Washington Journal., 1916-08-11

what is going o in the minds of thousands of weninfomed and thoughtful
Americans:
DEAR P:
When I told YOU a few days ago that I was rapidly becoming pro-German you
expressed great surprise You recalled to me that at the beginning Of the war
shared in the universal ounry against the mad Emperor who seemed bent
on running amuck witt declarations OIL var asmt al ruops a M ma :
joined in the indignation against the violation of Belgian neutrality You
reconected, however, that a little later my views underwent some slight mOdi-
fcadon declined to fall IN with hose VINO aurDu'su us mme LTpo mS
bmy for the war to the Kaiser and regarded Germany as the universal enemy
Of mankind and England as the champion of humanity and civilization Never
thdess protested with heat al. the suggestions that America had become the
vass1 of England and could lot withhold belief to the crcumstanial accounts
of German atrocities" in Belgium AT that time | boosted of my unique neu-
tratty and felt that l was something of a freak. remember telling you that
in ne you behed, in all probability the only live neutral in captivity Well
I have discovered that neutrality as a state of mind, is OF a skephcal character
and has neither power or permanency Neutrality as a rule of conduct is OF
Ito proclaim. that I am IN the German side. BY this mean several things
First that | have n o special fault to find with Germany either for the fact that
che ( at war or for the methods Of fighting she follows; second, that I hope.
and believe she will win; finally that believe her victory will be a good thing.
for the world in general and for America in particular
To justify myself in your eyes as 10 mere weathercock of opinion and also
to clarity my views by writing them down, I address this letter to you hope
that you will be interested, but do not expect. you to be convinced In these
1arpe matters conviction does lot con from evidence or even from argument;
it comes a a matter of adjustment between temperament and interest and each
individual follows the laws of his own nature. The evidence will lot be IN
for half a century; the arguments will not be over for a long time after that
The decision, if any power exists capable of rendering a true decision in affairs
Of history, will probably seem when at length it becomes known to have very
little bearing on any question now in dispute Meantime we have to act in
one way or another, and in order % act e' have to believe. This necessity
must be the ordinary non-expert mans excuse for taking sides in a matter about
which he can know relatively little. You will no. ind ny statemen Zeal nWch
in authorities or references. / am simply the man in the street" Like every
one else l have read the current newspaper reports and magazine articles
(mosty pro-A1y as being mostly n the English language aa a i" BOOKS
on both sides and have earnestly discussed, and reflected upon thu war n its
issues. My conclusions such as they are, are my own and tor TINS reason
they are valuable to me.
Who is TO blame for the war? Is it the Kaiser, who first declared war?
Or is it. nor impersonany, the German government, supposedly dominated by
a military caste which is eager to hight because hghtng is ITS usmeS ~ IS
Lit Russia anxious to assert her protectorshp over Servia and over all the Slavs
in Austria and the Balkans and anxious also o acquire Consaninope and an
outlet from the evero open Euxlnef Or IS 1t France with hr cnerlsned lda
Of revenge ready to fight, a. Bismarck said, whenever she should believe there
was a prospect of victory? Or is it England, jealous of the growing COM
merce of Germany afraid of Grmanys growing navy feeling sure that
Germany would attack her some day? To me it seems futile to attempt to
answer the question because it belongs to the class of questions called "lusory
Nobody is to blame or everybody is to blame Oh the general situation Is to
blame. Have it any way you like SC long a you are satisfied Most people
feel relieved when they cal find somebody or something TO blame or a bad
state OF ahars LampasHhg me uWn wa d pop"f 0up S =" p"' On
in times gone by and is yet among supplemented people So lambasing the
Kaiser satisfies ONE folks But as n explanation OF what caused the var it
lis a little too simply to be acceptable 1t seems to me that wars are a necessary
condition of the existence of nations with their mutual nvalries, ambitions and
conflicting ideals. 1t is the sam with individuals. Do you threaten m with
physical ensavement, or even with the domination of your will over mine?
Then, as a condition of manhood I must fight and on due occasion die rather
than submit Perhaps the dangers which threaten nations are sometimes mag
nonn n With possible enemies she had annie reason be suspicious especially
since the formation of the entente cordiak, uniting the three most powerful
non-German countries of Europe, France, England and Russia. To believe that
they would all remain permanently at peace with her would have been to be
absurdly blind to the lessons of history If we go back farther for the under
lying causes of the war we shall find only a repetition Of the same or similar
The irrepressHde energies of conflicting naionaites will continue to bring on
wars from time to time so long as national ideals continue to seem worth dying
for If the time ever comes when they do not seem worth dying for, then
nations will cease to exist but eve then l think men will find something else
worth dying for. If not they will find little worth living for. 1t IS the
paradox of existence that only those who are willing to lose their lives can
reany find them. til a waste of time, then, to attempt to locate the response
bly for any particular war; SO it is really a ar Of natOnahtes' and that pre-
eminenty this war is and any war in western Europe must be No ruler and
mo caste inow capable of bringing on a war unless it is a matter II vital
interest to the whole nation
Has Germany, in her methods of conducting the var, violated all the prn-
cip1es of humanity and many of the rules of international law? Have German
soldiers, in Belgium and elsewhere, been guilty of brutal atrocities wanton
destruction of property, buchery of the civilian population! IA the Ger
mans thrown bombs upon undefended places, knowing that women and children
would be killed? Has the German employment of submarines against unarmed
vessels amounted to murder and has the introduction y new and terrible
weapons such as liquid flame and poison gas, violated the rules OF civilized
warfare? And if Germany has been guilty of all this has she done anything
worse than has been done by her enemies The answer nus De- INK not
guilty IS charged. In other words although the acts may have been COM
mned they do not constitute the crimes against humanity which the enemies OF
Germany would have us believe Moreover, TIL acts 10 MOI liter IN IN iron
acts done by the Allies Some of them have been done more systematically
and successfully by the Germans that is all
Take first, as the alleged head and front of her offending, Germanys vo-
laton of Belgian neutrality. That neutrality vas a formal fact just as the
neutrality Of the United States today is a formal fact The sympathy of the
people in Belgium, a. in the United States today, was with the Allies and
tentative agreements had been made as to what should be Begums course
lin the event of an attack from Germany. This at least dIminishes the urprude
of Germanys act in invading Belgium. But waving the question of how real
in effect the neutrality of Belgium was, think that Germany have declared
war against France, was justified in striking as quick and powerful a blow as
possible, wei acrosst the interposed body of al unfiendly if formally neutral
state. Today the war is being fought on French soil and not 0 n German For
this inestmabe advantage Germany has to thank her straightforward I'M
srupuousness regarding the scrap of paper" The event has justified her in
her own eyes and we must remember that a nation at wa does not have to