THE U-53'S EXPLOITS

While the German Budget Committee was thus occupied a new and startling turn was given to the situation by the unheralded appearance at Newport, R. I., on October 7, 1916, of a German submarine, the U-53. Rising out of the water in the afternoon, it remained long enough for its captain to deliver a missive for Count von Bernstorff, the German Ambassador, pay a call on Admiral Knight, the American commander there, ask for news of the missing Bremen, and obtain a sheaf of New York newspapers for information regarding Allied shipping. Then it left the port, whither it had been piloted, and disappeared under the waves. The visit, standing by itself, was an interesting episode; but it proved to be much more than a mere social call.

The next day revealed the real object of the submarine's presence in American waters. Off Nantucket it appeared in its true guise as a raider of shipping and sank five vessels—three British, one Dutch, and one Norwegian. Having thus brought the submarine war to the very threshold of the United States, causing a reign of terror among held-up shipping along the Atlantic seaboard—a state of mind which, while it lasted, meant a virtual blockade of American ports—it disappeared and was not again heard of.

There was no doubt that the exploits of the U-53 were intended as a demonstration to test American feeling as to whether Germany could attack on this side of the water munition and other vessels bound for Allied ports. It appeared a bold attempt to create a new precedent by overriding one laid down in 1870 by President Grant, who ruled that American waters must not be used by other nations for belligerent purposes. Outside the three-mile limit, however, German submarines could operate with the same impunity as in the Arctic Ocean, so long as they observed the requirement of giving warning and allowing people on board the intercepted vessels time to save their lives. But the manifest point was that the waters outside the three-mile limit were contiguous to the American coast, and provided highways for American shipping, coastwise and foreign. The proximity of German submarines, even though they confined their attention to Allied shipping to and from American ports, constituted too great a menace to the free movement of the American mercantile marine.

A wolf at a man's door is none the less dangerous because the wolf is lying in wait for the appearance of an inmate of the man's house and not for the man himself. Informal intimations persuaded Germany that she could not safely repeat the experiment of carrying the war to America's door.

The innovation, even in its most innocuous form, was contrary to good international usage. Great Britain had previously offended in this respect by permitting her patrolling cruisers to intercept and examine merchant vessels off the port of New York. She desisted at Washington's request. But a waiting cruiser, plain to the eye, interfering with shipping to prevent communication with Germany, was a mild offender compared with an unseen submarine crossing the paths of ships and liable to err in its indiscriminate destructiveness.

Fortunately, no American lives were lost. But this was not the fault of the submarine. No question could be raised of its behavior in sinking four of the five ships, namely, the Strathdene (British freighter), bound from New York to Bordeaux; the West Point (British freighter), bound from London to Newport News; the Bloomersdijk (Dutch freighter), bound from New York to Rotterdam; and the Christian Knudsen (Norwegian freighter), bound from New York to London. The danger, happily averted, to American-German relations lay in the sinking of the fifth vessel, the Stephano, a British passenger liner plying regularly between New York, Halifax, N. S., and St. John's, Newfoundland. Among the Stephano's passengers were a number of Americans, who, like their companions in misfortune, had to seek the doubtful safety of small boats miles offshore.

The situation was saved by the presence of American destroyers in the vicinity. Their commanders and crews were actual witnesses of the sinking, and afterward interposed as life savers of the shipwrecked victims. The Balch rescued the passengers and crew of the Stephano, numbering 140, and other destroyers took on board the crews of the four freighters. The American navy in saving Germany's victims had saved Germany from facing the consequences of her behavior in jeopardizing the lives of Americans on board the Stephano. German diplomacy was even capable of pointing to the fact that the prompt relief afforded the Stephano's passengers by American destroyers was proof that the submarine commander had safeguarded their lives by relying upon the American navy as a rescuer. The irony of such a contention lay in the implication that if American destroyers had not been on the scene the vessels might have been spared.

It was a short-lived panic. The U-53 came and went in a flash; but amid the scare created by its presence President Wilson found it necessary to assure the country that "the German Government will be held to the complete fulfillment of its promise to the Government of the United States. I have no right now," he added, "to question its willingness to fulfill them."

The Administration's deliberations on the subject produced the decision that the U-53 had not ignored the German pledges. It came, saw, and conquered according to formula. It had first warned the vessels, gave enough time for the people on board to be "safely" transferred to boats, and there were American naval eyewitnesses to testify as to the regularity of its proceedings. The incident passed as one on which no action could be taken by the United States. But Germany saw that it could not well be repeated. American sensibilities had to be respected as much as international proprieties. The reproof conveyed to the British Ambassador by Secretary Lansing that "the constant and menacing presence of cruisers on the high seas near the ports of a neutral country may be regarded according to the canons of international courtesy as a just ground for offense, although it may be strictly legal," applied with double force to the presence of German submarines because of their greater danger.

Tart comments on the incident came from Great Britain, though its Government did not appear to have protested to the United States against the view that the U-53's proceedings were lawful and regular.

Lord Robert Cecil, an official spokesman, saw a ruse in the submarine's visit:

"German public opinion appears to be obsessed with the idea that the way to deal with the Allied blockade is to have a succession of sudden crises with neutrals, which may be used for striking diplomatic bargains. These bargains, in the mind of Germany, always take one form—that Germany is to refrain from violating international law and humanity in return for the abandonment by Great Britain as toward neutrals of the legitimate military and naval measures of the Allies."

In the House of Lords the United States was accused of a breach of neutrality by Lords Beresford and Sydenham. Referring to "the activities of the U-53 under the very eyes of the American navy" and to President Wilson's ultimatum which resulted in the German pledge, Lord Sydenham said:

"Even before the exploits of the U-53 that pledge was torn to shreds. Yet the Government of the United States has made no sign whatever that the sinking of neutral ships goes on almost every day. What must small neutrals think of their powerful representative?"

No life, he said, was lost because of the presence of American warships. Lord Sydenham took the position that the presence of American warships actually enabled Germany to defy what President Wilson had described as a sacred and indisputable rule of international law.

Lord Beresford expressed a similar view:

"The United States are really aiding and abetting this rather serious state of affairs. If the United States had not sent their ships, which for some extraordinary reason happened to be on the spot, to save life, the Germans would no doubt have broken the pledge to which their attention had been called. I think we are bound to take notice of a fact which does not appear to be quite within the bounds of neutrality as far as the United States are concerned."

Lord Grey, Foreign Secretary, declined to commit the Government to such an attitude. He held that the American-German undertaking was no affair of Great Britain's.

It was left for the spectator to be truly prophetic, as the later peace movement showed, in seeking a motive for the U-53's proceedings. It considered that Germany sought to force the United States to propose peace terms, regardless of whether the Entente Allies were agreeable or not:

"Thus, with unrestricted submarine warfare as a settled policy, Germany gives America warning of what is likely to happen unless the United States is prepared to declare that the war has reached a point where it is dangerous for neutrals. If the United States is willing to play this rÔle, the Germans will hold their hands from an extra dose of unlimited submarine frightfulness."

The U-53 had no sooner gone when an exchange of communications between the American and Allied governments regarding the status of foreign submarines in neutral ports became public. The question related to the hospitality accorded the Deutschland in Baltimore and New London; but as it arose in the midst of the hubbub occasioned by the U-53, the American view appeared to determine that such craft could call at an American port like any other armed vessel, so long as it did not stay beyond the allotted time.

The Allied governments besought neutrals, the United States among them, to forbid belligerent submarine vessels, "whatever the purpose to which they are put," from making use of neutral waters, roadsteads, and ports. Such craft could navigate and remain at sea submerged, could escape control and observation, avoid identification and having their national character established to determine whether they were neutral or belligerent, combatant or noncombatant. The capacity for harm inherent in the nature of such vessels therefore required, in the view of the Allied governments, that they should be excluded from the benefit of rules hitherto recognized by the laws of nations governing the admission of war or merchant vessels to neutral waters and their sojourn in them. Hence if any belligerent submarine entered a neutral port it should be interned. The point was further made that grave danger was incurred by neutral submarines in the navigation of regions frequented by belligerent submarines.

The American answer was brusque, and resentful of the attempt of the Allies to dictate the attitude neutrals should take toward submarines which visited their harbors. The governments of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan were informed that they had not "set forth any circumstances, nor is the Government of the United States at present aware of any circumstances, concerning the use of war or merchant submarines which would render the existing rules of international law inapplicable to them." Moreover, "so far as the treatment of either war or merchant submarines in American waters is concerned, the Government of the United States reserves its liberty of action in all respects and will treat such vessels as, in its opinion, becomes the action of a power which may be said to have taken the first steps toward establishing the principles of neutrality."

Finally, as to the danger to neutral submarines in waters frequented by belligerent submarines, it was the duty of belligerents to distinguish between them, and responsibility for any conflict arising from neglect to do so must rest upon the negligent power.

This caustic exchange of views on harboring submarines took place before the appearance of the U-53. Had the Allies deferred approaching the United States until after that event, the situation favored the belief that the submarine's behavior would have dictated a different reply from Washington. Indeed, there was a strong presumption that if another German armed submarine had the temerity to visit an American port it might have been promptly interned, not under international law, but at the behest of public opinion.[Back to Contents]