THE BERNHARDI OF THE SEAS

After the break in diplomatic relations the slogan of German Militarism became:

“Win or lose, we must end the war.”

To many observers it seemed to be insanity coupled with desperation which caused the Kaiser to defy the United States. There was no doubt that Germany was desperate, economically, morally and militarily. While war had led German armies far into enemy territory, it had destroyed German influence throughout the world; it had lost Germany’s colonies and Pacific possessions and it had turned the opinion of the world against Germany. But during the time Germany was trying to impress the United States with its sincerity after the Sussex incident the German Navy was building submarines. It was not building these ships to be used in cruiser warfare. It was building them for the future, when submarine war would be launched on a big scale, perhaps on a bigger scale than it had ever before been conducted.

After the new blockade of the Allied Coast was proclaimed, effective Fe, 1917, some explanation had to be made to convince the public that the submarine war would be successful and would bring the victory which the people had been promised. The public was never informed directly what the arguments were which convinced the Kaiser that he could win the war by using submarines. But on the 9th of February there appeared a small book written by Rear Admiral Hollweg entitled: “Unser Recht auf den Ubootkrieg.” (Our Right in Submarine Warfare.) The manuscript of this book was concluded on the 15th of January, which shows that the data which it contained and the information and arguments presented were those which the Admiralty placed before the Kaiser on his birthday. The points which Rear Admiral Hollweg makes in his book are:

1. America’s unfriendly neutrality justifies a disregard of the United States;

2. The loss of merchant ships is bringing about a crisis in the military and economic conditions of the Allies;

3. England, as the heart of the Entente, must be harmed before peace can be made;

4. Submarines can and must end the war.

This book is for the German people a naval text book as General von Bernhardi’s book, “Germany and the Next War,” was a military text book. Bernhardi’s task was to school Germany into the belief in the unbeatableness of the German army. Hollweg’s book is to teach the German people what their submarines will accomplish and to steal the people for the plans her military leaders will propose and carry through on this basis.

The keynote of Hollweg’s arguments is taken from the words of the German song: “Der Gott der Eisen wachsen Liesz,” written by Ernst Moritz Arndt. Hollweg quotes this sentence on page 23:

“Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken, als ein Schrecken ohne Ende.”

("Rather an end with Terror than Terror without End.”)

In the chapter on “The Submarine War and Victory” the writer presents the following table:

Status of merchant ships in 1914:

Sunk or
Captured Percentage

England (Exclusive of
colonies) ..........    19,256,766    2,977,820      15.
France ..............    2,319,438      376,360       16.
Russia ..............     1,053,818      146,168        13.
Italy ...............       1,668,296       314,290       18.
Belgium .............    352,124          32,971         9.
Japan ...............      1,708,386       37,391         0.22

(Figures for De estimated)
The World Tonnage at beginning of war was.... 49,089,
Added 1914-16 by new construction............ 2,000,
----------
51,089,553

Of this not useable are:

Tonnage Germany ... 5,459,
Austria ... 1,055,
Turkey ... 133,158

In Germany and Turkey
held enemy
shipping .......... 200,000

Ships in U. S. A... 2,352,764

Locked in Baltic and
Black Sea .........    700,000

Destroyed enemy
tonnage ...........  3,885,
----------
Total             13,785,937

Destroyed neutral
tonnage (estimated) 900,
----------
14,685,937

Requisitioned by enemy countries for war purposes, transports, etc.

England .......  9,000,
France ........  1,400,
Italy .........  1,100,
Russia ........    400,
Belgium .......    250,
----------
12,150,
----------
26,835,
----------
Remaining for world freight transmission still
useable at the beginning of 1917............  24,253,615 tons

To the Entente argument that Germany has not considered the speedy construction of merchant ships during war time the author replies by citing Lloyd’s List of December 29, 1916, which gave the following tonnage as having been completed in British wharves:

1913 ..........  1,977,000 tons
1914 ..........  1,722,000 tons
1915 ..........    649,000 tons
1916 ..........    582,000 tons

“These figures demonstrate that England, which is the leader of the world as a freight carrier is being harmed the most.” Admiral Hollweg cites these figures to show that ship construction has decreased in England and that England cannot make good ship losses by new construction.

“We are conducting to-day a war against enemy merchant vessels different from the methods of former wars only in part by ordinary warships. The chief method is by submarines based upon the fundamentals of international law as dictated by German prize court regulations. The German prize regulations were at the beginning of the war based upon the fundamental principles of the London Declaration and respected the modern endeavours of all civilised states to decrease the terrors of war. These regulations of sea laws were written to decrease the effects of the unavoidable consequences of sea warfare upon non-combatants and neutrals. As far as there have been changes in the regulations of the London Declaration during the war, especially as far as changes in the contraband list have been extended, we Germans have religiously followed the principle set by the English of, ’an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’”

“Americans would under no circumstances, not even to-day, if they were faced by a superior sea power in war, refuse to follow this method of warfare by the ruthless use of pirate ships. May our submarine campaign be an example for them! The clever cruiser journey of U-53 off the Atlantic Coast gave them clearly to understand what this method was. Legally they cannot complain of this warfare. The other neutrals cannot complain either against such sea warfare because they have ever since the Middle Ages recognised the English method of sea warfare.”

“Before there is a discussion of our legal right to the submarine warfare a brief review of the general policies of our opponents during the war will be given. This account shall serve the purpose of fortifying the living feeling within us of our natural right and of our duty to use all weapons ruthlessly.

“If we did not know before the publication of the Entente Note [The Allies’ peace reply to Germany] what we were up against, now we know. The mask fell. Now we have confirmation of the intentions to rob and conquer us which, caused the individual entente nations to league together and conduct the war. The neutrals will now see the situation more clearly. For us it is war, literally to be or not to be a German nation. Never did such an appeal [The Entente Note] find such a fruitful echo in German hearts. . . .”

“I begin with England, our worst enemy.”

Admiral Hollweg speaks of the fact that at the beginning of the war many Germans, especially those in banking and business circles, felt that Germany was so indispensable to England in peace time that England would not conduct a war to “knock out” Germany. But Hollweg says the situation has now changed.

He justifies the ruthless submarine warfare in the following way:

“It is known that England and her allies declared at the beginning of the war that they would adhere to the Declaration of London. It is just as well known that England and the Allies changed this declaration through the Orders in Council and other lawless statements of authority until the declaration was unrecognisable and worthless especially the spirit and purpose of the agreement were flatly pushed aside until practically nothing more remains of the marine laws as codified in 1909. The following collection of flagrant breaches of international law will show who first broke marine laws during the war.”

“Ten gross violations of marine law in war time by England.

“1. Violation of Article IV of the Maritime Declaration of April 16th, 1855. Blockading of neutral harbours in violation of international law.

“2. Violation of Article II of the same declarations by the confiscation of enemy property aboard neutral ships. See Order in Council, March 11th, 1915.

“3. Declaration of the North Sea as a war zone. British Admiralty Declaration, November 3, 1914.

“4. England regarded food as contraband since the beginning of the war. The starvation war. England confiscated neutral food en route to neutral states whenever there was a possibility that it would reach the enemy. This violated the recognised fundamental principles of the freedom of the seas.

“5. Attempt to prevent all communications between Germany and neutral countries through the violation of international law and the seizing of mail.

“6. Imprisonment of German reservists aboard neutral ships.

“7. a. Violation of Article I of The Hague Convention by the confiscation of the German hospital ship Ophelia. b. Murdering of submarine crew upon command of British auxiliary cruiser Baralong. c. Violation of Article XXIX, N, of London Declaration by preventing American Red Cross from sending supplies to the German Red Cross.

“8. a. Destruction of German cruisers Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse in Spanish territorial waters by English cruiser Highflyer. b. Destruction of German cruiser Dresden in Chinese waters by British cruiser Glasgow. c. Attack of British warships on German ship Paklas in Norwegian waters.

“9. England armed her merchant ships for attack.

“10. Use of neutral flags and signs by British merchantmen in violation of Articles II and III of the Paris Declaration.”

After discussing the question of whether the English blockade has been effective and arguing that England by seizing neutral ships with food on the supposition that the food was going to Germany, he says:

“We may conclude from these facts that we Germans can now consider ourselves freed from the uncomfortable conditions of the London Declaration and may conduct the war as our own interests prescribe. We have already partially done this in as much as we followed the English example of extending the lists of war contraband. This has been inconvenient for the neutrals affected and they have protested against it. We may, however, consider that they will henceforth respect our proposals just as they have in the past accepted English interests. England demanded from them that they assist her because England was fighting for the future of neutrals and of justice. We will take this principle also as basis for what we do and even await thereby that we will compel England to grant us the kind of peace which can lay new foundations for sea warfare and that for the future the military acts of belligerents against neutrals will not be carried to the extremes they have been for centuries because of England’s superior sea power. This new era of civilised warfare we bring under the term ’freedom of the seas.’”

Hollweg’s next justification of the unlimited submarine warfare is that Secretary of State Lansing in a note to Count von Bernstorff at first said merchant ships could not be armed and then changed his mind.

Hollweg says: “And now in discussing the question of the legal position of the submarine as a warship I cite here the statements of the German authority on international law, Professor Dr. Niemeyer, who said: ’There can be absolutely no question but that the submarine is permitted. It is a means of war similar to every other one. The frightfulness of the weapon was never a ground of condemnation. This is a war in which everything is permitted, which is not forbidden.’”

“The Submarine War and Victory” the author says:

“Every great deed carries with it a certain amount of risk. After the refusal of our peace proposal we have only the choice of victory with the use of all of our strength and power, or, the submission to the destructive conditions of our opponents.”

He adds that his statements shall prove to the reader that Germany can continue the hard relentless battle with the greatest possibility and confidence of a final victory which will break the destructive tendencies of the Entente and guarantee a peace which Germany needs for her future existence.

“All food prices in England have increased on the average 80% in price, they are for example considerably higher in England than in Germany. A world wide crop failure in Canada and Argentine made the importation of food for England more difficult.

“England earns in this war as opposed to other wars, nothing. Part of her industrial workers are under arms, the others are working in making war munitions for her own use, not, however, for the export of valuable wares.”

Admiral Hollweg has a clever theory that the German fleet has played a prominent role in the war, although most of the time it has been hugging the coasts of the Fatherland. He declares that the fleet has had a “distance effect” upon the Allies’ control of the high seas.

“What I mean in extreme by ‘fernwirkung’ [distance effect] I will show here by an example. The English and French attack on Constantinople failed. It can at least be doubted whether at that time when the connection between Germany and Turkey was not established a strong English naval unit would have brought the attack success. The necessity of not withdrawing the English battleships from the North Sea prevented England from using a more powerful unit at Constantinople. To this extent the German battle fleet was not without influence in the victory for the defender of Constantinople. That is ‘distance effect.’”

On page 187 Hollweg declares: “England not only does not make money to-day by war but she is losing. The universal military service which she was forced to introduce in order to hold the other Allies by the tongue draws from her industry and thereby her commerce, 3,500,000 workmen. Coal exportation has decreased. During the eleven months from January to November, 1916, 4,500,000 tons less coal was exported than in 1915. In order to produce enough coal for England herself the nation was compelled by the munitions obligation law to put miners to work.”

“That is, therefore, the great and important role which the submarines in this war are playing. They are serving also to pave the way in the future for the ‘freedom of the seas.’”

He adds that the submarines will cut the thread which holds the English Damocles’ sword over weak sea powers and that for eternity the “gruesome hands” of English despotism will be driven from the seas.

Germany’s submarine warfare which was introduced in February, 1915, began by sinking less than 50,000 tons of ships per month. By November, 1915, the amount of tonnage destroyed per month was close to 200,000 tons. By January, 1916, the tonnage of ships destroyed by submarines had fallen to under 100,000 tons. In April, 1916, as Grand Admiral von Tirpitz’ followers made one more effort to make the submarine warfare successful, nearly 275,000 tons were being destroyed a month. But after the sinking of the Sussex and the growing possibilities of war with the United States the submarine warfare was again held back and in July less than 125,000 tons of shipping were destroyed.

At this time, however, the submarine campaign itself underwent a change. Previously most of the ships destroyed were sunk off the coast of England, France or in the Mediterranean. During the year and a half of the submarine campaign the Allies’ method of catching and destroying submarines became so effective it was too costly to maintain submarine warfare in belligerent waters. The German Navy had tried all kinds of schemes but none was very successful. After the sinking of the Ancona the Admiralty planned for two submarines to work together, but this was not as successful as it might have been. During May, June and July the submarine warfare was practically given up as the losses of ships during those months will show. There was a steep decline from a quarter of a million tons in April to less than 140,000 tons in May, about 125,000 tons in June and not much more than 100,000 tons in July.

During these three months the Navy was being bitterly criticised for its inactivity. But as the events six months later will show the German navy simply used these months to prepare for a much stronger submarine campaign which was to begin in August. By this time it was decided, however, not to risk a submarine campaign off the Allied coasts but to operate in the Atlantic, off the coasts of Spain and Norway. This method of submarine warfare proved very successful and by November, 1916, Germany was sinking over 425,000 tons of ships per month.

During this swell in the success of the submarine campaign the U-53 was despatched across the Atlantic to operate off the United States coasts.

U-53 was sent here for two purposes: First, it was to demonstrate to the American people that, in event of war, submarines could work terror off the Atlantic coast. Second, it was to show the naval authorities whether their plans for an attack on American shipping would be practical. U-53 failed to terrorise the United States, but it proved to the Admiralty that excursions to American waters were feasible.

On February 1, when the Kaiser defied the United States by threatening all neutral shipping in European waters, Germany had four hundred undersea boats completed or in course of construction. This included big U-boats, like the U-53, with a cruising radius of five thousand miles, and the smaller craft, with fifteen-day radius, for use against England, as well as supply ships and mine layers. But not all these were ready for use against the Allies and the United States at that time. About one hundred were waiting for trained crews or were being completed in German shipyards.

It was often said in Berlin that the greatest loss when a submarine failed to return was the crew. It required more time to train the men than to build the submarine. According to Germany’s new method of construction, a submarine can be built in fifteen days. Parts are stamped out in the factories and assembled at the wharves. But it takes from sixty to ninety days to educate the men and get them accustomed to the seasick motion of the U-boats. Besides, it requires experienced officers to train the new men.

To meet this demand Germany began months ago to train men who could man the newest submarines. So a school was established a School of Submarine Murder and for many months the man who torpedoed the Lusitania was made chief of the staff of educators. It was a new task for German kultur.

For the German people the lessons of the Lusitania have been exactly opposite those normal people would learn. The horror of non-combatants going down on a passenger liner, sunk without warning, was nothing to be compared to the heroism of aiming the torpedo and running away. Sixty-eight million Germans think their submarine officers and crews are the greatest of the great.

When the Berlin Foreign Office announced, after the sinking of the Sussex, that the ruthless torpedoing of ships would be stopped the German statesmen meant this method would be discontinued until there were sufficient submarines to defy the United States. At once the German navy, which has always been anti-American, began building submarines night and day. Every one in the Government knew the time would come when Germany would have to break its Sussex pledge.

The German navy early realised the need for trained men, so it recalled, temporarily, for educational work the man who sank the Lusitania.

“But, who sank the Lusitania?” you ask.

“The torpedo which sank the Lusitania and killed over one hundred Americans and hundreds of other noncombatants was fired by Oberleutnant zur See (First Naval Lieutenant) Otto Steinbrink, commander of one of the largest German submarines.”

“Was he punished?” you ask.

“Kaiser Wilhelm decorated him with the highest military order, the Pour lé Mérite!”

“Where is Steinbrink now?”

“On December 8, 1916, the German Admiralty announced that he had just returned from a special trip, having torpedoed and mined twenty-two ships on one voyage.”

“What had he been doing?”

“For several months last summer he trained officers and crews in this branch of warfare, which gained him international notoriety.”

It is said that Steinbrink has trained more naval men than any other submarine commander. If this be true, is there any wonder that Germany should be prepared to conduct a ruthless submarine warfare throughout the world? Is it surprising that American ships should be sunk, American citizens murdered and the United States Government defied when the German navy has been employing the man who murdered the passengers of the Lusitania as the chief instructor of submarine murderers?

The Krupp interests have played a leading role in the war, not only by manufacturing billions of shells and cannon, and by financing propaganda in the United States, but by building submarines. At the Krupp wharves at Kiel some of the best undersea craft are launched. Other shipyards at Bremen, Hamburg and Danzig have been mobilised for this work, too. Just a few weeks before diplomatic relations were broken a group of American doctors, who were investigating prison camp conditions, went to Danzig. Here they learned that the twelve wharves there were building between 45 and 50 submarines annually. These were the smaller type for use in the English Channel. At Hamburg the Hamburg-American Line wharves were mobilised for submarine construction also. At the time diplomatic relations were severed observers in Germany estimated that 250 submarines were being launched annually and that preparations were being made greatly to increase this number.

Submarine warfare is a very exact and difficult science. Besides the skilled captain, competent first officers, wireless operators and artillerymen, engineers are needed. Each man, too, must be a “seadog.” Some of the smaller submarines toss like tubs when they reach the ocean and only toughened seamen can stand the “wear and tear.” Hence the weeks and months which are necessary to put the men in order before they leave home for their first excursion in sea murder.

But Germany has learned a great deal during two years of hit-and-miss submarine campaigns. When von Tirpitz began, in 1915, he ordered his men to work off the coasts of England. Then so many submarines were lost it became a dangerous and expensive military operation. The Allies began to use great steel nets, both as traps and as protection to warships. The German navy learned this within a very short time, and the military engineers were ordered to perfect a torpedo which would go through a steel net. The first invention was a torpedo with knives on the nose. When the nose hit the net there was a minor explosion. The knives were sent through the net, permitting the torpedo to continue on its way. Then the Allies doubled the nets, and two sets of knives were attached to the German torpedoes. But gradually the Allies employed nets as traps. These were anchored or dragged by fishing boats. Some submarines have gotten inside, been juggled around, but have escaped. More, perhaps, have been lost this way.

Then, when merchant ships began to carry armament, the periscopes were shot away, so the navy invented a so-called “finger-periscope,” a thin rod pipe with a mirror at one end. This rod could he shoved out from the top of the submarine and used for observation purposes in case the big periscope was destroyed. From time to time there were other inventions. As the submarine fleet grew the means of communicating with each other while submerged at sea were perfected. Copper plates were fastened fore and aft on the outside of submarines, and it was made possible for wireless messages to be sent through the water at a distance of fifty miles.

A submarine cannot aim at a ship without some object as a sight. So one submarine often acted as a “sight” for the submarine firing the torpedo. Submarines, which at first were unarmed, were later fitted with armour plate and cannon were mounted on deck. The biggest submarines now carry 6-inch guns.

Like all methods of ruthless warfare the submarine campaign can be and will be for a time successful. Germany’s submarine warfare today is much more successful than the average person realises. By December, 1916, for instance, the submarines were sinking a half million tons of ships a month. In January, 1917, over 600,000 tons were destroyed. On February nearly 800,000 tons were lost. The destruction of ships means a corresponding destruction of cargoes, of many hundreds of thousands of tons. When Germany decided the latter part of January to begin a ruthless campaign German authorities calculated they could sink an average of 600,000 tons per month and that in nine months nearly 6,000,000 tons of shipping could be sent to the bottom of the ocean, then the Allies would be robbed of the millions of tons of goods which these ships could carry.

In any military campaign one of the biggest problems is the transportation of troops and supplies. Germany during this war has had to depend upon her railroads; the Allies have depended upon ships. Germany looked at her own military situation and saw that if the Allies could destroy as many railroad cars as Germany expected to sink ships, Germany would be broken up and unable to continue the war. Germany believed ships were to the Allies what railroad carriages are to Germany.

The General Staff looked at the situation from other angles. During the winter there was a tremendous coal shortage in France and Italy. There had been coal riots in Paris and Rome. The Italian Government was so in need of coal that it had to confiscate even private supplies. The Grand Hotel in Rome, for instance, had to give up 300 tons which it had in its coal bins. In 1915 France had been importing 2,000,000 tons of coal a month across the Channel from England. Because of the ordinary loss of tonnage the French coal imports dropped 400,000 tons per month. Germany calculated that if she could decrease England’s coal exports 400,000 tons a month by an ordinary submarine campaign that she could double it by a ruthless campaign.

Germany was looking forward to the Allied offensive which was expected this Spring. Germany knew that the Allies would need troops and ammunition. She knew that to manufacture ammunition and war supplies coal was needed. Germany calculated that if the coal importations to France could be cut down a million tons a month France would not be able to manufacture the necessary ammunition for an offensive lasting several months.

Germany knew that England and France were importing thousands of tons of war supplies and food from the United States. Judging from the German newspapers which I read at this time every one in Germany had the impression that the food situation in England and France was almost as bad as in Germany. Even Ambassador Gerard had somewhat the same impression. When he left Germany for Switzerland on his way to Spain, he took two cases of eggs which he had purchased in Denmark. One night at a reception in Berne, one of the American women in the Gerard party asked the French Ambassador whether France really had enough food! If the Americans coming from Germany had the impression that the Allies were sorely in need of supplies one can see how general the impression must have been throughout Germany.

When I was in Paris I was surprised to see so much food and to see such a variety. Paris appeared to be as normal in this respect as Copenhagen or Rotterdam. But I was told by American women who were keeping house there that it was becoming more and more difficult to get food.

After Congress declared war it became evident for the first time that the Allies really did need war supplies and food from the United States more than they needed anything else. London and Paris officials publicly stated that this was the kind of aid the Allies really needed. It became evident, too, that the Allies not only needed the food but that they needed ships to carry supplies across the Atlantic. One of the first things President Wilson did was to approve plans for the construction of a fleet of 3,000 wooden ships practically to bridge the Atlantic.

During the first three months of 1917 submarine warfare was a success in that it so decreased the ship tonnage and the importations of the Allies that they needed American co-operation and assistance. So the United States really enters the war at the critical and decisive stage. Germany believes she can continue to sink ships faster than they can be built, but Germany did not calculate upon a fleet of wooden bottom vessels being built in the United States to make up for the losses. Germany did not expect the United States to enter the war with all the vigour and energy of the American people. Germany calculated upon internal troubles, upon opposition to the war and upon the pacifists to have America make as many mistakes as England did during the first two years of the war. But the United States has learned and profited by careful observation in Europe. Just as England’s declaration of war on Germany in support of Belgium and France was a surprise to Germany; just as the shipment of war supplies by American firms to the Allies astonished Germany, so will the construction of 3,000 wooden vessels upset the calculations of the German General Staff.

While American financial assistance will be a great help to the Allies that will not affect the German calculations because when the Kaiser and his Generals decided on the 27th of January to damn all neutrals, German financiers were not consulted.

Neither did the German General Staff count upon the Russian Revolution going against them. Germany had expected a revolution there, but Germany bet upon the Czar and the Czar’s German wife. As Lieutenant Colonel von Haeften, Chief Military Censor in Berlin, told the correspondents, Germany calculated upon the internal troubles in Russia aiding her. But the Allies and the people won the Russian Revolution. Germany’s hopes that the Czar might again return to power or that the people might overthrow their present democratic leaders will come to naught now that America has declared war and thrown her tremendous and unlimited moral influence behind the Allies and with the Russian people.

Rear Admiral Hollweg’s calculations that 24,253,615 tons of shipping remained for the world freight transmission at the beginning of 1917, did not take into consideration confiscation by the United States of nearly 2,500,000 tons of German and Austrian shipping in American ports. He did not expect the United States to build 3,000 new ships in 1917. He did not expect the United States to purchase the ships under construction in American wharves for neutral European countries.

The German submarine campaign, like all other German “successes,” will be temporary. Every time the General Staff has counted upon “ultimate victory” it has failed to take into consideration the determination of the enemy. Germany believed that the world could be “knocked out” by big blows. Germany thought when she destroyed and invaded Belgium and northern France that these two countries would not be able to “come back.” Germany thought when she took Warsaw and a great part of western Russia that Russia would not he able to continue the war. Germany figured that after the invasion of Roumania and Servia that these two countries would not need to be considered seriously in the future. Germany believed that her submarine campaign would be successful before the United States could come to the aid of the Allies. German hope of “ultimate victory” has been postponed ever since September, 1914, when von Kluck failed to take Paris. And Germany’s hopes for an “ultimate victory” this summer before the United States can get into the war will be postponed so long that Germany will make peace not on her own terms but upon the terms which the United States of Democracy of the Whole World will dictate.

One day in Paris I met Admiral LeCaze, the Minister of Marine, in his office in the Admiralty. He discussed the submarine warfare from every angle. He said the Germans, when they figured upon so many tons of shipping and of supplies destroyed by submarines, failed to take into consideration the fact that over 100 ships were arriving daily at French ports and that over 5,000,000 tons of goods were being brought into France monthly.

When I explained to him what it appeared to me would be the object of the German ruthless campaign he said:

“Germany cannot win the war by her submarine campaign or by any other weapon. That side will win which holds out one week, one day or one hour longer than the other.”

And this Admiral, who, dressed in civilian clothes, looked more like a New York financier than a naval officer, leaned forward in his chair, looked straight at me and concluded the interview by saying:

“The Allies will win.”