For the Supreme Command, however, it was not the military but the political reasons which were the determining factor. These invisible attacks were meant to give an opportunity of denying before neutrals that the sinkings were due to submarines, and of tracing them back to mines. This actually happened in some cases. I do not think so. In view of the repeated accusations which the prosecution has built up here and elsewhere from the camouflaging of measures, the denial of facts, I feel obliged to make a few remarks on the point as to whether there is any obligation at all in international politics to tell the truth.
Dissimulation is absolutely necessary and unavoidable.
First of all, since that would have come to the knowledge of the enemy too, we should have lost the military advantage which lay in the misleading of his defence. In view of the fact that some of the neutrals concerned were so dependent on England, they would probably not have recognized the German viewpoint as to the legitimacy of the operational areas, especially since this viewpoint was contrary to their own interests. It would have led to political tensions and, possibly, to armed conflicts. Our enemies would have derived the only immediate advantage from it. From the standpoint of the law this endeavour to camouflage the use of submarines even from the neutrals does not seem objectionable to me.