l•l j' .. , ' ,, .1,. lJ l. " ( " University of Texas Bulletin No. 1885: June 20, 1918 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR By J'ltEDERIO DUNCJALF Profeesor of Medieval History Published by the University six times a month and entered as seeond-clasl!I matter at the postomce at .i\.USTIN, TEXAS Publications of the University of Tex~s Publications Co.mmittee: F. W. GRAFF. R. H. GRIFFITH J.M. BRYANT :J. L. HENDERSON D. B. CASTEEL I. p. HILDEBRAND FREDERIO DuNcALF E. J. MATHEWS The University publishes bulletins six times a month, so num­bered that the first two digits of the number show the year of issue, the last two the position in the yearly series. (For ex­ample, No. 1701 is the first bulletin of the year 1917.) These · · comprise the official publica:tiona of the University, publications · on humanistic and scientific subjects, bulletins prepared by the · Department of Extension and by the Bureau of Municipal Research and Reference, and other bulletins of general educa­tional. interest. With the exception of special numbers, any bulletin will be sent to. a citizen of Texas free on: request. All . QOlllmunications about University publications should be ad­dressed to the Chairman of the Publicatioila Committee, Uni­veridty of Texas, Austin. University of Texas Bulletin No. 1885: June 20, 1918 A uperative power in re­covering. from the disaster which had befallen her, she was un­able to forget her lost provinces. In 1871 the representatives from these provinces in the national assembly said: ''Our broth­ers of Alsace and Lorraine, now cut off from the common family, will preserve their filial affection for the France now absent from their homes until the day when she returns to take her place there again." German methods of repression and military rule have not yet succeeded in making the population .of these provinces German. For forty years and more, the wrong done to the people of these provin"ces nas been a menace to the peace of Europe. The Triple Alliance . In the hostility thus created between France and Germany we have one reason for the present alignment of the Powers of Europe. Bismarck felt the need of strengthening Germany against a possible effort on the part of France to recover Alsace and Lorraine. A friendly understanding was arranged between the three emperors of Germany, Austria, and Russia. This com­bination did not last long. Austria and Russia had ·conflicting interests in the Balkans. At the Congress of Berlin, 1878, Ger­many sided with Austria, who was then allowed to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia was deprived of the advantages gained in her war with Turkey. Russia was definitely isolated when Austria and Germany concluded a treaty in 1879, which provided that each should help the other if either were attacked by Russia. If either party was attacked by any state other than Russia, the other party was to remain neutral until Rus­sia came in. In 1882, this dual alliance was made into a Triple Aliance by the inclusion of Italy. Irritated by the French co­lonial expansion in Africa, Italy wished the backing of Germany and Austria. This alliance of the three central powers lasted until the war broke out in 1914. However, previous to that time, Italy had become a lukewarm member, because she found that Austrian ambitions conflicted with her own. She also came to realize that her future was greatly affected by the control of the Mediterranean by the seapower of England and France. Consequently, she' refused to join Austria and Germany in the war, because she claimed that by the terms of the alliance she was only bound to support her allies if they were attacked. On May 23, 1915, she declared war on Austria. A Brief History of the War The Dual Alliance This combination caused Russia and France to feel that they needed each other's support. Inasmuch as their needs did not confli'Ct and they both feared Germany, they formed a Dual Alliance in 1891. Ohange in English Policy England was free from alliances. France and England had been traditionally unfriendly. England had fought France again and again to prevent her from dominating the continent of Europe. English statesmen had long feared Russia as a menace to British interests in the East. To prevent Russian expansion to the Mediterranean, England had long striven to maintain Turkish integrity, and had fought with France against Russia in the Crimean war. Russian expansion in central Asia brought her dangerously near to British India. That England should come to a friendly understanding with France and Rus­sia seemed impossible, and yet this happened. The Boer war taught England that she had no friends. On the continent and in America the war was condemned. She ended by giving the Boers everything that they had fought for except separate independence, and South African loyalty today is proof of the wisdom of her settlement. She further adopted a policy of removing whatever differences existed be­tween herself and other countries. A long series of treaties with other nations indicates the peaceful' character of British policy since the Boer war. England also began to fear Germany. The ,determination of the German government to build a great navy was a challenge to British control of the seas. She felt that her navy must be the strongest in existence, or her scattered empire would be fa­ tally endangered. In addition, German activities in the Bal­ kans and the control that she came to exercise over Turkey made her more dangerous to British interests in the East than Russia has ever been. The Anglo-French Entente (1904) After the Franco-German war the French interested them­ University of Texas Bulletin selves in colonizing Northern Africa. Algeria had already lleen occupied in 1830. In 1881, a protectorate was established over Tunis. France and England had been jointly interested in Egypt, but in 1881 when England began a definite policy of regu­lating the finances of this country and establishing order, France declined to be a party to such occupation. In 1904, France and England came to a friendly understand­ing (Entente Cordiale), which settled all differences between the two countries. It was agreed that England was to control the Suez canal and Egypt, necessary to her as the shortest route to India. On the other hand, France was to have a free hand in the development of her colonial policy in Western Africa, particularly in Morocco. In 1907, England and Russia came to an understanding about their differences. Persia was divided into a British and Rus­sian sphere of influence, which was a check to further German penetration of Asia. This completed the Triple Entente, but it must be remembered that England's connection with either France or Russia was in no sense a defensive alliance. As the negotiations before the war indicate, England was not bound to help these countries. Results of British Diplomacy England also concluded an alliance with Japan, as well as with Portugal. She was on friendly terms with Spain. It was not the fault of England that a similar understanding was not arranged with Germany. Germany and Austria complained that Engiish diplomacy had left them isolated. German writers attributed the "ring of iron" to England's efforts. England was the gre.at rival that Germany feared. At times there had been bad feeling in both countries, but there is little evidence to show that England sought to destroy Germany or was planning a war again.st her. There is evi­dence to show that English statesmen sought to come to an un­derstanding with Germany, and if Germany had met English advances she might have been on as good terms with England as were France and Russia. We can better understand the atti­tude of the two countries if we consider the parts played by each in the various diplomatic crises which disturbed Europe during the last twenty years before the war. The Morocco Question Bismarck had been favorable to French colonial ambitions in Africa, because he thought that this activity would cause the French to forget Alsace and Lorraine ; he also hoped that Anglo­French interests would clash. The Entente of 1904 ended the possibility of colonization being a bone of contention between England and Fran~e. Thenceforth Germany seemed to desire to interfere with French plans in Africa. Morocco was a decayed MooriSh state adjoining French co­lonial territory. As to the merits of French claims• in Morocco, it can be said that France and Spain had the greatest interest in establishing order in this country. The continent of Africa had been divided up into French, English, Belgian, Italian, and German protectorates, or spheres. of influence. Africa was a backward continent, and control of it by European nations meant colonization, establishment of better order, and the introduc­tion of Western civilization. The justification for such occu­pation depends entirely upon the good results that this policy may produce. The United States justifies its control of the Philippine Islands by the benefits which it bestows on the in­habitants. The first cause of the. occupation of territory in this manner is the need of protecting the trade that has already developed. As occupation becomes more permanent, other re­ sults follow. British trade with Morocco was gr-eater than that of any other country, and it was to France's interest to establish order there. Germany decided that she was interested in Morocco. The Russo-Japanese war had left Russia in such a disorganized state that she was unable to support her , ally, and perhaps Germany wished to know just how far England would go in backing France. On March 31, 1905, the German Emperor landed at 'l'angier, where he made a speech in which he declared that the Sultan was an independent ruler. This was equivalent to say.ing that Germany would oppose French penetration of MoroccoJ Germany demanded that Morocco be placE)d under the protection of all the powers, and a conference of represen­tatives of all great nations was called to meet at Algeciras. The Algeciras Conference (1906) Germany's case seemed reasonable, but she rather spoiled it by her arrogant attitude. With the exception of Austria all the powers represented decided against Germany. The United States was represented, as was also Italy. Morocco was placed under French protection, as it was believed that France was the only state able to keep ordor in the country. The situation was very similar to that at the Congress of Berlin, when Bosnia and Herzegovina were entrusted to Austrian care. Germany had appealed to the powers and liad lost. Her next move was an effort to nullify the action of the international conference. Second Morocco Crisis (1911) Germany sought to make a special arrangement with France, by which she should have special commercial privileges in Mo­rocco, although France was to have political control. Such an agreement was quite the opposite of the internationalization which she had formerly advocated. The arrangement which was made did not work out satisfactorily to Germany, and in 1911 she sent the cruiser Panther to Agadir, on the plea that it was necessary to protect the interests of her merchants. Ap­parently Germany wished to make France divide Morocco with her. A serious situation was created by the appearance of a German warship in" Moroccan waters, and for a time it seemed that Europe might be brought to war. England took the ground that France should be allowed to settle the matter without be­ing influenced by any threat of force. She made it clear to Germany that she stood for a square deal for France. Germany thereupon backed down, as her bluff had failed. She came to an agreement with France by which she recognized a French protectorate in Morocco in return for concessions in the Congo. The Pan-Germans were disgusted. ''Morocco is easily worth a big war, or several. At best-and even prudent Germany is getting to be convinced of this-war is only postponed, and not abandoned. Is such postponement to our advantage? . . .. They say we must wait for a better moment. Wait for the deep­ening of the Kiel Canal, for our navy laws to take full effect. It is not exactly diplomatic to announce publicly to one's ad­versaries, 'To go to war does not tempt us now, but three years hence we will let loose a world war' . . . . No; if a war is re­ally planned, not a word of it must be spoken; one's designs must be enveloped in profound mystery; then brusquely, all of a sudden, jump on the enemy like a robber in the darkness.'' -Albrecht Wirth, Unsere aussere Politik, 1912. War Cyclo­pedia, Morocco Question. The Pan-Germans from this time on clamored for war. The sword was rattling in its scabbard. The immediate excuse was not to be found in Morocco, for Germany was not yet prepared. The immediate cause was to be found in the Balkans. It is necessary to trace the main out­ lines of the history of Eastern Europe. Rise of the Balkan States The question which had long threatened the peace of Europe was what was to become of the territory of Turkey in Europe, for Turkey was gradually becoming weaker, and was unable to govern her. European provinces properly. One by one the peoples of this Bal_kan country became restless and freed them­ selves from Turkish rule by outside help. Greece had first' ob­ tained her independence after the war of 1828-29. The decisive factor had been the campaign of Russia against Turkey. Aus­ tria had not helped. A final settlement was reached by which Russia, France, and England became guarantors of an inde­ pendent constitutional government in Greece. Moldavia and Wallachia became autonomous, while in 1830 Serbia obtained autonomy with Russian _support, although she still owed tribute to the Sultan. In 1853 Nicholas I of Russia proposed to the English GoY­ ernment that inasmuch as Turkey was a ''sick man'' England and Russia should proceed to divide Turkish territory between them. England declined, and when Russia invaded Turkish ter­ ritory, England and France went to the aid of the Sultan in 1854, and_the Crimean war stopped Russian expansion South­ ward and preserved Turkish integrity. In 1866 a Hohenzollern prince, Charles I, became ruler of both Moldavia and Wallachia, two states which united to be­come Roumania. In 1875 a revolution in Bulgaria was punished by the Turks with such atrocities that European sentiment was aroused. Russia again declared war in 1877. Aided by Rou­mania, Serbia, and Montenegro, she defeated Turkey, and by the terms of the Treaty of San Stephano, the independence of Serbia, Montenegro, and Roumania was recognized, while Bulgaria be­came a selfgoverning state, although a tributary of Turkey. However, the Powers int·erfered with this arrangement. By the treaty of Berlin, 1878, Russia was deprived of the territorial gains which she had made, and Macedonia and Roumelia were taken from Bulgaria. Austria was allowed to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina. Up to the 'freaty of Berlin, the decline of Turkey had re­sulted in the establishment of five Balkan states. Russia had championed the cause of these peoples, who were Slav and Christian. Russian interest was not exclusively humanitarian, however. It has long been the dream of Russian statesmen to secure an outlet for their country to the Mediterranean. Eng­lish fear of Russia led her to oppose this, and we find England championing the cause of Turkey. In the meantime England was securing herself in Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean. Development of German Interests in the East Bismarck once said that the whole Eastern question was "not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier.'' Since the Treaty of Berlin, Germany has shown .an increasing interest in the Balkans and Western Asia. Germany and Austria have de­veloped a plan which would enable them to exploit the Balkans and the near East for their own advantage. Germany has come to supplant England as the protector and adviser of Turkey. The Turkish army has been reorganized by German officers. Germany has sought to extend her influence beyond Turkey. In 1898, in a speech at Damascus, Emperor William said, ''The three hundred million Mohammedans who live scattered over the globe may be assured of this, that the German Emperor will be their friend at all times." Germany has sought to promote Mohammedan solidarity in order to fur­ther her own interests. In order to develope the resources of Asia Minor and Meso­potamia, and to obtain a direct route to the far East, Germany secured concessions for the construction of a railroad from Con­stantinople to Bagdad (1740 miles). The plan to extend this road to the Persian Gulf was opposed by Great Britain. How­ever, in.1914, just before war broke out, a satisfactory agree­ment seems to have been reached between England and Ger­many concerning this extension. This railroad will greatly fa­cilitate the development of this territory. Friction arose be­cause of its political significance in view of -Germany's ambitions in the East. President Wilson-summarized Germany's ambitions in cen­tral Europe and the East in his Flag Day address, July 14, 1917. "Their plan was to throw a broad belt of German military power and political control across the center of Europe, and beyond the Mediterranean into the heart of Asia; and Austria­Hungary was to be as much their tool and pawn as Serbia or Bulgaria or Turkey or the ponderous states of the East. Aus­tria-Hungary, indeed, was to became part of the central Ger­man Empire, absorbed and dominated by the same forces and influences that had originally cemented the German states them­selves. The dream had its heart at Berlin. It could have a heart nowhere else! It rejected the idea of solidarity of race ~mtirely. The choice of peoples played no part in it at all. It cantemplated binding together racial and political units which could be kept together only by force-Czechs, Magyars, ·Croats, Serbs, Roumanians, Turks, Armenians-the proud states of Bo­hemia and Hungary, the stout little commonwealths of the Bal­kans, the indomitable Turks, the subtile peoples of the East. These peoples did not wish to be united. They ardently de­sired to direct their own affairs, would be satisfied only by un­disputed independence. They could be kept quiet only by the presence or constant threat of armed men. They would live under a common power only by sheer compulsion and await the day of revolution. But the German military statesmen had reckoned with all that and were ready to deal with it in their own way." Austrian Annexation of Bosnia and Herzeg·ovina (1909) In ,July, 1908, occurred the "Young Turk" revolution which overthrew the rule of the Sultan Abdul Hamid. The revo­lutionists believed that this ruler's policy was weakening Tur­key, and that reforms were needed to reconstruct Turkish strength. Germany quickly accepted the revolution and main­tained her influence at Constantinopl~. Austria took advantage of this situation to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, although this was contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Berlin, by which they had been entrusted to her care. Russia was not in a position to protest vigorously. Serbia felt that her interests were involved, and a serious diplomatic crisis arose. By the intervention of England and France, war was averted, and Serbia was forced to comply. Russia felt that Austria had taken advantage of her, and had been able to carry out this highhanded action because she had the complete back­ing of Germany. The Balkan Wars (1912-1913} In 1911 Italy made war on 'l'urkey, and took possession of Tripoli. This was one more factor to increase the unrest in the Balkans. A league consisting of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro was formed for the . purpose of driving· Turkey out of Europe. The Balkan states were determined to settle their own problems. The Turkish army, which had been under German tutelage, was quickly defeated, to the surprise of the Powers. A treaty was made with Turkey, enabling her to keep Constantinople, but the territory won was distributed among the various victorious states. This result was not to the liking of Germany and Austria. If this league remained intact, it meant that their proposed "corridor" to the East would be shut. Consequently, they in­cited Bulgaria to turn upon her allies. A Bulgarian attack on Serbia started a second war. However, Greece "Came to Ser­bia's aid, as .did Roumania. The latter state had not taken part in the first war, and was consequently fresh. Bulgaria was com­pletely defeated, and by the treaty of Bucharest in 1913, a new arrangement of Balkan teritory was made which weakened Bul­garia. Serbia received compensation in Macedonia while a new state, Albania, was created. Germany and Austria had again backed the losing side, and the new situation was worse for them than before. Serbia, vic­torious and greater in size, with friendship for Russia but none for Austria, blocked the Pan-German route to the East. The Balkans had settled their own troubles, but Germany and Aus­tria felt that the Treaty of Bucharest must be broken. An iD· dependent Serbia was not to be tolerated. Germany and Russia Notwithstanding the fact that Germany sided with Austria in­stead of Russia, and directly interfered with Russian interests when those of Austria were involved, we still finq her endeavor­ing to influence Russian affairs. Russia had also annexed a part of the old Kingdom of Poland. Prussian statesmen tried to make the Russian government feel that they had a common problem in ruling the Poles. Furthermore, the two countries had the same autocratic gov­ernment. From 1904 to 1907, a series of communications passed between Emperor William and Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, which were recently made public by the revolutionary Govern­ment. At the time 'when the Russian people were seeking to obtain a more liberal government, the German Emperor offered his support to the Russian dynasty and sought to draw Russia from the alliance with France. It was suggested that Germany and Russia annex Denmark. Germany and England The last and most tragic phase of the period preceding the outbreak of the war, was the strong effort on the part of England to come to a friendly understanding with Germany. In 1912, a treaty was negotiated between the two countries. Great Britain proposed that they sign the following declaration: ''The two powers being naturally desirous of securing peacr and friend­ship between them, England declares that she will neither make, nor join in, any unprovoked attack upon Germany. Aggres­sions upon Germany is not the subject, and forms no part, of any treaty, understanding, or combination to which England is now a party, nor will she become a party to anything that has such an object.'' Germany refused to sign unless Great Britain would agree to remain neutral in any war which might break out on the continent. Had England promised to stand aside while Russia and France were being crushed, her time would have come in the end. Treitschke said: ''The last settle­ment, the settlement with England, will probably be the length­iest and the most difficult.'' In 1914 the two countries seem to have come to definite un­derstanding. Two agreements were drawn up. One between Germany and England, the other between England and Turkey. The terms were not published, but the Bagdad railway ques­tion, and difficulties in Africa were settled. The war prevented the signing of this agreement. Was Germany serious or was this merely another of her many efforts to break the Entente? A Brief History of the War CHAPTER III THE AUSTRO-SERBIAN CONTROVERSY Austrian ·Hostility toward Serbia The Treaty of Bucharest and the success of Serbia was intolerable to Austria and Germany. The former Prim• Min­ister of Italy, G,iolitti, has revealed a proposal made by Austria to her allies which clearly indicates Austria's purpose to hum­ble Serbia. On August 9, 1913, the day before the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest, Austria declared her intention of taking action against Serbia. She defined this action as defensive, and asked whether Germany and Italy would support her. Italy replied that this could not be considered defensive. Pan-S"lavism a Menace to the Dual Monarchy The Balkan situation had not only become unfavorable to the plans of Germany and Austria for the control of the East, but it had become a menace to the unity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Under the rule of the Dual Monarchy are many differ­ent races and nationalities. The constitutional system is so ar­ran~ed that the German and Magyar races are enabled to con­trol all the others. Those -races which thus lack any effective voice in the government hope to gain autonomy and control of their own affairs, and the success of the Balkan states in gaining independence from Turkey made this desire on the part of these opp'ressed peoples all the stronger. Serbia and Rou­mania even looked forward to the time when they might incor­porate the peoples of their race who are in the Austro-Hunga­rian Empire. The idea of a "Greater Serbia" was being actively forwarded by patriotic societies, which spread the idea of the union of the Serbs within the Austro-Hungarian Empire with Serbia. In 1917 representatives from the Austrian provinces and the Prime Minister of Serbia signed an agreement to establish at some fu­ture time a new state to be ruled by the King of Serbia and to be called the "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes." This propaganda sought to undermine the Austrian state, and was a constant danger to it. Hence Austrian statesmen quite naturally felt that they must take strong measures to suppress such acti­vities. On the other hand, the Serbs felt justified in such re­volutionary plans, because Austria did not grant her peoples self-government. Thus, in one sense, Austrian interest in the Balkans was de­fensive. It must be remembered that Austria has done a great work in the past. She stopped the Turkish invasion of Europe, and she gave the peoples she ruled a more stable government and a higher civilization than they perhaps would have pos­sessed otherwise. However, the time has come when these peo­ples have a right to self-government, and the reactionary gov­ernment of the Hapsburg dynasty does not wish to grant this. The peoples formerly under Turkish rule have obtained inde­pendence. The nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire feel that they may some day be equally fortunate. For this reason the Dual Monarchy was anxious to destroy Serbia. Furthermore, such intentions conformed to the Pan­German plan, and Germany adopted the policy of her ally. In fact, Austria was dependent on the support of Germany to carry out her plans. Russia was the friend of the Slav peoples, and particularly of Serbia. Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism met in the Balkans. Pan-Germanism stands for the domination and suppression of weaker nationalities. Pan-Slavism at its best means the settlement of the complicated racial problems of South­eastern Europe by securing liberty and independence for each and every oppressed nationality. The Assassination at Serajevo On June 28, 1914, the Austrian Crown Prince, Franz Ferdi­nand, and his wife, while on an official visit to Serajevo, the capital of the province of Bosnia, were killed by Serbs. The assassins were subjects of the Dual Monarchy, but members of the secret society in Serbia, the Narodna Obrana, which was hed, and wa.s for a time left in the hands .of the moderate party, or Constitutional Democrats. However, this government found itself paralyzed by the activities of the radicals, who sought to make A Brier History of the War the revolution social as well as political. The Workingmen's l_lnd Soldiers' Delegates formed a council which proclaimed itself the real head of the revolution. The result was th£ demoralization of all effective government as well as of all discipline in the army. The Germans took advantage of the situation to still further increase the confusion, and by November, the extreme radicals, the Bolsheviki, came into power. Their program was to estab­. Iish a republic controlled by the poor people, by which the large estates were to be handed over to the peasants, and to conclude peace with Germany. On December 15 a truce was concluded with Germany, which provided for negotiations, and a peace con­ ference took place at Brest-Litovsk. This situation in Russia permitted the Central Powers to re­ lease troops on the Eastern front for use· elsewhere. An offen­ sive was begun against the Italians in October. The Italians were entirely m,iable to cheek the German advance. Discontent and disorder in the army fomented mainly. by German intrigue, D\1ade German success more complete, and the Italian armies were pushed back into Italy. The offensive was halted finally by the aid of French' and English troops. Thus the results of 1917 were not favorable to the Allies. Up to this time, Russia had prevented Germany and Austria from directing their complete attention to their enemies in the West. Now that Russia was no longer a factor, Germany and Austria could obtain food supplies from Russia, and they could also turn the full force of their strength to the Italian and West­ ern fronts. ·, Campaign of 1918 On March 21, Germany, after great preparations launched a great offensive against the Allied line in Northern France. Re­ alizing that the United States would soon begin to make her strength felt, Germany sought to strike a decisive blow, and if possible so cripple the English and the F'rench that they would cease to be effective factors in the war. The first objective of the German drive was the town of Amiens, which is an important base of supplies for the British army. The attack began at the place where the English and French armies joined each other. University of Texas Bulletin The Allies were gradually forced back in this greatest offensive of the war. They finally made a stand a short distance from Amiens, where they held. However, the Germans had recovered practically all of the ground lost in the battle of the Somme and the Hindenburg retreat. The greatest depth of German advance was nearly fifty miles. The Allied lirie was not broken, and the effort to drive a wedge between the French and Engiish was a failure. Had the Germans succeeded in breaking through they1 would have rolled the English armies back toward the Channel. The first effort having been slowed up, the Germans began another offensive further West. They attacked the English be­tween Arras .and Ypres. This offensive failed to make an equal advance. On May 28 the Germans swept over the Chemin des Dames and the Aisne river, took Soissons the next day and. were not stopped until they had reached the Marne river. They had thus driven two ugly salients into the Allied line, threatening important lines of communication, as well as Paris and the Channel ports. On June 9 an important offensive began between the two salients, but was soon checked by French counter at­tacks. On June 15 Austria launched an offensive which failed to break down Italian resistance. The Allied resistance was stiffening, and three days after the beginning of a new German offensive to enlarge the Marne salient on July 15, the Allies began the counter offensive which wiped out the Marne salient. This was followed August 9 by a forward movement of the Allies in the Picardy salient. American numbers have given the Allies the initiative. The Italian disaster and the German offensive in March have had one good result in that the Allied armies are now controlled by one man, General Foch, who is commander of the armies of all the countries fighting, not only in France but also in Italy. What has given Germany a great advantage throughout the en­tire war, has been the fact that she has held a central position, which has enabled her to shift troops from · one front to the other as needed, and because she has consistently followed the plans of her general staff. There has been no waste effort. The Allies have in no sense worked together. Each country has fol­ A Brief His~ory of tke War lowed its own plans, and sought to obtain its immediate ends. Now an Inter-Allied War Council and one supreme commander of all military forces will insure a unity of action that has never before been realized. As a result of this policy, American troops are to be brigaded with French and English troops, so that they may more quickly gain military experience. American men and resources have counter-balanced the gain of the Central Powers resulting from the elimination of Russia. In conclusion it may be said, that although Germany has been :fighting a great many countries, she has bad the advantage of :fighting them in stages. She had expected to be able to defeat France and then Russia. France and Russia bore the brunt of the fighting until England could raise, train, and provide for a large army. The elimination of Russia now places Germany . and Austria with their other allies on an equality of strength with France, England, and Italy. In the meantime, the United States is going through the slow stages that delayed England's full participation in the war. Because Germany is still as strong as the Allied forces, it is of supreme importance that America make her strength felt as soon as possible. America must and will give the Allies the increased strength needed to win a :final victory. CHAPTER VII How THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THE WAR American Neutrality If ev.er a nation went to war ca.lmly, deliberately, and after careful consideration of the evidence, America is that nation. For three and a half years we struggled to preserve our neutral­ity, and when at last the enlightened . public opinion of this great Republic decided to enter the war, Germany was con­victed by the greatest court, which ever sat in judgment upon another nation. The American people were long confused by the various claims advanced by different governments. Foreign-born and foreign­descended citizens quite naturally sided with the countries from which they had sprung. What was more natural in the early days of our neutrality 1 There unfortunately existed an un­friendly attitude toward England, for although we have for­gotten the Civil War, textbooks in American history continue to misrepresent the American Revolution. On the other band, we had great admiration and respect for Germany. France quickly enlisted our sympathy, and vve recalled the aid of Lafay­ette to our struggling coimtry. Our interest was aroused by the struggle of the French people to preserve their civilization from a ruthless invader. But as we favored one side or the other and for different reasons, we had no thought of entering the war. It was to such a confused national state of mind that President Wilson issued his proclamation of neutrality. "Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neu­trality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness, and friendliness to all concerned.'' Such openmindedness was fur­ther advised so that we might play the role of mediator between the warring nations at the close of the conflict. President Wil­son's early speeches made much of this possibility. Neutrality seemed to be in complete accord with our history. In the days when our nation was weak, it had necessarily avoided being drawn into European affairs. As our republic grew stronger, it had formulated the Monroe Doctrine. .It pledged itself to defend the American continents from European aggres­sion, but in doing so it was made clear that the United States would not intervene in the policies of the Old World. We as­sumed no responsibility for our participation in the Algeciras Conference in 1906. America, through her representatives, agreed to observe the rules of The Hague Conventions, but it was specifically stated that she was not bound to enforce their observance upon other states. Consistently the United States had held itself aloof from everything which was not strictly Ameri'Can. Likewise we were a nation that had desired to promote the peace of the world. America had taken an active part in the efforts to establish an International Court of Arbitration. We further emphasized our sincereity in this action by concluding arbitration treaties with! some thirty different countries, by which all disputes with such peoples were to be settled by peace­ ful investigation and discussion, rather than by war. Certainly, the United States was not to be easily persuaded that what seemed to be a European war demanded our participa­tion. Nevertheless, there was one phase of national interest which was immediately affected by the war. We had a, great commerce, and had always stood for the freedom of the seas~ In 1909, we had been actively interested in the drawing up· o.f the declaration of London, which was an, effort to draw. up an international code Qf law governing the use of the seas. Al­though Sir Edward Grey had called the Conference, the Eng­lish Parliament refused to ratify what it had formulated, be­tause Germany would not agree to a similar limitation of land powers. This belief in the freedom of the seas has been a prin­eiple which America has consistently advocated, and disregard of our rights as we conceived them was sure to call forth our protest. The British government sough~ to put restrictions on trade .with Germany. A blockade is legal. Great Britain had re.cog­nized the legitimacy of the blockade of the South during the Civil War. England did not immediately declare a blockade, and our trade was subjected to annoying restrictions. An effort was made to get England to agree to the Declaration of London, but this she could not do, for she felt that she must turn her navy to its greatest possible use against Germany. Considerable irritation was produced by British interference with what we re­garded as our rights, but in all these controversies, there was no question of destruction or loss of property. England was ready to give 'Compensation for all losses to trade, and further­more by the terms of the arbitration treaty between the two na­tions, all matters were sure to be ultimately adjusted. Further­more, today as a belligerent we are co-operating in all measures. to which we formerly objected as a neutral. Our dispute with Germany conce.rning the freedom of the seas was of a more serious nature. Germany objected to the snle of munitions to the Allies. by American firms. This she could not 9.o legally or consistently, because it had always been her own practice to sell munitions to peoples at war when :;he was neutral. Every neutral has that right, otherwise the result of a war would depend upon the store of cannon and muni­tions which a nation could accumulate and not upon what it had the wealth to purchase. Germany sunk ships and justified such action by sl),ying that they were carrying munitions to her enemies. This was a violation of our right<> on the seas, unless Germany could establish an effective blockade. Germany sought to establish such a blockade of the Allied countries. On February 4, 1915, the German Government de­creed that there should exist a war zone in which submarines would operate. Her blo'Ckade necessarily had to be made effect­ive by the use of the submarine. International law did not pro­vide for the submarine, which introduced entirely new questions. The submarine necessarily must destroy the ship it attacks. It cannot apply the principle of "visit and search" to determine . whether or not the ship it holds up carries contraband goods or has a forbidden destination. It cannot place the occupants of the ship in a place of safety before destroying it. Thus the sub­marine blockade meant a loss of life, a consequence which had not followed in previous blockades. Germany argued that the sub­ 73 A Brief History of the Wat· marine was a new ekmcnt that international law must consider, and as usual she pled the law of necessity. The American Government did not cease to protest against the sinking of merchant ships by submarines. It contended that Americans had the right to travel on the high seas ~md that Germany had no right to forbid them, or to place them in danger or even kill them for exereising their right. In the sec­ond note President Wilson said, "the Government of the United. States is contending for something much greater than mere 1 rights of property, or privileges of commerce. It is contend-· ing for nothing less high and sacred than the rights .of hu­manity." A crisis came with the sinking of the Sussex with Americans on board, March 26, 1916. At first the German Government sought to evade the issue by pretending that it had sunk another ship than the Sussex. Secretary Lansing finally made this state­ment: "Unless the Imperial Government should now immedi­ately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare, against passenger and freight carrying vessels, the Government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German. Empire al­together." On May 4, 19i6, the German Government agreed not to sink vessels "without warning, and without saving h.uman lives unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance." However, she added this condition, namely, that the United States should demand that England observe the rules of inter­national law as these had been recognized before the war. The United States refused to admit that respect for the rights of A:rp.erican· citizens by Germany should depend upon the conduct of other nations. The submarine question was not the only evidence of bad faith on the part of Germany toward the United States. German agents in this country sought to stir up trouble for us at holhe and abroad. The least offensive of these was Dr. Dernburg who directed the German propaganda in this cquntry, but left after the storm of indignation which he aroused by defending the sinking of the Lusitap.ia. The Austrian Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Dumba, was found guilty of endeavoring to disturb steel and munitions factories. When a letter was seized University of Texas Bulletin in England which made his guilt certain, Austria was asked to recall him. In April, 1916, detectives in New York raided the offices of Wolf von Igel, who was attached to the German Embassy in this country. They found papers proving the direct connection of the official representatives of the German Government in this country with various plots to destroy merchant ships, to foment rebellion in Ireland, to cause ill feeling against the United _States in Mexico, to buy up lecturers and newspapers for the spreading of the German propaganda, to :finance a bureau for stirring up labor troubles in munitions P.lants. Count von Bern­storff, German Ambassador to the United States, asked the Ger­man Government for $50,000 with which he proposed to influ­ence Congress. Such was the net of intrigue by which the Ger­man representatives in America sought to aid their Government by illegal and disrespectful means. As the war progressed in Europe, sentiment in the United States underwent a change. The violation of Belgian neutral­ ity was a shock, but there were those among us who even claimed that this was legally justifiable. Then came the stories of the atrocities. At first, Americans could not believe that such bar­ barities could be committed by a civilized people, but as the evi­ dence piled up through the Bryce Report and statements -0f Americans who came from Belgium, all our doubts were shat­ tered and German methods of waging war were utterly con­ demned. We came to understand better what Ger:qiany stood for and what the consequences of a German victory would mean for the civilized. world. We saw that Germany had wanted war and that she had precipitated that struggle in 1914. German militarism and German autocracy were so contrary to American ideals, that America became convinced that the world would one day be too small to contain both. President Wilson was already engaged in the preparation of a peace note asking the nations at war to d~fine their aims, when Germany proposed peace negotiations with tlie Allies on Decem­ ber 12, 19J6. The tone of this note indicated that Germany wished to dictate peace. as a conqueror, and she gave no express conditions which might be discussed. The Allies saw in the A Brief History of the War proposal only an 'effort to throw responsibility for continuing the war upon them. On December 18, the President sent his note to all the bellig­erents asking them to define their war aims,_ and suggested the possibility of forming a future league to enforce peace. The replies received enabled America to judge more clearly the atti­tude of the two sides. Germany boasted of her strength and re­fused to openly state her aims. Furthermore, Germany sought to force all neutrals to bring such pressure on the Allies as would end the .war. Under a thinly veiled threat that the rights of neutrals WQnld not be respected, warnings came that submar­ines would be unloosed upon all neutral commerce. On the other hand, the Allied nations sent forth frank replies in which they expressed a willingness to · make liberal terms. They were determined to prevent Germany from a1ccomplishing her pur­pose, but they were not fighting for conquest ; rather they sought to obtain conditions which would establish permanent peace. On Janua~y 22, 1917, President Wilson outlined to the Senate the kind of peace that the United States could join in guaran­teeing. "I am proposing, as it were, that the nations should with one accord adopt the doctrine of President Monroe as the doctrine of the world: that no nation should seek to extend its polity over any other nation or people, but that every people · should be left free to determine its own polity, its own way of development, unhindered, unthreatened, unafraid, the little along with the great and the powerful." "Mere agreements may not make peace secure. It will be absolutely nec·essary that a force be created as a guarantor of the permanency of the settlement so much greater than the force of any nation now en­gaged or any alliance hitherto formed or projected that no na­tion, no probable combination of nations, could face or with­stand it.'' Once this position was reached and we felt that America ought to lend her strength to the enforcement of future peace, the next logical step was to consider why it was not our duty to join the Allies who were fighting to obtain such a permanent peace. Did not the Allies constitute a league to ~nforce peace f They substantially agreed to the ideas of President Wilson. The University of Tex