Page View
Adler, Philip A. (ed.) / The Wisconsin literary magazine
Volume XVI, Number 8 (May 1917)
McGilvary, Evander Bradley
War!, pp. 231-233
Page 232
WISCONSIN LITERARY MAGAZINE May, 1917 sented as showing her imperial designs to rule the whole world. Neutrality in the war demanded that we should fight England to secure free passage for our ships and our commerce into the German ports through the lines established by British naval supremacy. This was the form that the pro-German propaganda took to offset the prejudice against German militarism. It has found numerous spokesmen, even in Congress. Into the merits of the question of German militarism vs. British navalism I cannot go here. Theoretically there are two sides to every question; practically this question has been decided. The British fleet has not been an active menace to the world's peace, except as the world's peace has been of late constantly endang- ered by German ambitions to offset the power of this fleet in her own interest. The British naval power has been exercised according to the spirit of recognized in- ternational law. If this is denied, and theoretically it is open to denial, there is no question that the alleged illegalities of British naval procedure were of such a sort that the agencies of international law could be used to rectify the injustice. Neutral ships were indeed warned off the barred zones; but those that failed to observe the warnings were caught and taken to British ports. Property rights were involved; and these could be adjusted by courts and by diplomacy. Meanwhile a new navalism had arisen; this is Ger- man navalism, the navalism of the buccaneer submarine. Here also there is a warning-keep out of the barred zone. But unsubmissive ships are not caught and taken into German ports. They are sent to the bottom, with loss of many lives. This is a matter that cannot wait for adjudication by courts and by diplomacy. The dead are dead; no court and no diplomacy can bring them back to life, or make due restitution. "But Germany can do no otherwise." The subma- rine cannot put a prize crew aboard a captive; if Ger- many's naval force is to be effective she must sink at sight. Yes, there's the rub. If Germany is to win with her navy she must sink without ruth. But this principle, axiomatic as it is, is conditional. Must Ger- many win? No doubt the Germans feel they must. But ne, while we should try to put ourselves in Ger- many's place in order to understand her difficult situa- tion, are not obliged to take ourselves permanently out of our own place; we must understand our vital inter- ests. Shall we be neutral, to our own detriment, in or- der that Germany may win? That is the question the answer to which has brought us into the war. But before we consider this question, let us look a moment at what Germany demanded that we should do. In her note agreeing to discontinue the unrestricted use of the submarine after the sinking of the Sussex, Germany reserved to herself the right to take up again its unrestricted use unless we should prevail upon Eng- land to discontinue her policy of starving Germany. How could we prevail upon England? We had pro- tested; we could only do two more things; we could threaten war and we could declare war. Had Ger- many forgotten that we had a treaty with England binding us not to resort to war against her except after resort to arbitration, and then only after giving us time for cool thought before taking the irrevocable step of war? But why not demand arbitration? Why not? With all Europe in the war, except a few weak nations that are in fear of their lives, where shall we find im- partial arbitrators? In the heat of a world-conflict, can a tribunal be found that would be acceptable to both parties? That was the question that we and Great Britain had to decide for ourselves. WXe decided in fact, even if we did not go through the formal motions of making a decision. And the decision was wise. But at any rate it was not Germany's business what our de- cision was. It was to her interest that we should have decided differently. But unless she goes on the prin- ciple that adverse decisions in matters to which she is not a direct party relieves her of all international obli- gations, she has nothing to do but to accept the decision. But she did not accept. She insisted that we should force England to stop her starvation blockade, in spite of our treaty with England to arbitrate our disputes. In other words she insisted that our treaties were scraps of papers, just like her own, when her interests are involved. Here then we have thQ issue of the war. Is Ger- many's interest to be allowed to control all dealings be- tween nations? Is Germany's place in the sun so prec- ious that all nations must step aside to make her room? Is a nation that ignores all obligations and enforces her will by sheer physical might to be allowed to continue her victorious career unchecked and lord it autocrati- cally over the world? Germany's place in the sun? Whose place? That of Germans? No, they have their place, and have had it. They have been welcome here; they have been welcome in Brazil; they have been welcome every- where they have been willing to go and become citizens in their chosen settlements. It is not the place of Ger- mans in the sun that is at issue. It is the place of Ger- many. And what is Germany? A nation, not a race; for the race is now partly American in nationality, and partly South-American. The Germany that wants a place in the sun is the nation that is ruled by the Hoh- enzollerns and their autocracy. It is the nation that to have a place in the sun as a nation is willing to risk a universal war; that is willing to support Austria in her insolent ultimatum to Serbia; that is willing to violate Belgian neutrality and lay Belgium waste; that is will- 232
Based on date of publication, this material is presumed to be in the public domain. For information on re-use see: http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright