File No. 763.72/2477
The Ambassador in Germany ( Gerard ) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 8, 6 p. m.]
3592. Following is the text of semiofficial reply to British Admiralty’s publication of instructions to armed merchantmen of October 20, 1915:1
After England has endeavored industriously for three weeks to cast doubts on the existence of secret orders to attack, the British Admiralty is now plainly unable any longer to withhold confirmation of the contents of the German memorandum of February 8, 1916. It publishes instructions alleged to have been issued October 29. The Woodfield, a transport of the British Admiralty on which the British instructions published by Germany were found, did not, however, leave England until October 26, 1915, and nevertheless had instructions dated May 31, 1915, on board. The British Admiralty will therefore have no ground for surprise if for the present it is assumed that these new instructions alleged to bear date of October 29 have only been drawn up just now. Undoubtedly political reasons have contributed to make it appear desirable to temper the earlier orders in the weaker version or, as the British Admiralty prefers to call it, to improve them. We may safely leave it to the neutrals to form their own opinion on these attempted improvements and the alleged false German interpretation, for the neutrals have had photographs of the instructions found by Germany for some time now.
It is not true that the supplement to the German prize orders dated June 1914, concedes that a merchantman has the right of resistance. The passage in the question reads, “If an armed enemy merchantman offers armed resistance against measures of the law of prize, such resistance is to be broken with all available means.” If then it is further provided that the crew are to be treated as prisoners of war this is done for reasons of equity merely, in order that the crew may not be made to suffer for obeying instructions of their superiors which are contrary to international law. On the other hand the order provides that passengers who take part in the resistance shall be treated as pirates. The question how merchantman which makes aggressive use of its armament against man-of-war is to be dealt with is not touched by the order at all. Similar action against merchant vessels is expressly defined as piracy. It really requires the whole English art of misrepresentation to read out of these clear provisions the meaning that Germany has recognized the right of merchantmen to defend themselves by force and even for this purpose to make an attack.
Now the new instructions likewise contain the order to attack any submarine coming into sight. The attempt to label this ordered attack as a measure of defense is more than flimsy. How is this order to be reconciled with the formal assurances given by the English Minister at Washington that British merchantmen would never fire unless first fired upon?
In conclusion it should be made quite clear that the British Government gave the orders for immediate attack to its armed merchantmen solely on the basis of the general assumption set up by it that any submarine sighted has hostile intentions. The conclusion drawn by the German White Book could not be affirmed any better, namely, that it is made clear that the armed English merchantmen have official orders treacherously to attack the German submarines wherever met, in other words to conduct relentless warfare against them.