Lord Robert Cecil's British Response to Bethmann-Hollweg's Note of April 1917
The German Chancellor claims that Germany in the past renounced the unrestricted use of her
submarine weapon in the expectation that Great Britain could be made to observe in her blockade
policy the laws of humanity and international agreements.
It is difficult to say whether this statement is the more remarkable for its hypocrisy or for its falseness.
It would hardly seem that Germany is in a position to speak of humanity or international agreements,
since she began this war by deliberately violating the international agreement guaranteeing the
neutrality of Belgium, and has continued it by violating all the dictates of humanity.
Has the Chancellor forgotten that the German forces have been guilty of excesses in Belgium,
unparalleled in history, culminating in the attempted enslavement of a dauntless people, of poisoning
wells, of bombarding open towns, torpedoing hospital ships and sinking other vessels with total
disregard for the safety of non-combatants on board, with the result that many hundreds of innocent
victims, including both women and children, have lost their lives?
The latest manifestation of this policy is to be seen in the devastation and deportations carried out by
the Germans in their forced retreat on the Western front.
The Chancellor states that it is because the Allies have not abandoned their blockade and have
refused the so-called peace offer of Germany that unrestricted submarine warfare is now decided on.
As to this I will do no more than quote what the Chancellor himself said in the Reichstag, in
announcing the adoption of unrestricted submarine war.
He said that as soon as he himself, in agreement with the supreme army command, reached the
conviction that ruthless U-boat warfare would bring Germany nearer to a victorious peace, then the
U-boat warfare would be started. He continued:
This moment has now arrived. Last autumn the time was not ripe, but today the moment has come
when, with the greatest prospect of success, we can undertake this enterprise.
We must not wait any longer. Where has there been a change? In the first place, the most important
fact of all is that the number of our submarines has been very considerably increased as compared
with last spring, and thereby a firm basis has been created for success.
Does not this prove conclusively that it was not any scruple or any respect for international law or
neutral rights that prevented unrestricted warfare from being adopted earlier, but merely a lack of
means to carry it out?
I think it may be useful once again to point out that the illegal and inhuman attack on shipping by the
Germans cannot be justified as a reprisal for the action of Great Britain in attempting to cut off from
Germany all imports.
The submarine campaign was clearly contemplated as far back as December 1914, when Admiral
von Tirpitz gave an indication to an American correspondent in Berlin of the projected plan.
As for the plea that the Allies are aiming at the annihilation of Germany and her allies and that
ruthless warfare is, therefore, justified, it is sufficient in order to refute this to quote the following
passage from the Allies' reply of January 10, 1917, to President Wilson's note:
There is no need to say that if the Allies desire to liberate Europe from the brutal covetousness of
Prussian militarism, the extermination and political disappearance of the German people have never,
as has been pretended, formed a part of their design.