Little hint yet of dramatic events about to break

Image

BECAUSE OF PRINTING DEADLINES, EVEN IN THIS LAST THE FATHERLAND NUMBER that came out on 7 February, 1917 there was no hint of the surprise U.S. break in diplomatic relations with Germany that was announced in Congress on 3 February.

In this issue, Capital correspondent Frederick F. Schrader once again writes the most pithy and informative account of the political situation: just how close America was to forcing peace on the belligerents, yet how active the powerful pro-British lobby was in keeping the war going.

For the first time I've published the article by the 'Military Expert' which often appeared, because this one really helps us understand why Germany felt it had to begin a more aggressive submarine campaign, as it was the only area in which they could really pressure Britain and France. Germany was always at a propaganda/public relations disadvantage throughout this war that was forced on her. It's clear in the following reports how it worked that England's misdeeds were downplayed in the American media while Germany's were magnified.

The next installment will cover the immediate aftereffects of Wilson's surprise action, from the first issue under the new name of the weekly, THE NEW WORLD, February 14, 1917. -cy

vol 6 no. 1    Feb. 7, 1917    Page 8

Behind the Scenes at the Capital

Special Correspondence of THE FATHERLAND

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 30—“Nothing is better for the cause of peace than to keep talking about it,” said a prominent Senator who has conscientiously tried to foster measures to that end without surrendering his right to think for himself.

And peace is about the only thing that is talked of in Congressional circles since President Wilson's recent address.

There is no end of speculation what, if anything, is back of the various peace movements, particularly regarding the President's initiative in the matter. The outstanding fact is, that his address to the Senate on the 22nd has been the most popular event of the four years of his official occupancy of the White House. Those close to the Chief Executive—and there are not many that enjoy his confidence—assert that it is a mistake to assume that he acted in conformity to a more or less well understood intimation of what would be acceptable to the various heads of the belligerent nations, but that he took the initiative in response to what he believes to be a very strong current of sentiment among the common people of all nations, including his own, for the restoration of peace with least delay. The amazing response fully bears out the conclusion that he has struck a popular chord in the breasts of all nations, and … is meeting with an overwhelming endorsement from the American people.

However, in proportion as this feeling is expressed, it is evident that the enemies of peace, under the leadership of such men as Root, Roosevelt and Lodge, are determined to resort to extreme measures to counteract the current. To this end everything possible is being done to discredit the President and weaken confidence in his policy, in order to create the impression that the American people are not in accord with his peace plans. The cry of a year ago, “Stand by the President!” has suddenly been reversed by those who shouted it the loudest, and to stand by the President is now considered high treason to the British cause.

A signal of distress was promptly hoisted, and Lord Northcliffe sent Sir Gilbert Parker (left), head of the British propaganda for America, hurriedly to New York with a staff of English editors, to save the cause of the Allies through heavy counter strokes in that part of the press which is subservient to English dictation. As a result, various gross fakes are beginning to make their appearance, such as the recent effort to ridicule the President by showing that he plagiarized a dispatch to President Lincoln, sent by Emperor Don Pedro during the Civil War, urging “peace without victory.”

Simultaneously a far-reaching effort is being made to bring odium upon the Central Powers for being allied with a Mohammedan country. The venerable Lord Bryce is being used for this purpose, as he was used in the attempt to fasten Belgian atrocity charges upon Germany without an iota of evidence save such as was specially prepared for propaganda purposes by the famous commission appointed for that purpose.

Some of the veteran statesmen on Capitol Hill are not taken in by this English attempt to condemn the Central Powers for what England and France did for many generations; not only guarantee the integrity of Turkey, but fight for it. Lord Bryce, as a result of his complacence in permitting the use of his name for a propaganda that insults the intelligence of thinking Americans, has suffered severely in prestige and respect, in the eyes of the better class of legislators.

* * * *

From sources close to the allied embassies and their friends it is learned that the President's attitude has completely disturbed their equanimity, and during the first shock it was openly described as a pro-German manifesto in these quarters. This indiscretion was subsequently glossed over by a manifestation of good-natured approval which was far from ringing true.

From what seeps through carefully guarded channels, it is inferred that England's opposition to peace is grounded on two considerations of prime importance to her statesmen.

One is, that peace at this time would be an irremediable impairment of British prestige, while a continuance of the war at the expense of her allies may still bring some improvement to her own status, though nothing short of the destruction of the German navy and German industrialism and trade can satisfy England. Hence certain ebullitions of English hatred for President Wilson for failing to recognize England's necessities.

The other is, the difficulty of abandoning Russia unless the Allies can secure for her a waterway to the sea. England is seriously disturbed by the danger of driving Russia into the arms of Germany, with Japan possibly following suit, and thus creating a new eastern coalition including Austria-Hungary, Turkey and the Balkan states. Such a result would be recorded in history as the most monumental blunder of English statecraft, and rather than subscribe to such terms while she still has power to make her Allies fight for her, she will regard any peace movement as a studied insult.

* * * *

So far as England is concerned, she is pinning her faith to the Republican party in the Senate and House to aid in keeping down the peace movement in this country, and if possible to bring about an alliance against the Central Powers. Hence the frequent allusions to the ultimate certainty of the United States to be drawn into the war. And here, in the estimation of some clear political thinkers in their own ranks, the Republicans are making the mistake of their lives.

Under Lodge's leadership, the Republican party is rapidly becoming a party of protest and obstruction, and no longer can lay claim to being a party of constructive statesmanship, as in the old days. The only leader who is apparently seeing the danger of Lodge's course is Representative James Mann, the Republican floor leader in the House, who has had the courage to endorse the President's peace movement.

This will probably cost him the Speakership, as all sorts of innuendoes are thrown out against him by his own party associates, who must well recognize the fact that he is the most efficient leader they possess. If the Republicans should defeat Mann for the Speakership, or fail to nominate him, it may be accepted as clear proof that his party has reached the permanent level of a party of protest and obstruction; that it dies not dare to fall in line with a movement that is thrilling the whole world, either from sympathy with the Allies, or from fear of endorsing the President on a non-partisan issue. […]

* * * *

Representative Jeff McLemore, of Texas, is hopeful of getting his resolution calling for the reports of American consuls in Belgium on German atrocities reported out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. It recites that such stories have been circulated in the United States for many months and that President Wilson has been severely and unjustly criticised because he made no reference to the allegations in his recent peace note. The chairman of the committee, Flood, is bitterly pro-Ally, and while averse to anything that may possibly favor the German cause, should have no prejudice against the McLemore resolution. If there is no objection from the State Department, it may be laid before the House for action. The friends of the German cause have no objection to the truth coming out in this way, and hence both sides ought to be satisfied.

“The American people,” said the Texas Congressman, “have a right to the information called for by my resolution, in view of the persistent efforts made by someone to make us believe that horrible atrocities have been committed against inoffensive people. The President has taken a highly commendable step to bring the belligerent nations back to the paths of peace, and a vast majority of the people are backing him in his efforts to that end, but a section of the press in New York and the East is severely criticising him for not having gone into the question of atrocities in his peace note, although it had no place there, in my opinion. My personal belief is that these atrocity stories are part and parcel of an extensive propaganda intended by the Allies to create prejudice and hatred in this country against their enemies, and I for one don't believe one-tenth part of what has been printed about the invasion of Belgium. Now, as the Germans claim that they are unfairly treated, and the Allies claim that these stories are true, we ought to have authentic information on the subject and determine whether President Wilson deserves the strictures passed upon him by the eastern newspapers and their friends.” —F. F. S.

Page 9

THE “BLOCKADE” OF THE NORTH SEA

By the Naval Expert of THE FATHERLAND

(To see the map accompanying this article, click on the live 'Page 9' link)

THE British Government has communicated to the neutral governments on the 27th instant [January] an announcement issued by the British Admiralty which must be considered as of the highest importance. It reads:

“On account of belligerent operations the under-mentioned area in the North Sea is dangerous to shipping: Area comprising all the waters except Netherlands and Danish territorial waters, lying to the southwest and east of a line commencing four miles from the coast of Jutland in [….....] seven miles off the coast of the Netherlands.”

By this announcement England has again been the first to take one step further in the increasing abolition of what has been recognized by all Powers as international law at sea.

When, in 1914, America proposed to the belligerents to conduct the naval war in accordance with the provisions of the London Declaration, Germany readily accepted, while England did so “with modifications,” later frequently extended and which now amount to a complete overthrow of all the principles embodied in the London Declaration.

In his process of “modifying” naval law John Bull went to work in a way so sly and hypocritical as to throw dust in the eyes of many laymen though he did not succeed in deceiving the American Government. He started out his career of “blockading” Germany by spreading the lie that Germany had strewn mines on the high sea, a lie emphatically and, we believe, truthfully denied by the German Government. On the basis of this lie England, on October 3, 1914, claimed to be entitled to lay a mine-field in a quadrangular area stretching right across the high sea northeast of the Dover straits. This was against the law.

Not satisfied with this, on November 2, 1914, the British Government gave notice “having regard to the safety of peaceful commerce on the high seas” that the whole of the North Sea must be considered a military area. “Within this area,” the announcement proceeded, “merchant shipping of all kinds, traders of all countries … will be exposed to the gravest dangers from mines it has been necessary to lay.” This again was against the law.

On January 2, 1915, the mine zone across the northeastern approaches to the Channel was extended twenty minutes to the north, thus superadding one criminal act to the initial infringement.

Here the patience of Germany, who had been conducting the war strictly within the limits of the law, broke down, and she took, with evident reluctance, her first step of reprisals, a step to which in view of the British violations she was legally entitled. On February 4, 1915, she declared “the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole English Channel, to be comprised within the seat of war.” That is how matters stood until the 27th instant.

The new British Cabinet, having realized the farcical character of the declaration by the preceding Cabinet of a paper blockade of the North Sea, over which England has no effective control, and being committed to a policy of action, now proposes a new lawless measure of greater effectiveness. At least that is how the declaration of the new danger zone is evidently expected to impress the British public. Mines are supposed to be substituted for paper. We doubt that the British danger zone will prove as dangerous as it is being painted. It is a physical impossibility—even if the British should have invented a new type of mine that can be anchored in deep waters—to maintain anything like an effective cordon of these engines of destruction over a line of at least 300 miles.

However, let us not underrate the British scheme. Let the British prove how far they can get with their new measure.

What interests us at present is the legal aspect. The new British device which we suppose will go by the name of a blockade (in quotation marks) is unlawful in various respects.

1. The cordon, if maintained with mines, is a new and larger transgression of the rules against the laying of mines on the high seas.
2. This novel “blockade” is illegal in that it is not directed against the German coast alone but extends over parts of the coast of Denmark as well as of Holland. The British have no right, be it by a blockade or by whatever other means, to stop neutral shipping from the free access to the coasts of Denmark and Holland.
3. The measure is a violation of legal and moral precepts in so far as it aims at the starvation of the non-combatant German population.

We have no hope that this new British danger zone, that these new shackles on their legitimate trade will arouse much sentiment among the peoples of neutral countries, though the governments may enter a formal protest. The feelings of the neutrals have become callous by now. But we have no doubt that Germany has become sensitive, so sensitive in fact that her patience is bound to break down again and that she will adopt new and far-reaching measures of reprisal. Recent reports in various metropolitan papers seem to indicate that. And we are convinced of the probability as well as of the necessity of a retaliation on the part of Germany against Britain's new measures of hunger-blockading by some blockade measure of the Central Powers that will tighten the stranglehold which their submarine fleet has got on Britain's food supply.

The papers report further that the marine policy of the Entente is no longer going to be conducted in the haphazard manner which distinguished it heretofore. The Allies are going to “work in concert.” That being the case they must be presumed to be in accord over the latest British announcement. Germany will have to take that into consideration and see that her counterstroke does not hit only England but that her mighty sea-weapon will be impartially applied to all of her foes whom she can possibly reach.

We regard the new British announcement as a confession of inability to blockade Germany by means of the mighty sea fleet that has given England the proud epithet of the “Ruler of the Seas.” Britain's navy is paralyzed. The new British Cabinet has realized that fact and is trying to retrieve the situation at sea by secondary means. That is not only indicated by the establishment of this new danger zone, but can also be clearly seen from the new law reported to have been enacted by the British Parliament and according to which the entire British mercantile marine is to be armed “fore and aft.” It is also obvious from the shilly-shally scheme of circumventing the American harbor rules against armed merchantmen, a scheme by which the British ships are to dump their guns in Halifax on the way out, entering the American harbors as “peaceful traders,” and resume their warlike equipment only when, after loading themselves with war materials in American ports, they touch again in Halifax on their return trip.

We cannot see how Germany in the face of all these measures of lawlessness, prevarication and hypocrisy can possibly do anything but use her submarine weapon in a more drastic manner and one that is able to cope with the new situation which the British acts are now creating.