follows:

"I should add that my Government is impressed with the reasonableness
of the argument that a merchant vessel carrying an armament of any
sort, in view of the character of submarine warfare and the defensive
weakness of undersea craft, should be held to be an auxiliary cruiser
and so treated by a neutral as well as by a belligerent Government,
and is seriously considering instructing its officials accordingly."

Although this Memorandum bears no historical weight I deal with it
in detail here because it plated a leading part before the Committee
of the National Assembly as a proof that no confidence could be
placed in Mr. Wilson as a peace mediator.

I have no doubt that the Memorandum was intended to carry on the
policy of the American Notes of the 21st July and 21st October,
1915, which had given rise to the American struggle for the "Freedom
of the Seas." It was not, however, in keeping with Mr. Wilson's
usual methods to make such a sharp thrust at the Entente as the
concluding paragraph of the Memorandum represented, so long as the
negotiations with me on the subject of the _Lusitania_ incident
were not yet concluded and so long as it was not absolutely sure
of the support of public opinion. Just as the Note of the 21st
October, 1915, was not sent to London until the President thought
he had cleared the way with respect to us by the settlement of
the _Arabic_ question, so in January, 1916, he wanted to keep his
hands free until the chance of a conflict with us was past. The
popular saying in America is that Wilson has a single-line brain
and only deals with one matter at a time. Moreover, out of regard
for the state of public feeling in the country the President wanted
to take each political step without being openly coerced by us. It
is not my intention to defend Mr. Wilson's conception of neutrality
to-day, after I have opposed it for years, but I will only attempt,
without any personal ill-will, to contribute to Klio's work of
discovering the real truth. To me personally the matter of paramount
interest today, as at that time, is not what Mr. Wilson did or did
not do, but the question what we ought to have done in the interest
of Germany.

I shall often have to return to the developments which, after the
31st January, 1917, made the President our open enemy. If we wish
to be lovers of truth we must distinguish sharply between the two
periods before and after the 31st January, 1917. It is certa