CHAPTER XXII

THAT INTERVIEW WITH THE KAISER

After the appearance, in August, 1917, in the _Philadelphia Public Ledger_ and other newspapers in America and the _Telegraph_ in England of the message of the Kaiser to President Wilson, the official _North German Gazette_, evidently unaware of the fact that the original message of the Kaiser in his own hand was in my possession, published the following:

"The _London Daily Telegraph_ publishes from the memoirs of former Ambassador Gerard a telegram that His Majesty the Kaiser is alleged to have sent to President Wilson on August 10, 1914, and in which the events before the participation of England in the present war are set forth.

"We are, in these circumstances, in the position TO GIVE THE ASSURANCE THAT A TELEGRAM OF THE KAISER OF THIS NATURE DOES NOT EXIST.

"It is correct that an audience was granted to Ambassador Gerard on August 10, 1914, in order to give the opportunity to spread before His Majesty the peace mediation offer of President Wilson.

"The personal message of President Wilson to the Kaiser runs as follows: 'As official head of one of the Powers which signed the Hague Convention, I feel according to Article III of this Convention it is my right and my duty to declare to you in the spirit of the truest friendship that I would welcome every opportunity to act in the interest of the peace of Europe whether now or at another more fitting time....'

"This proposition came at a time when the opposing armies had already crossed the frontiers and when it seemed out of the question to halt the march of events.

"His Majesty could, therefore, only transmit to the President his thanks for the mediation offered and to add thereto that it was too early for the mediation of a neutral Power, but that later the friendly proposition of President Wilson could be taken up again.

"His Majesty, the Emperor, then talked for some time with the American Ambassador and set forth to him separately the events which led to the outbreak of the war. Particularly did the Kaiser call attention to the equivocal and unloyal position of England which had destroyed the hope of a peaceful issue.

"The setting forth by Ambassador Gerard in his memoirs seems to be a contradiction of this conversation.

"If the press of enemy countries sees revelations in this that only shows that they are not acquainted with the German White Book which sets forth these events.

"Possibly, during the interviews, the Emperor wrote down notes for the Ambassador, in order that the latter should not send anything incorrect to Washington. In this case we have to do only with certain notes to aid the memory of the Ambassador, not with a communication of the Emperor to President Wilson."

The _Tageblatt_ reprinted this lame and silly explanation in its issue of August 13, 1917, and complained that, although its correspondent at the Hague sent, on August 7, 1917, this part of my first book in a telegram, only on August 11, did the Government permit the delivery to the _Tageblatt_ of this story from the correspondent. Then the newspaper despatch had to be submitted to the Censorship officials who only released it for publication at midnight. The _Tageblatt_ says, "The form of the explanation which has now appeared in the _North German Gazette_ can hardly be called very happy. What does this mean--'possibly during the interview the Kaiser wrote down notes for the Ambassador in order that the latter should not send anything incorrect to Washington'? Now, after a week the occurrence must have been fathomed and it was not necessary to make use of a 'possibly.' Could Mr. Gerard consider these 'notes' in the handwriting of the Emperor as a draft for a telegram? And do these notes read, as a telegram of the Emperor to Wilson--as Mr. Gerard repeats them?"

Does not the _Tageblatt_ article give a glimpse not only of how the newspapers of Germany are hampered and censored, but of the positively glorious incompetency of the Government officials who denied the existence of an original document in the Kaiser's own hand which the most elementary inquiries in their own circle would have disclosed not only was in existence but in my possession?

The redoubtable Reventlow writing in the Conservative _Tages Zeitung_ commented as follows:

"Kaiser William had possibly for his answer written down notes and given them to Gerard, but these were only helps for Gerard's memory and it was not a question of a direct communication of the German Kaiser to the President. In accordance with the Gerard reports it now seems that nevertheless the Ambassador telegraphed the Imperial notes immediately and literally to Washington. Mr. Gerard has, therefore, again in this respect lied, which is not surprising."

Reventlow, of course, had not then seen the facsimile of the Kaiser's telegram which is headed in his own hand "To the President, personally."

Later the other German newspapers took the Foreign Office to task for making such a weak denial of an incontrovertible fact. And note the charming parliamentary language of dear old Reventlow!

The article, which appeared in the _Tages Zeitung_ of August 14th last, is interesting because Reventlow is without doubt the oracle and mouthpiece of the Prussian Conservatives. He continues to attack me in this article but much of the attack is in reality praise, and, as we say in expressive slang, "every knock is a boost." The article continues:

"It is very desirable to know if the former Chancellor was present at the audience; it is regrettably not inconceivable, but is a new proof of the incompetence of the Chancellor, that he did not, according to his duty, inform his Imperial Lord of the political personality and character of a man like Gerard.

"In the U-boat crisis Mr. Gerard had been able to play a quite decisive part. He was like Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg entirely of the view that the German Empire must give in to the demands of the United States and constantly showed himself wonderfully informed about what step each inner circle would for the moment take.

"The influence of Mr. Gerard is all the more a shameful and heavy reproach for the official leadership of Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg, since this American Ambassador, while an intriguer, was not a personality.

"But when Gerard said anything, wished anything or threatened anything, that imported always a fear-exciting event, and he was finally sly enough to seize and use this halo to the limit. That a man like Gerard has been able through all these years to win and keep such a position and such an influence over German affairs is without example."

But I must really put aside the halo which Reventlow so graciously hands me. While I was informed of what was going on, I certainly did my best to persuade Bethmann-Hollweg and von Jagow and Zimmermann as well as the Emperor and numberless others from defying America. If von Bethmann-Hollweg and any of the others were against ruthless submarine war, seeing that to adopt any other policy would bring America into this war, then they took this position because it seemed to them best for their country and history will prove them right.

Reventlow says further:

"In the winter of 1916-17 one dreamed already of loans and imports from the United States during the peace negotiations. Mr. Gerard came back from America with alms for the wounded and the result of his sublime patience and of the sublime patience of Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg was pictured by the Gerard celebration in Berlin.

"Then came the decision for ruthless submarine war. The first time in his ambassadorial service was Mr. Gerard surprised and the men who entertained him were also surprised for they dreamed of and wished for quite other things. It is incorrect, if it has been stated, that at the time of the Gerard celebration ruthless submarine war had already been agreed on. That came later."

[Illustration: PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AFTER THE BANQUET GIVEN AMBASSADOR GERARD IN BERLIN ON JANUARY 6TH, 1917. PROBABLY THE ORDERS FOR THE RESUMPTION OF "RECKLESS" SUBMARINE WAR HAD BEEN GIVEN WHEN THIS LOVE-FEAST TOOK PLACE.

_Sitting, left to right_--Von Wermuth, Mayor of Berlin; Ambassador Gerard; Zimmermann; Von Sydow, Minister of Commerce.

_Standing, left to right_--Unknown; Consul General Lay; Commander Gherardi, U. S. N.; First Secretary Grew; Unknown; Count Montgelas; Solf, Colonial Minister; General Friedrich, in charge of prisoners of war; Isaac Wolf, President of American Association of Commerce and Trade; John B. Jackson, former Minister to Cuba.]

But I did know that ruthless submarine war was coming, knew of the orders given, and this is proved not only by my reports which are still secret, but by what I told not only many people in America but several editors who with my full approval published articles showing this belief.

I am obliged to Reventlow for what he says of me. I admire him as a powerful writer for whose ability I have a deep respect and perhaps if I were a Prussian Junker I would follow him as blindly and confidently as do the army and navy officers, the nobles, great and small, and the land-holding squires of Prussia, to whom his writings are as seductive as the pipings of the Pied Piper to the townsfolk of Hamlin.

Reventlow's charge of lying was made in the line of his duty as a Prussian Junker, according to the best traditions of Prussian government and diplomacy but it is so thoroughly disproved and the authenticity of the Kaiser's telegram so universally admitted in Germany, even in official circles there, that I feel only sorrow for a Prussian nobleman and Junker and editor compelled by the exigencies of his position to make so ridiculous a statement.

I think that the Germans just now are beginning to realise that I always told them the truth and treated them fairly, a procedure, I admit, far more disconcerting and disturbing to them than the most subtle wiles and moves of the old diplomacy.

Von Bethmann denied that the peace terms as set forth in my book were his (he did not deny that they are the terms of the Junkers) and criticised me for "unethically" publishing an account of my experiences in Germany. This is what he said:

"In his published report of this particular conversation Mr. Gerard attributed utterances to me which may have been made in other quarters in Germany and to which he frequently referred in the progress of our conversation but which were not my own. This applies especially to those references to Germany's alleged intentions to seize Liége and Namur, and of Germany's plans to take possession of the Belgian ports, the railways and to establish military and commercial dominion over that country.

"I never unfolded such German war aims to Mr. Gerard. In the course of my several conversations with him as also in our discussion last January I invariably referred to my Reichstag speeches in which I stated that Germany would exact positive guarantees that Belgian territory and politics would not in the future be exploited as a menacing factor against us. I did not make any statement as to the nature of these guarantees.

"In the progress of our conversation Mr. Gerard suggested that the realisation of far-reaching aspirations in Belgium would give King Albert merely a sham authority and asked whether it would not be better for Germany to forego such plans and instead of them endeavour to acquire Liége which Mr. Gerard thought possible of achievement.

"Perhaps this suggestion was a bait intended to provoke a reply from me. If so, the attempt failed. In all my discussions with the Ambassador on this subject I referred to my public utterances in which I emphasised that I was endeavouring to procure a peace that would permit us to live in cordial and neighbourly relations with Belgium.

"Mr. Gerard's memory would seem also to have served him faultily when he wrote down what was said about Russia. He dealt but superficially with Germany's eastern war aims, observing that the United States' interest in this direction was very limited and that Germany undoubtedly would have a free hand there. For Roumania and Serbia he also revealed very slender sympathy. Mr. Gerard did not obtain out of my mouth any of the statements concerning these countries which he attributes to me.

"When diplomats undertake to exploit their official career for journalistic purposes they are very apt to be misled into putting into mouths of foreign statesmen utterances which either are the creation of an ample imagination or are based on faulty memory. Discussion of political opinions is bound to be transitory and fleeting.

"You Americans are impetuous people. You do not seem to permit even your retiring diplomats to observe the traditional silences nor have you the patience to abide the post mortem publication of their memoirs. Sir Edward Goschen (former British Ambassador to Germany and Austria) or Jules Cambon (former French Ambassador to Germany, the United States and Spain) probably could excel Mr. Gerard in revelations of entertaining diplomatic history and gossip. Count von Bernstorff, former Ambassador to the United States, too, I imagine might startle us with a diary of his Washington experiences.

"In Europe, however, it was seen that publication of such matters was best postponed by common consent to a later period when judgments are both calm and more mature. Mr. Gerard, however, may hold the special license conferred by shirtsleeve diplomacy, as you call it, and I shall not dispute his prerogatives. But he must not give his imagination the free rein."

And this was my answer: published in the _New York Times_ for September 2, 1917:

"Dr. Hollweg apparently did not have the exact copy of my articles for if he had read them he would have seen clearly that I said the peace terms described were the German peace terms and not the opinions of the Chancellor. Dr. Hollweg said he himself was subject to the rule of the military party of Germany and could not follow his own desires.

"In the second place, Dr. Hollweg admits that the German government intended to exact guarantees from Belgium and makes the admission himself after the interview in which he so sharply criticises me.

"Thirdly, I ask if those terms as cited are not the German peace terms, then what are the German peace terms?

"Dr. Hollweg gives nothing different from these and so it might be assumed they are the German terms after all. I consider it a matter of great regret that the German government put Dr. Hollweg out of office and I feel that personally he is bitterly opposed to the ruthless submarine warfare of the German government and that he only refrained from resigning his office out of deference to the wishes of Emperor Wilhelm.

"I presume he was put out because his ideals were too liberal for the German authorities to endure. This liberality is shown in the interview. I am sorry to take issue with Dr. Hollweg on this subject because I have a great admiration for him and I think he is a fine old fellow.

"The old-time diplomacy, which Dr. Hollweg advocated, has succeeded in plunging almost the whole world into the bloodiest war of history. When the people of a nation know what is going on in the seats of government such wars cannot happen.

"I do not believe in backstairs diplomacy any more than Dr. Hollweg. I believe the people of a nation are entitled to know what is going on. This German diplomacy may be all right in a monarchy of the most limited type but it will not go at all in a modern democracy.

"As to the ethics of publishing my memoirs now, I pass over the obvious repartee that to hear a German speak of ethics borders on the ludicrous and especially the man who openly in the Reichstag announced that necessity knows no law and that the German troops were at that moment deliberately violating the neutrality of Belgium.

"But I believe that the old style diplomacy in the dark caused this war. Of course, it is hard for a German ex-official to conceive that the people have a right to be enlightened about this awful calamity. But I hope one of the results of this war will be the end of backstairs diplomacy. When the Germans with the Chancellor's approval violated the usage of all nations and times and kept me as a hostage after I had demanded my passports, I think to talk of ethics comes with a bad grace from the German side."

Understand that Bethmann-Hollweg is not a bad man, but for one who openly announced that necessity knows no law and defended the invasion of Belgium, failed to stop the cruelties of the prison camps and gave official, if not private, consent to the murder of women and babies not only on the high seas but in undefended towns, to talk of ethics because I dared to tell the world what was happening in Germany is more than ridiculous. It verges on the ludicrous--but why attack poor Bethmann? Opportunity knocked at his door, but the want of a backbone prevented his becoming a great figure.

History will laud him for opposing ruthless submarine war so long, but will blame him for weakly yielding in the end. As for the "ethics," I have been careful to give only official conversations with the Emperor, interesting as the others are, and never shall disclose my private conversations with Bethmann, von Jagow, Zimmermann and others, including my talks with Bethmann and Zimmermann on the day I left Germany, because it was understood that these conversations should never be disclosed whatever happened.

And as time goes on more and more do I believe that history will vindicate von Jagow and teach the Emperor and the people of Germany that a faithful and skilful servant should never be sacrificed to the intrigues of a few gossiping politicians. It is part of the strength of President Wilson that he backs up his officials and refuses to listen even to widespread popular clamour for their heads. It was the business of von Jagow to conduct the Foreign policy of Germany, but the intriguers demanded his removal because he was too occupied to waste time talking to amateur politicians, and because his voice did not charm the Reichstag.

##