Memo: WWIWWI (Woodrow Wilson in World War I)
MEMORANDUM ON NEUTRALITY VIOLATIONS BY THE WARRING ALLIANCES OF THE GREAT WAR
Date: June 2, 1915
To: Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States
From: Adam Steber, Secretary of State
Subject: U.S. Response to Allied and Central Powers' Aggression
Since the breakout of the Great War, American neutrality has been consistently threatened by both alliances, especially Great Britain and Germany. The sinking of the RMS Lusitania last month, which killed 128 Americans proves only to further highlight this point. Americans are right to be upset over this gross violation of our country's rights to both trade and move freely. For this, Germany is rightly condemned by us members of the Cabinet, Congress, and the American public. That said, we have as of yet turned a blind eye to similar transgressions from the Allied side. Great Britain's continues to blockade food imports into Germany and Austria. Aside from this gross violation of the right to life of German and Austrian citizens, Britain also continues to breach our neutrality policy by seizing any ships they deem to be "contraband" headed for Germany. What respect must they have for our free trade or free movement if we cannot retrieve our ships or are restricted from doing business with one of the world's largest, most industrialized economies? They are no more an ally to us than any of the Central Powers, and we do not owe them any allegiance in return.
The submarine policy of both sides of the war, then, pose a risk to American interests, and threaten to send us to war. However, by responding only to the encroachments made by the Germans and not those by the British, U.S. foreign policy appears partisan towards the Allied Powers. If we are to assure Congress as well as the two alliances that we do not want to get involved in the European conflict, we must deal with both sides evenhandedly. This would require us to issue a statement against the British blockades. Germany has shown willingness to comply with our wishes; Britain has not.
If we are to condemn the Germans for a policy that can kill innocent civilians, so must we condemn tenfold a policy that causes the starvation of a nation. If we wish to admonish Germany's ability to sink our ships and infringe upon our neutrality, so must we admonish Britain for impounding our ships and crippling our trade in the process. If we want to make the world "safe for democracy," we must first make the world safe. Perpetuating the starvation of an entire people does not secure them, nor do the uprisings they could potentially bring. The carnage of war does not save the world either, as Western trench warfare or the attacks in Gallipoli would suggest. Therefore, the option of going to war is off the table, except as a last resort. We cannot fight a war with the expectation that we are creating global peace. Moreover, even if the presidency desired it, Congress would not stand for our military involvement in Europe, going against the foreign policy of our nation since its inception. This war is only an inevitability for us if we make it so, and we can make it so by ignoring one side that is breaking the law while impugning the other. Being neutral means acting neutral, which the administration is not appearing to do at the moment.
The only solution that will work to keep our neutrality are trade embargoes against both powers, provided that the preferred option of forcing both sides to back down from their policies does not work. The latter option is self-explanatory: if both sides relent, our ability to trade freely will resume. Meanwhile, if both sides refuse, an embargo will keep our sailors safe (though we must also restrict travel in the East Atlantic), and cripple European abilities to supply the war. As we have economic influence in Latin America, our economy will remain less affected than the British or German economies. However, since we are not blockading the supplies of other countries from entering, we cannot be held culpable as Britain is of forcibly starving a nation.
Provided we follow the hardline stance of neutrality declared in this memo, both sides will follow the policy of one another. For one power to refuse would inevitably mean the shift of diplomatic relations to the other.The neutrality-violating policies of the European powers underscore the deep importance in fueling the war effort materially, and shows that economics can provide sufficient pressure for either party to back down.
There is also the threat of war. We of course do not want to enter the war unless the territory of the U.S. is directly and immediately threatened, but the idea of a fresh power joining the war against exhausted European soldiers is a situation both sides are reluctant to face. The Allies and Central Powers will both try to coerce us into joining the war in order to gain the upper hand over their enemy. We must not fall for their tricks to bind us to an alliance. Ultimately, our goal is to do the exact opposite. Due to our economic might, we have bargaining power over both Germany and Britain, and we must use it to remain out of the war. It is the only way we can keep our interests our own, and not to subordinate them to foreign powers.
Date: June 2, 1915
To: Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States
From: Adam Steber, Secretary of State
Subject: U.S. Response to Allied and Central Powers' Aggression
Since the breakout of the Great War, American neutrality has been consistently threatened by both alliances, especially Great Britain and Germany. The sinking of the RMS Lusitania last month, which killed 128 Americans proves only to further highlight this point. Americans are right to be upset over this gross violation of our country's rights to both trade and move freely. For this, Germany is rightly condemned by us members of the Cabinet, Congress, and the American public. That said, we have as of yet turned a blind eye to similar transgressions from the Allied side. Great Britain's continues to blockade food imports into Germany and Austria. Aside from this gross violation of the right to life of German and Austrian citizens, Britain also continues to breach our neutrality policy by seizing any ships they deem to be "contraband" headed for Germany. What respect must they have for our free trade or free movement if we cannot retrieve our ships or are restricted from doing business with one of the world's largest, most industrialized economies? They are no more an ally to us than any of the Central Powers, and we do not owe them any allegiance in return.
The submarine policy of both sides of the war, then, pose a risk to American interests, and threaten to send us to war. However, by responding only to the encroachments made by the Germans and not those by the British, U.S. foreign policy appears partisan towards the Allied Powers. If we are to assure Congress as well as the two alliances that we do not want to get involved in the European conflict, we must deal with both sides evenhandedly. This would require us to issue a statement against the British blockades. Germany has shown willingness to comply with our wishes; Britain has not.
If we are to condemn the Germans for a policy that can kill innocent civilians, so must we condemn tenfold a policy that causes the starvation of a nation. If we wish to admonish Germany's ability to sink our ships and infringe upon our neutrality, so must we admonish Britain for impounding our ships and crippling our trade in the process. If we want to make the world "safe for democracy," we must first make the world safe. Perpetuating the starvation of an entire people does not secure them, nor do the uprisings they could potentially bring. The carnage of war does not save the world either, as Western trench warfare or the attacks in Gallipoli would suggest. Therefore, the option of going to war is off the table, except as a last resort. We cannot fight a war with the expectation that we are creating global peace. Moreover, even if the presidency desired it, Congress would not stand for our military involvement in Europe, going against the foreign policy of our nation since its inception. This war is only an inevitability for us if we make it so, and we can make it so by ignoring one side that is breaking the law while impugning the other. Being neutral means acting neutral, which the administration is not appearing to do at the moment.
The only solution that will work to keep our neutrality are trade embargoes against both powers, provided that the preferred option of forcing both sides to back down from their policies does not work. The latter option is self-explanatory: if both sides relent, our ability to trade freely will resume. Meanwhile, if both sides refuse, an embargo will keep our sailors safe (though we must also restrict travel in the East Atlantic), and cripple European abilities to supply the war. As we have economic influence in Latin America, our economy will remain less affected than the British or German economies. However, since we are not blockading the supplies of other countries from entering, we cannot be held culpable as Britain is of forcibly starving a nation.
Provided we follow the hardline stance of neutrality declared in this memo, both sides will follow the policy of one another. For one power to refuse would inevitably mean the shift of diplomatic relations to the other.The neutrality-violating policies of the European powers underscore the deep importance in fueling the war effort materially, and shows that economics can provide sufficient pressure for either party to back down.
There is also the threat of war. We of course do not want to enter the war unless the territory of the U.S. is directly and immediately threatened, but the idea of a fresh power joining the war against exhausted European soldiers is a situation both sides are reluctant to face. The Allies and Central Powers will both try to coerce us into joining the war in order to gain the upper hand over their enemy. We must not fall for their tricks to bind us to an alliance. Ultimately, our goal is to do the exact opposite. Due to our economic might, we have bargaining power over both Germany and Britain, and we must use it to remain out of the war. It is the only way we can keep our interests our own, and not to subordinate them to foreign powers.
I enjoyed your whole post about American Nuetrality. I agree with your point that for th United States to stay nuetral they must impose trade embargoes with both sides. The only thing is how trustworthy can both sides be in this situation? Yes they both know that if they were to do something then the US could join the other side but as of right now the countries are still encroaching on US supply ships. I agree that the best interest at this point would be to stay out of it but I think that war will come about sooner than later. We will not be able to stay Neutral forever even though we may try to.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in order to preserve our neutrality we must act/react equally to each of the nations threatening our desire to remain out of the war. In only condemning Germany for their encroachments it seems we are not actually neutral and we've already chosen to turn a blind eye to Great Britain's blockades, thus bringing us closer to forming an alliance and entering the war. As Mike said, we will not be able to remain neutral forever. Issuing trade embargoes against both Great Britain and Germany may cause more tension and even hostile acts from those already involved in the war, as a direct attack against the United States would immediately enter us into the Great War. The threat of issuing a trade embargo against both Great Britain and Germany, and therefore crippling the European ability to supply the war, may be enough to thrust us into the war with/against them.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about not being able to go to war with the expectations of peace is an interesting one. I see both sides of the argument. For example, fighting a war that will result in the deaths of countless people does seem counteractive to the goals of maintaining a peaceful existence. However, there are times were people do not respect the boundaries of other peoples peace. And there are times when embargoes are not as effective as other means. Also I like how you pointed out that both sides have hurt the United States, and trying to choose a side may not be helpful.
ReplyDelete