« ПретходнаНастави »
ished Belgium. We cannot forget Liege, Louvain and Cardinal Mercier. Translated into terms of American history, these names stand for Bunker Hill, Lexington and Patrick Henry.
Because of France, invaded, desecrated France, a million of whose heroic sons have died to save the land of Lafayette. Glorious, golden France, the preserver of the arts, the land of noble spirit. The first land to follow our lead into republican liberty.
Because of England, from whom came the laws, traditions, standards of life and inherent love of liberty which we call Anglo-Saxon civilization. We defeated her once upon the land and once upon the sea. But Australia, New Zealand, Africa and Canada are free because of what we did. And they are with us in the fight for the freedom of the seas.
Because of Russia-New Russia. She must not be overwhelmed now. Not now, surely, when she is just born into freedom. Her peasants must have their chance; they must go to school to Washington, to Jefferson and to Lincoln, until they know their way about in this new, strange world of government by the popular will.
Because of other peoples, with their rising hope that the world may be freed from government by the soldier.
We are fighting Germany because she sought to terrorize us and then to fool us. We could not believe that Germany would do what she said she would do upon the seas.
We still hear the piteous cries of children coming up out of the sea where the Lusitania went down. And Germany has never asked forgiveness of the world.
We saw the Sussex sunk, crowded with the sons and daughters of neutral nations.
We saw ship after ship sent to the bottom-ships of mercy bound out of America for the Belgian starving, ships carrying the Red Cross and laden with the wounded of all nations, ships carrying food and clothing to friendly, harmless, terrorized peoples, ships flying the Stars and Stripes—sent to the bottom hundreds of miles from shore, manned by American seamen, murdered against all law, without warning.
We believed Germany's promise that she would respect the neutral flag and the rights of neutrals, and we held our anger and outrage in check. But now we see that she was holding us off with fair promises until she could build her huge fleet of submarines. For when spring came she blew her promise into the air, just as at the beginning she had torn up that "scrap of paper.” Then we saw clearly that there was but one law for Germany. her will to rule.
We are fighting Germany because in this war feudalism is making its last stand against on-coming democracy. We see it now. This is a war against an old spirit, an ancient, outworn spirit. It is a war against feudalism—the right of the castle on the hill to rule the village below. It is a war for democracythe right of all to be their own masters. Let Germany be feudal if she will. But she must not spread her system over a world that has outgrown it.
We fight with the world for an honest world in which nations keep their word, for a world in which nations do not live by swagger or by threat, for a world in which men think of the ways in which they can conquer the common cruelties of nature instead of inventing more horrible cruelties to inflict upon the spirit and body of man, for a world in which the ambition of the philosophy of a few shall not make miserable all mankind, for a world in which the man is held more precious than the machine, the system, or the State.
(Address before the Home Club, Washington.)
(b) [$229] Efficiency Versus Freedom.
BY PROFESSOR Douglas W. JOHNSON. In regard to municipal government and various forms of social legislation, we have long recognized the high position held by your nation. But in the more vital matter of the relation of the individual to the supreme governing power, we have always held, and still believe, that Germany is sadly reactionary. For half a century your professors, in the employ of an educational system controlled by a bureaucratic government, have taught what we condemn as a false philosophy of government. Your histories, your books on philosophy, your whole literature, glorify the State; and you have accepted the dangerous doctrine that the individual exists to serve the State, forgetting that the State is not the mystical, divine thing you picture it, but a government carried on by human beings like yourselves, most of them reasonably upright, but some incompetent and others deliberately bad, just like any other human government. We · believe that the only excuse for the existence of the State is to serve the individual, to create conditions which will insure the , greatest liberty and highest possible development to the individual citizen. It has never seemed to us creditable to the German intellect that it could be satisfied with a theory of government outgrown by most other civilized nations. That you should confuse efficiency with freedom has always seemed to us a tragic mistake, and never so tragic as now, when a small coterie of human beings, subject to the same mistakes and sins as other human beings, can hurl you into a terrible war before you know what has happened, clap on a rigid censorship to keep out any news they do not want you to learn, then publish a white book which pretends to explain the causes of the war, but omits documents of the most vital importance, thereby causing the people of a confiding nation to drench the earth with their life-blood in the fond illusion that the war was forced upon them, and that they are fighting for a noble cause. Most pitiful is the sad comment of an intelligent German woman in a letter recently received in this country: “We, of course, only see such things as the Government thinks best. We were told that this war was purely a defensive one, forced upon us. I begin to believe this may not be true, but hope for a favorable ending." ...
How can a nation know the truth, think clearly, and act righteously when a few mėn, called the “State,” can commit you to the most serious enterprise in your history without your previous knowledge or consent, and can then keep you in ignorance of vitally important documents and activities in order to
insure your full support of their perilous undertaking ? Such is the thought which has always led America to denounce as false the old theory of “divine right of kings," long imposed upon the German people in the more subtle and, therefore, more · dangerous form of "the divine right of the State." Our con
viction that such a government as yours is reactionary and incompatible with true liberty, and that it stunts and warps the intellects of its citizens, has been amply confirmed by extended observation in your country, and more particularly by the unanswerable fact that millions of your best blood, including distinguished men of intelligence and wealth, have forsaken Germany to seek true liberty of intellect and action in America, renouncing allegiance to the Fatherland to become citizens here. Some of them still love the scenes of their childhood, but few of them would be willing to return to a life under such a Government as Germany possesses.
(D. W. Johnson, Plain Words from America, 14-17.)
K. [S230] GERMAN SUCCESS WOULD MEAN
THE DOWNFALL OF DEMOCRACY.
1. Would Put an End to All Efforts to Democratize Germany. 2. Democracy in Russia and France Would Be Struck Down. 3. The Imperialistic Spirit All Over the World Would Be
Encouraged. 4. Democracy in the U. S. Would Eventually Be Attacked.
L. [$231] SOME ALLEGED REASONS FOR
OUR WAR REFUTED.
1. Specific References on the Section.
Garner, J. W. “Some Questions of Internat. Law in the European
War,” Am. Jour. Internat. Law, vol. X, p. 749 (Oct., 1916). Morey, W. C. “The Sale of Munitions of War," ibid., vol. X, p.
467 (July, 1916). Gregory, C. N. “Neutrality and the Sale of Arms,” ibid., vol. X,
p. 543 (July, 1916). Dennis, W. C. “The Right of Citizens of Neutral Countries to Sell
and Export Arms and Munitions of War to Belligerents,” in Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science,
vol. LX, pp. 168-182 (July, 1915). For Diplomatic Correspondence: Am. Jour. Internat. Law, vol. IX, Spec. Suppl., pp. 125-129, 146,
166-172, 259; vol. X, pp. 354-360. New York Times Current History, vol. II, pp. 448-450 (June, 1915);
vol. II, pp. 1064-1069 (Sept., 1915). 2. No National Hatred and Jealousy Felt Toward Germany
by the U. S. Before the War. 3. Shipping Food Is a Recognized Right to Neutrals. 4. Shipping Munitions Is the Same, and Habitually Practiced M. [$232] OUTBREAK OF WAR.
by Germany in Recent Times. 5. The War Was Not Brought About by the Money Power. (a) See Roosevelt's speech against “A Dollar War,” Chicago, Apr.
1. Specific References on the Section. See $$138-142 above. Whelpley, J. D. “American Armed Neutrality,” in Fortnightly Re
view, vol. 107, pp. 705-712 (April, 1917). Editorial. “Armed Neutrality,” in New Republic, vol. X, pp. 120.
121 (Mar. 3, 1917).
Editorial. “The Decision,” ibid., 279-280 (April 7, 1917). 2. Defence of Merchant Ships.
(a) Question of defensive guns.
(d) Captures and destruction continue. 3. Last Attempts to Preserve Peace.
(a) President Wilson's last protest to Germany.
(b) President Wilson's speech to Congress. 4. Formal Declațation of War.
Act of Congress of 5. Reception of the Declaration by Central Powers.
(a) Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey. 6. First Hostile Encounters. 7. Documents and Extracts on the Section.
(a)  German Defiance.
(January 31, 1917). The Chancellor opened the sitting with a speech of which the keynote words were: "We Stake Everything."
"We have been challenged to fight to the end. We accept the challenge, we stake everything, and we shall be victorious.”
He indicated that Germany was ready to accept all the consequences of unrestricted U-boat warfare which had been decided upon. He wound up by saying:
“As regards all that human strength can do to enforce success for the Fatherland, be assured, gentlemen, that nothing has been neglected. Everything in this respect will be done.”
At the outset of his address the Chancellor explained why in March and May, 1916, he opposed unrestricted submarine war, and why again in September, "according to the unanimous judgment of the political and military authorities, the question was not thought ripe for decision.” On this matter he said:
"By the development of the situation the decision concerning submarine warfare has been forced into the last acute stage. The question of U-boat war, as members of the Reichstag will remember, has occupied us three times in this committee, namely, in March, May, and September of last year. On each occasion in an exhaustive statement I expounded the points for and against in this question. I emphasized on each occasion that I was speaking pro tempore, and not as a supporter in principle or opponent in principle of the unrestricted employment of U-boats, but in consideration of the military, political, and economic situation as a whole.
“I have always proceeded from the standpoint of whether
U-boat war would bring us nearer victorious peace or not. Every means, I said in March, that was calculated to shorten the war constitute the most humane policy to follow. When the most ruthless methods are considered best calculated to lead us to victory, and swift victory, I said, then they must be employed.
MUST STRIKE NOW.
“This moment has now arrived,” he continued. "Last autumn the time was not yet ripe, but today the moment has come when, with the greatest prospect of success, we can undertake the enterprise. We must, therefore, not wait any longer.
“Where has there been any change in the situation?" the Chancellor ask. "In the first place, the most important fact of all is that the number of our submarines has been very considerably increased as compared with last spring, and thereby a firm basis for success has been established.
"The second co-decisive reason is the bad cereal harvest of the world. This fact already confronts England, France and Italy with serious difficulties, which by means of unrestricted U-boat war will be brought to a point of unbearableness.
"The coal question, too, is a vital question in war. Already it is critical in Italy and France, as you know. Our submarines will make it still more critical.
"To this must be added, especially as regards England, the supply of ore for the production of munitions, in the widest sense, and of timber for coal mines. The enemy's difficulties are rendered still more acute by the increasing lack of enemy cargo space. In this respect time and U-boat and cruiser warfare have prepared the ground for the decisive blow.
"The Entente suffers owing to lack of cargo space. The lack makes itself felt in Italy and France, no less than in England. If we may now venture to estimate the positive advantages of unrestricted U-boat war at a very much higher value than last spring, the dangers which arise for us from U-boat war have correspondingly decreased since that time.”
READY TO ACCEPT ALL CONSEQUENCES.
The Chancellor discussed in detail the political situation, and then referred to military affairs as follows:
"A few days ago Field Marshal von Hindenburg described the situation to me thus: Our front stands firm on all sides. We have everywhere the requisite reserves. The spirit of our troops is good, and confident. The military situation as a whole permits us to accept all the consequences which unrestricted U-boat war may bring, and as this U-boat war is the means of injuring our enemies the most grieviously, it must be begun.
"The Admiralty Staff and the high seas fleet entertain the firm conviction (which has practical support in the experience gained in U-boat cruiser warfare) that Great Britain will be brought to peace by arms. ...
“No one among us will close his eyes to the seriousness of the step we are taking. That our existence is at stake every