ISSUE WITH AUSTRIA-HUNGARY OVER THE ANCONA—SURRENDER TO AMERICAN DEMANDS

The attention of the United States was abruptly diverted from Germany to Austria-Hungary. The Ancona, an Italian liner en route for New York, was steaming westward in the Mediterranean, between the coasts of Sicily and Tunis, on November 9, 1915, when a submarine flying the Austro-Hungarian flag fired a shot at the steamship. As described by the American protest sent to Austria-Hungary on December 6, 1915, based upon the testimony of American and other survivors, the Ancona thereupon "attempted to escape, but being overhauled by the submarine she stopped; that after a brief period, and before the crew and passengers were all able to take to the boats, the submarine fired a number of shells at the vessel and finally torpedoed and sank her while there were yet many persons on board, and that by gunfire and floundering of the vessel a large number of persons lost their lives or were seriously injured, among whom were citizens of the United States."

A heated protest from the Italian Ambassador to the State Department thus depicted the same scene: "Without any warning whatever, without even a blank shot, without observing any of the formalities accompanying the right of search, the submarine encountered by the Ancona opened fire upon the unarmed passenger liner, relentlessly shelling not only the wireless apparatus, side, and decks of the ship while she was at a stop, but even the lifeboats in which the terrified passengers were seeking refuge. Many of the passengers were killed outright or wounded. Some who approached the submarine in the hope of rescue were driven off with jeers. As a result of this inhumane procedure more than two hundred men, women and children lost their lives."

An impenitent explanation came from the Austro-Hungarian admiralty, who in upholding the submarine commander, saw "no reason to find fault with his course of action," and while recognizing that a commander in the heat of battle could act contrary to instructions, "nothing of the kind has occurred in this case."

"It appears from his report," said the admiralty defense, "that his ship was in danger; indeed, in double danger; first, that an enemy boat was approaching on a line that threatened to cut off his retreat, and the enemy ship and the Ancona could have established his radius of action and could have set a torpedo boat flotilla on him; and second, there was danger of the Ancona escaping, which, according to his instructions, was to be prevented in all circumstances. Hence the conduct of the commander, much as the loss of innocent lives must be regretted and deplored, cannot be disapproved. On the contrary, if he had departed without destroying the Ancona, it would have been failure to do his duty since the Ancona could have notified other ships of his whereabouts. The loss of American lives is regrettable, as well as that Americans used a vessel belonging to a nation at war with Austria-Hungary."

This statement amplified a previous defense by the Austrian admiralty, in which the latter admitted that the Ancona was torpedoed after her engines had been stopped and when passengers were still on board. The American protest cited the admiralty's admission as substantially confirming the principal testimony of the survivors. It, moreover, alluded to the correspondence which had passed between Germany and the United States on the use and misuse of submarines in attacking vessels of commerce, and to Germany's acquiescence in the American stand thereon. Yet despite the "full knowledge" possessed by the Austro-Hungarian Government of the views of the United States, "as expressed in no uncertain terms to the ally of Austria-Hungary," the commander of the submarine which attacked the Ancona, the United States protested, failed to put in a place of safety the crew and passengers before destroying the vessel.

The United States accused the submarine commander of violating the principles of international law and humanity, and characterized his conduct as "wanton slaughter of defenseless noncombatants," as the vessel was not resisting or attempting to escape, and no other reason was sufficient to excuse such an attack, not even the possibility of rescue.

A tone of severity and bluntness, not hitherto used in American communications with the belligerents, marked this note of protest to Austria-Hungary. Demands were made for a denunciation of the submarine commander's act as "illegal and indefensible," for his punishment, and for reparation by the payment of indemnity for the loss of American lives. The United States left an avenue open through which Austria-Hungary could find an acceptable excuse. It preferred to believe that the submarine commander acted contrary to instructions rather than accept the alternative assumption that the Austro-Hungarian Government "failed to issue instructions to the commanders of the submarines in accordance with the laws of nations and the principles of humanity."

The answer of Austria-Hungary (December 13, 1915) was deftly befogging by clouding in diplomatic rhodomontade the familiar issues raised by the United States. Its deliberate evasiveness was so direct as to be almost an affront. Stripped of its confusing terminology, the Austrian note declared that the United States had not adequately stated its cause of complaint, and had wrongly assumed that the Austrian Government was fully acquainted with all communications passed between the German and American Governments on the submarine issue. This plea of ignorance was made in face of the precautionary transmission by the State Department to the Austrian embassy of copies of all the American notes sent to Germany. The Austrian note also questioned whether the testimony made by the Ancona survivors, whom the American protest had not specifically named, was to be deemed more trustworthy than the report of the submarine commander. As to Austria-Hungary's knowledge of the American issues with Germany, that Government was not of the opinion that "this knowledge could be sufficient for the present case, which, according to its own information, is materially different from the case or cause to which the American Government apparently is referring." The note thus proceeded:

"Therefore, the Austro-Hungarian Government must leave it to the Washington Cabinet to draw up the individual legal maxims which the commander of the submarine is alleged to have violated when sinking the Ancona.

"The American Government also thought it advisable to point out the attitude which the Berlin Cabinet in the before-mentioned exchange of correspondence had taken. In the highly esteemed note the Austro-Hungarian Government finds no support for this course. If the American Government should have intended thereby to express an opinion as if a precedent exists for the present case, the Austro-Hungarian Government, in order to prevent misunderstandings, must declare that it, of course, must preserve full liberty to urge its own legal interpretations during the discussion of the Ancona case."

This was a virtual refusal by Austria-Hungary to be bound by or concerned with the submarine agreement between her ally and the United States. As viewed through German-American eyes (the "New Yorker Herold"), the Austrian answer represented "a very sharp censure of a dilettante diplomacy which desires to negotiate and expects plain replies before the most essential preliminaries are given. The tenor of the Vienna note is in substance this: 'We are willing to negotiate, but first you must furnish us with the necessary material—undebatable material at that.' It is quite comprehensible that Washington is peeved at this censure."

Austria's demand for a "bill of particulars" was aptly expressed in this hostile view of the American note. The United States declined to accede to the request, which was viewed as a resort to the evasive methods practiced by Germany, but rested its case on the Austrian admiralty's self-condemning admission that the Ancona was sunk while people were still on board her. Nor would the American Government assent to the Austrian proposal that the two governments "exchange views" as to the legality of the act as described by the Austrian admiralty. President Wilson and his advisers saw no loophole for argument as to the justification or otherwise of a submarine sinking an unarmed merchantman with passengers on board her when the vessel was at a standstill.

Hence the second American note sent on December 19, 1915, was confined to a simple issue. The Government brushed aside the questions Austria raised as immaterial to the main fact based on the incriminating report of her own admiralty. The Austrian Government was informed that the admission that the Ancona was torpedoed after her engines had been stopped and while passengers remained on her was alone sufficient to fix the blame on the submarine commander. His culpability was established.

"The rules of international law," the American note continued, "and the principles of humanity which were thus willfully violated by the commander of the submarine have been so long and so universally recognized and are so manifest from the standpoint of right and justice that the Government of the United States does not feel called upon to debate them and does not understand that the Imperial and Royal Government questions or disputes them.

"The Government of the United States therefore finds no other course open to it but to hold the Imperial and Royal Government responsible for the act of its naval commander and to renew the definite but respectful demands made in its communication of the 6th of December, 1915."

Firing a torpedo from the deck of a German destroyer. The torpedo has just left the tube. Dropping into the water it will continue its course, like a small submarine boat, straight to its mark.