Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1917-08-30
HOW THE WAR CAME
TO AMERICA
BY the Committee on Public In.
formation Created by Presi-
dent Wilson.
tContinued)

neutral rights were not brought
into question by Germany as ear
ly as by England, the German
controversy was infinitely more
serious.
For any dissensions that might
arise. no arbitration treaty ex-
listed between the United States
and the German Government.
This was from no fault of ours.
We had tried to establish with
Germany the same treaty rela-
tions we had with Great Britain
and 10 other nations. But these
overtures had been rejected.
And this action on the part of
the Imperial German Govern
ment was only one example of
it's whole system of diplomacy.
In both conferences at The
Hague it had been the German
delegates who were the most ac-
tive in blocking all projects for
the pacific settlement of disputes
between nations. They had pre-
ferred to limit international re-
lations to the old modes of diplo-
macy and war. 1t was there
fore obvious from the first that
any controversy with the Ger
man Government would be ex-
ceedingly serious; for if it could
not be solved by direct diploma
tic conversations, there was no
recourse except to war.
From such conversations there
is small hope of satisfactory re-
suits unless the good faith of
both sides is profound. If either
side lacks good faith, or reveals
in all it's actions an insidious hos
tility, diplomacy is of no avail.
And so it has proved in the pre-
sent case.
In the first ear of the war the
Government of Germany stirred
up among it's people a feeling of
resentment against the United
States on account of our insis-
tence upon our rights as neu-
trial nation to trade in munitions
with the belligerent powers. Our
legal right in the matter was not
seriously questioned by Germany.
She could not have done so con-
sistently, for as recently as the
Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913
both Germany and Austria sold
munitions to the belligerents.
Their appeals to us in the pre-
sent war were not to observe in
ternational law, but to revise it
in their interest. And these APP
peals they tried to make on NOR
al and humanitarian grounds.
But upon the moral issue" in
volved. the stand taken by the
United States was consistent
with its traditional policy and
with obvious common sense.
For if, with all other neutrals,
we refused to sell munitions to
belligerents, we could never in
time Of war of our own obtain
munitions from neutrals, and the
nation which had accumulated
the largest reserves of war sup
plies in time Of peace would be
assured of victory. The militar-
list state that invested it's money
in arsenals would be at fatal
advantage over the free people
who invested their wealth in
schools. To write into interna-
tional law that neutrals should
not trade in munitions would be
to hand over the world to the
rule Of the nation with the larg-
est armament factories. Such
a policy the United States of
America could not accept.
But our principal controversy
with the German Government,
and the one which rendered the
situation at once acute, rose out
of their announcement of a sea
zone where their submarines
would operate in violation of all
accepted principles of interna-