he must realize would have to continue in view of this new departure on the part of his Government.
He asked me if he could say to his Government that otherwise than as to the future of submarine warfare his letter of the I6th was satisfactory. I said no, he could not say it was satisfactory, but that he might say in the circumstances that it was acceptable, although I should regret his putting it into formal shape before this other matter was decided.
He said he would communicate the substance of this conversation to his Government and hoped to obtain from them an interpretation or expression which would satisfy our fears as to the new policy.