File No. 763.72/2429

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Germany (Gerard)1

[Telegram]

2790. Your 3528,2 February 25, 11 a. m., and Department’s March 1.3 Please call at the Foreign Office and read the following message to the Foreign Minister without leaving him copy:

The German Government on January 7, 1916, shortly after the sinking of the British S. S. Persia, made public announcement of the orders which had been issued to its submarine commanders, particularly those operating in the Mediterranean. In terms this announcement may perhaps have been acceptable, but about the same time it came to my knowledge from confidential sources that the German Government had under consideration a policy limiting its orders to merchant ships which carried no armament. As the orders announced on January 7 made no distinction between armed and unarmed ships, such a policy would materially affect the assurance of the 7th as well as the assurances previously given, which did not except armed vessels.

At that time the informal negotiations regarding the Lusitania were proceeding on the basis that the future conduct off submarine warfare had been satisfactorily settled by the several assurances given by Germany, the subject of discussion being the past conduct of the German naval authorities. It was evident that if the German Government should adopt the policy of eliminating from the benefit of its assurances all merchant vessels carrying guns, the question of the future conduct of Germany would be reopened.

In order to avoid this situation, and also having particularly in mind the humane purpose of preventing as far as possible the loss of life among non-combatants on merchant ships, an identical letter, informal in nature, was on January 18, 1916, addressed to the diplomatic representatives of the Entente powers at Washington proposing to them that their Governments should disarm all their merchant vessels in consideration of an agreement by Germany to comply strictly with the rules governing the taking and destruction of prizes of war on the high seas.

This letter was not sent to the representatives of Germany and Austria-Hungary at Washington for the reason that the Entente powers were the only ones asked to modify the established rules of naval warfare. All that was required of the Teutonic powers was observance of existing law, so that their refusal of the proposed modus vivendi was not to be expected.

On January 26 Baron Zwiedinek, the Austrian Chargé, called upon me and asked me about the letter to the Entente powers of which he said he had heard. [Page 203] I told him that I could confidentially say to him that we had made proposals to the Entente powers such as were reported, and that nothing had been said to the Central powers because they were not asked to change the rules of war but were merely asked to live up to the rules which they were in any event bound to do. I told him further that the United States had two objects in view, one was to avoid a situation which would make most difficult our relations with the Central powers and the other was the humane purpose of saving the lives of non-combatants.

Baron Zwiedinek then spoke to me of the views of the Central powers that an armed merchant ship could not be treated as a peaceful trader, and added that they were considering issuing an announcement to that effect. He asked me, if they did this, when I thought it would be well to do it.

As this proposed action confirmed the information which I had received I considered the matter from the point of view of its effect on the Lusitania negotiations and came to the conclusion that, if the announcement was made after the Lusitania case was settled, and while I was thus advised of the intention of the Central powers, it could be claimed that this Government had to all intents acquiesced in limiting the application of the German assurances to unarmed vessels.

In view of this state of affairs it was desirable that the proposed declaration should be promulgated before the Lusitania negotiations reached their final stage and so, in reply to Baron Zwiedinek’s question as to when I thought it would be well to issue the declaration, I replied to him that I believed that the sooner it was issued the better.

The same evening (January 26) the telegraph room at the Department of State read to me over the telephone the translation of Baron Zwiedinek’s wireless message to his Government, in which he said that I would “welcome it” if a declaration such as he had proposed was issued. He used the German cipher.

Following the invariable practice of the Department in dealing with cipher messages by wireless, I treated the message as a confidential communication to the Austro-Hungarian Government and allowed it to go forward, as there Was nothing in the message which was obscure or which affected American neutrality—the sole subjects of the Department’s censorship.

As soon, however, as I authorized the telegraph room to send the telegram to the Navy Department for transmission, I made a note in writing to call the attention of Baron Zwiedinek, “if opportunity offered,” that is, if he brought the matter officially to my attention, to his erroneous statement that I would “welcome” the issuance of the declaration.

The reason for not correcting erroneous statements in censored wireless messages is manifest. If the Department adopted the practice of correcting all erroneous statements of facts or reports of conversations, the result would be that every message or sentence in a message which was passed without correction would be held to be endorsed by the Department as true. It Would be unwise for the Department of State to assume such responsibility and become the sponsor for the accuracy of all statements passing under its censorship, as it would be impossible to perform such a service, and it would also be a constant source of irritation and dispute.

The opportunity to call the attention of Baron Zwiedinek to the misinformation he had conveyed to his Government came on February 9 when he called for the first time after January 26 and brought to me a translation of a wireless message from the German Government, dated February 6, which I had not seen and which was stated to be in reply to the Chargé’s message of January 26.

In a message shown me appeared the following: “Germany and Austria-Hungary will publish within a few days declaration welcomed by Mr. Lansing” that all armed merchantmen will be treated as auxiliary cruisers.

After reading the message I pointed out to Baron Zwiedinek that the words “welcomed by Mr. Lansing” were unwarranted as I had not intended to convey any such meaning in our previous conversation.

He replied that I had had the opportunity to see the message which he sent to his Government on January 26 and could have corrected it.

I told him that that was so, but that in accordance with our policy I never had censored and would riot censor in future the truth of statements in wireless messages, and I explained to him our practice.

[Page 204]

I told him that my words were “the sooner that it is done the better,” referring to the issuance of a declaration as to armed vessels.

He said that my words seemed to warrant his report of our conversation.

I said that that inference was entirely erroneous, that I had not intended to convey such a meaning, and I hoped that he would so advise his Government.

Late in the evening of February 9 the telegraph room telephoned me the translation of a message by Baron Zwiedinek to his Government, in which he said that I had called his attention to “a misunderstanding created by the use of the word ‘welcome,’” and that I “did not wish to imply any initiative.”

On the same sheet of paper as the foregoing message was one from the German Ambassador to his Government which was also read to me over the telephone. In this message appeared the following: “Mr. Lansing reminded me of fact that from the beginning of controversy with us the American Government always spoke of unarmed merchant vessels (American note of May 13, 1915).”

I could not understand how the Ambassador could make this statement as I had never said anything of the kind but had always contended exactly the contrary and had said to him at the time when he mentioned the use of “unarmed” in the note of May 13, that it had been used in that connection because of the charge that the Lusitania was alleged to have had guns on board.

However, following our practice, I directed the telegraph room to permit the message to go forward, but made a note to call the misstatement to the Ambassador’s attention if the opportunity offered. As the subject has not been brought to my attention officially, I have had no opportunity to speak of it.

If I had corrected this misstatement it might have been argued that as I had corrected this message I must have approved, since I did not correct the Zwiedinek message of January 26, in which it was stated I would “welcome” the declaration of the Central powers.

Upon hearing rumors that it was being said that before the declaration of submarine policy had been issued by the Central powers on February 10 I had informed them that I would “welcome” such a declaration, I summoned Baron Zwiedinek to the Department on February 19 and informed him that this story had come to me and that in view of my denial of the use of the word or of any intention to convey such a meaning I was greatly surprised that it was in circulation.

The Chargé denied that he had given out the story, but said that he was sure I had used the word “welcome.” I answered him that in view of what I had said to him ten days before he must realize that I could only deny the truth of his statement, which I told him I should certainly do if the necessity arose.

He again referred to the fact that as a translation had passed through the Department without comment I was bound by the accuracy of the statement. I repeated at some lengh the explanation of the practice of the Department in regard to the censoring of wireless messages and told him that I had called the misstatement to his attention as soon as the matter came to me officially.

In order that the matter might be of record I wrote Baron Zwiedinek on the 22d fully detailing the practice of the Department as to the censorship of wireless cipher messages.

On the 24th Baron Zwiedinek replied, acknowledging my letter of the 22d and advancing the assertion that before he left me on January 26th he requested me “to carefully look over” the message he was sending before allowing it to pass. He stated that he felt assured that as the message had passed the Department without comment it had been virtually endorsed as correct.

I answered him on February 25th that I had no recollection of his having made any such request, but that if he did—and I had to assume that he did because he so stated—I had not understood him and so had followed the usual practice when his message was submitted to me.

For your confidential information. The foregoing message is sent in order that you may be fully advised as to the facts in this matter and as it is expected that Central powers will, in justification of the declaration of February 10, advance the argument that it was suggested and sanctioned by this Government.

Lansing
  1. The same, except for first sentence, to the Ambassador in Austria-Hungary, No. 1157.
  2. Ante, p. 178.
  3. Ante, p. 183.