CHAPTER VII

WAR TO INSURE PEACE

Position of President Wilson (December, 1916)— Interest of the United States in the Settlement of the European War "Peace without Victory "— Bases of Durable Peace Germany vs. Neutral Nations. - American Decision -" Armed Neutrality"- German Proposals to Mexico - Effect of the Russian Revolution - United States Enters the War - Principles of the United States - Restatements of Purpose.

THE time had come for President Wilson to take the action which his previous utterances had foreshadowed and which impelling events now made so necessary. Inasmuch as the Central Powers had taken steps in early December to bring about a negotiation for peace in Europe, it was essential, if the United States was to have a part in the readjustment at the close of hostilities, that the President present at once his plans for the basis of permanent peace and international co-operation.2 Such a step was natural at this time, even if the Central Powers had not acted. Nor could it well have been taken earlier. With the recent verdict of the American electorate as an endorsement of his administration of foreign

1 Text of the proposals of the Central Powers in Current History, (New York Times,) V, 588–590.

2 Address of May 27, 1916, before the League to Enforce Peace was an unofficial utterance, as were subsequent speeches in which he had urged the same procedure.

affairs, the President was free to proceed, as he had not been during the presidential campaign and as he could not have been at this time had he been defeated and been preparing to turn over the government to a successor.

With the responsibility his own, President Wilson on December 18, 1916, asked the belligerents to state the terms upon which they would deem it possible to make peace. (Statement No. 79.) He was careful to say that he was not proposing peace nor even mediation. To have done so and succeeded in bringing about a conference might have defeated the very ends he sought. His interest was in the preliminaries that must precede a successful peace conference. He was not desirous of simply stopping the war, as he had been two years earlier. He and his country and the world had gone beyond that. He was asking the belligerents in the name of the neutral world to state their purposes, not in the general terms in which each group had indulged again and again, but definitely, so that the world might know them and that a comparison might be made of them.

The United States, affected vitally by the war, had to consider its future course if the war was to continue. Not only because of vital national interests was this true. Above them there was a greater question. The United States was interested in the settlement of the war in such a way that a stable peace was to be assured after the war. If the war was to continue for purely national aims, the possibility of a league of the nations at the close of hostilities grew increasingly remote.

It is a great mistake, then, to call this a peace note. It is not the statement of a possible mediator, as Wilson had been pictured in the early months of the war. It is the utterance of a statesman with an international vision taking the next step in the program outlined by him seven months earlier.1 Speaking for the neutral world, President Wilson chose this moment to apply the test of purpose to the belligerent powers. Rather than a peace note, it was a declaration of purpose to participate in a conference to arrange for the safety of the world after peace had come, and an intention to discover by this means the real enemies of international co-operation.

Secretary Lansing in commenting upon the note made it even plainer that the United States felt the need of a statement of aims.2 As the United States drew nearer to the verge of war this need was increasingly patent. Public opinion quite generally interpreted Mr. Lansing's statement to mean that the administration was contemplating a change in policy. In a second statement Mr. Lansing indicated that the administration had no intention of forsaking its policy of neutrality. But the President and the Secretary were thinking of the desirability of having the purposes of the belligerents clearly before the American people if, forced to participate, the United States were to choose to use its power to assist in the organization of league of nations. Moreover it

1 Infra, Part III, Statement No. 60. 2 Note was published December 21,

1916, and Secretary Lansing gave out two statements on that day. New York Times, December 22, 1916.

was true that irrespective of the desires of the United States it did come nearer the verge of war as the new year opened. For the controversy with Germany was not settled, and it had been postponed in such a way as to make certain the participation of the United States the moment Germany reopened it.1

It was natural in view of the recent German overtures for peace that there should have been some thought that the President's action favoured the German cause. Such a view overlooked the President's previous acts and oft repeated statements of purpose, as well as the pending controversies between the two countries. However, the nature of the President's action became more clear when the German response of December 26, 1916, was found to be a general acceptance only and decidedly not a response in the spirit of the President's request. On the other hand, the response of the Entente Allies, on January 10, 1917, in spite of the earlier manifestation of disapproval in England, was more detailed in statement of aim and purpose, and thus came much nearer meeting the President's request. Their definiteness, however, in conjunction with the rejection by the Entente of the German proposal of December 12, 1916, gave opportunity to the German government to declare that "the full responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed" rested upon its enemies.1

Supra

1 Infra, p. 105.

3

2 Text, Current History (New York Times) V, 783.

3 Text, ibid., V, 783–785.

4 Text, ibid., V. 789-790.

Great Britain, in a supplementary note of January 13, 1917, presented on January 17, 1917, stated in significant words its position upon the question of a durable peace. Three conditions were stipulated: causes of international unrest must be removed or weakened, aggressive aims of the governments of the Central Powers must fall into disrepute among their peoples, and some form of international sanction must be given to international law and treaty agreements.1 Premier Lloyd George on January 11, 1917, in a public address predicted the formation of a league of peace.

The next step in the President's program was to reveal his reaction to the replies of the belligerents. This he did in an address to the Senate on January 22, 1917. (Statement No. 80.) From the attitude of the Entente he found reason to believe that a satisfactory conference was not impossible, for in their willingness to state their aims he saw progress toward the organization of a concert of power. The President was not ignorant of the storm of criticism that had come upon him in the Senate because of his suggestion in the note of December 18, 1916, that the United States have a part in an international agreement. He was proceeding upon his way, yet he said in the address to the Senate, and his action in coming emphasized it, that he felt it due that body, associated as it was with him in the final determination of the international obligations of the United States, that he inform it of the

2

1 Text, ibid., V, 786–788.

2 The Senate had finally endorsed the note, January 5, 1917, by a vote of 48-17. Congressional Record, LIV, 897.