New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915 | Page 7

of
continuing the submarine war," but it criticises the note for possibly
going too far in making concessions, which "may prove impracticable
and result in weakening the submarine war."

The unfavorable reception of Germany's note in the United States, as
reported through English and French agencies, was read in Berlin with
incredulity.
The Kreuz-Zeitung, the Tageszeitung, and the Boersen Zeitung
expressed the belief that British and French news agencies had
purposely selected unfavorable editorial expressions from the American
newspapers for the sake of the effect they would have in Great Britain
and France.
"Regarding the reception of the German note in America," the
Kreuz-Zeitung said, "several additional reports from British sources are
now at hand. Reuter's Telegram Company presents about a dozen short
sentences from as many American papers. Were these really
approximately a faithful picture of the thought of the American press as
a unit, we should have to discard every hope of a possibility of an
understanding. The conception of a great majority of the German
people is that we showed in our note an earnest desire to meet, as far as
possibly justified, American interests."
Like the Berlin press, German-American newspapers were unanimous
in praise of the German note; to the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung it
appeared a "sincere effort to meet the questions involved" and as
"eminently satisfactory." The New Yorker Herold thought that any one
with "even a spark of impartiality" would have to admit the "quiet,
conciliatory tone of the German note" as "born of the consciousness in
the heart of every German that Germany did not want the war"; that
after it was forced on her she "waged it with honorable means." The
Illinois Staats-Zeitung of Chicago declared it to be the "just demand of
Germany" that Americans should not "by their presence on hostile
boats try to protect war materials to be delivered by a friendly nation at
a hostile shore." From the Cincinnati Freie Presse came the comment
that Washington "has no business to procure safety on the ocean for
British ships carrying ammunition."
The American newspapers were nearly unanimous in adverse criticism
of the note. THE NEW YORK TIMES said that Germany's request was
"to suspend the law of nations, the laws of war and of humanity for her

benefit." The Chicago Herald declared that the German answer "is
disappointing to all who had hoped that it would clearly open the way
to a continuance of friendly relations." While the San Francisco
Chronicle discerned in the note "an entire absence of the belligerent
spirit," it found that "Germany is asking us to abridge certain of our
rights on the high seas." To the Denver Post the reply was the "extreme
of arrogance, selfishness, and obstinacy," while The Atlanta (Ga.)
Constitution remarks that German words and German deeds are
separate matters: "The all-important fact remains that since President
Wilson's first note was transmitted to that country, Germany has given
us no single reasonable cause of complaint." The Louisville (Ky.)
Courier-Journal believes the German reply would carry more weight
and persuasion "if it could be considered wholly and apart as an ex
parte statement." "Without equivocation and with a politeness of
offensively insinuating," the Boston Transcript concludes, "Germany
rejects each and all of our demands and attempts to bargain with
respect to the future."
ON THE AMERICAN NOTE OF JULY 21
Publication of the American note in Berlin was delayed until July 25,
owing to difficulty in translating its shades of meaning. While German
statesmen and editors expressed keen appreciation of its literary style,
the press was unanimous in considering the note disappointing,
expressing pained surprise at the American stand. Captain Perseus,
naval critic of the Berlin Tageblatt, said that the note "expresses a
determination to rob us of the weapon to which we pin the greatest
hopes in the war on England," and indicates that the "pro-British
troublemakers have finally won over the President." Count von
Reventlow in the Tageszeitung complains of the note's "far too
threatening and peremptory tone." The Kreuz-Zeitung says: "We are
trying hard to resist the thought that the United States with its
standpoint as expressed in the note, aims at supporting England," and
Georg Bernhard of the Vossische Zeitung believes that yielding to
President Wilson's argument means "the weakening of Germany to the
enemy's advantage," adding that any one who has this in mind "is not
neutral, but takes sides against Germany and for her enemies." The

Boersen Zeitung says it is compelled to say, with regret, that the note is
very unsatisfactory and "one cannot escape feeling that the shadow of
England stands behind it." The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung says that
the note is distinguished for its "clear language," and quotes the phrase
"deliberately unfriendly" while noting the demand for disavowal and
reparation. "Of quite unusual weight," the Staats-Zeitung