AMERICA'S WAR AIMS

Nevertheless, the Papal and Lansdowne letters were not entirely fruitless. It brought the Allies a step nearer to restating their war aims through Lloyd-George and President Wilson. But their utterances pointed to a steadfast continuance of the war until those aims were achieved, not a slackening of hostilities to effect an inconclusive peace lenient to Germany.

Addressing a body of trades-union delegates at Westminster on January 5, 1918, the British Premier faced a situation—an apparent outgrowth of the Lansdowne letter—where national unity in the prosecution of the war was perceived to be in jeopardy. A suspicion was rife that the war was being pursued for objects which could not be openly avowed. Lloyd-George therefore saw the need of a restatement of war aims:

"We may begin by clearing away some misunderstandings and stating what we are not fighting for.

"We are not fighting a war of aggression against the German people. Their leaders have persuaded them that they are fighting a war of self-defense against a league of rival nations, bent on the destruction of Germany. That is not so. The destruction or disruption of Germany or the German people has never been a war aim with us from the first day of this war to this day.

"Nor did we enter this war merely to alter or destroy the imperial constitution of Germany, much as we consider that military and autocratic constitution a dangerous anachronism in the twentieth century. Our point of view is that the adoption of a really democratic constitution by Germany would be the most convincing evidence that her old spirit of military domination has, indeed, died in this war and would make it much easier for us to conclude a broad, democratic peace with her. But, after all, that is a question for the German people to decide.

"We are not fighting to destroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive Turkey of its capital or the rich lands of Asia Minor and Thrace, which are predominantly Turkish.

"The settlement of the new Europe must be based on such grounds of reason and justice as will give some promise of stability. Therefore, it is that we feel that government with the consent of the governed must be the basis of any territorial settlement in this war. For that reason also, unless treaties be upheld, unless every nation is prepared, at whatever sacrifices, to honor the national signature, it is obvious that no treaty of peace can be worth the paper on which it is written."

The British Premier then restated the Allies' specific war aims, which did not materially differ from the first declaration recorded in a previous volume of this history, except with regard to Russia, conditions in that country having called for a suspension of judgment on territorial questions affecting her.

Three days later (January 8, 1918), President Wilson gave to the world the peace terms of the United States in an address to Congress. His declaration was the most advanced doctrine of internationalism pronounced by any of the Allied statesmen. It definitely committed the United States not only to promoting and safeguarding the peace of Europe but the peace of the world. The frequent question: What was America fighting for? was answered. It was not merely to uphold American rights. The aims of the United States had developed far beyond nationalism. It was to uphold the rights of all the peoples menaced or outraged in the world war.

The purpose of the President's address appeared to be threefold:

To drive a wedge into the political structure of Germany by encouraging the Socialists and liberal elements, and exhibiting the military party as the single obstacle to democracy and world peace.

To expose the insincerity of Germany's pretensions of liberality in her peace offers to Russia and thus bring Russia back into partnership with the democracy of the Allies, which she showed symptoms of abandoning.

To show the agreement of the United States with the speech of Lloyd-George and to develop further the principles of world peace for which America stood.

The Entente Allies welcomed the President's pronouncement as putting the seal of American approval on their war aims, as reiterated by Lloyd-George, and as committing the United States to the Allied cause till it was won. The necessity for any restatement of war aims by the United States was regarded as a question for the President to determine, and he had done so at a time when the need was clearly urgent in Great Britain. Hence his address, echoing and, indeed, amplifying that of Lloyd-George, buttressed British solidarity on the war by definitely establishing an abiding Anglo-American Entente while the war lasted.

Far from opening a way to peace, the Papal and Lansdowne pleas produced a sequence of utterances which were in effect renewed war declarations from the spokesmen of the Allies. Lord Lansdowne sought a reiteration of war aims as a basis for peace negotiations. President Wilson's answer to that suggestion was not confined to a reassertion of America's war objects. While the dove of peace was fluttering a pair of weak wings he went to Congress (December 4, 1917) and called for war against Austria-Hungary to remove an "embarrassing obstacle" in the conduct of hostilities against Germany.

"Austria-Hungary," he told Congress, "is for the time being not her own mistress, but simply the vassal of the German Government. We must face the facts as they are and act upon them without sentiment in this stern business.

"The Government of Austria-Hungary is not acting upon its own initiative or in response to the wishes and feelings of its own peoples, but as the instrument of another nation. We must meet its force with our own and regard the Central Powers as but one. The war can be successfully conducted in no other way. The same logic would lead also to a declaration of war against Turkey and Bulgaria. They also are the tools of Germany. But they are mere tools and do not yet stand in the direct path of our necessary action."

Both branches of Congress responded by passing a joint war resolution with only one dissentient House vote, and on December 7, 1917, war with Austria-Hungary was declared.

Germany meditated. There was an answer to be made to Lloyd-George and President Wilson, but what? The military situation, as seen through German eyes, and the political situation in Germany, as dominated by the Junkers and annexationists, duly supplied it. Germany seemed to have become convinced that a German peace was certain. Her confidence was stated to be based on the war map, added to a belief that a lack of cohesion and community of spirit prevailed among the Allies, in contrast with her own unified will to victory, and that the United States was merely gesturing in entering the war. There was obvious camouflage in affecting to question the solidarity of the Allies and to asperse the sincerity of American intervention; but no posturing was perceived in Germany's reliance on the war map as a tangible basis for a German peace. The kaiser's new chancellor, Count von Hertling, addressing the Reichstag main committee on January 22, 1918, emphasized this reliance in a speech which constituted a tardy response to the war aims reaffirmed by Lloyd-George and President Wilson. Demanding that the Entente Powers abandon their attitude that Germany was the guilty party who must do penance and promise improvement, he said:

"They may take it from me that our military position was never so favorable as it now is. Our highly gifted army leaders face the future with undiminished confidence in victory. Throughout the army, in the officers and the men, lives unbroken the joy of battle.

"Our repeatedly expressed willingness for peace and the spirit of reconciliation revealed by our proposals must not be regarded by the Entente as a license permitting the indefinite lengthening of the war.

"If the leaders of the enemy powers really are inclined toward peace let them revise their program once again. If they do that and come forward with fresh proposals, then we will examine them carefully."

This was by way of preface to answering President Wilson's fourteen requirements if the United States was to lay down its arms. The first four, in the chancellor's view, were susceptible to agreement. Germany accepted in principle the abolition of secret diplomacy and favored open covenants of peace. The chancellor saw no difference of opinion on the subject of freedom of navigation upon the seas; but it was "highly important for the freedom of shipping in future if strongly fortified naval bases on important international routes, such as England has at Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hongkong, the Falkland Islands, and many other places, were removed." Further, Germany was in accord with the President regarding the removal of economic barriers that interfered with international trade. She also affirmed that the limitation of armaments desired by President Wilson was "discussable."

The fifth clause of the Wilson peace aims, which called for self-determination by colonial peoples as to whose sovereignty they should recognize, was less easily disposed of. The chancellor evaded the issue by throwing the onus of putting the proposal in practice upon Great Britain:

"I believe that for the present it may be left for England, which has the greatest colonial empire, to make what she will of this proposal of her ally. This point of the program also will have to be discussed in due time, on the reconstitution of the world's colonial possessions."

Thus Germany submitted, as one of the foundations of peace, that England should not only abandon her naval bases but assent to the dismemberment of her colonial empire.

The President's demand for the evacuation of Russian territory was met by a refusal. The Entente Powers having declined to participate in the negotiations between the so-called Russian Government and the Teutonic Powers, the matter was one to be decided between the negotiators alone.

Belgium was not to be evacuated and restored as a condition insisted upon by the United States. The settlement of the Belgian question, the chancellor said, belonged to the peace conference:

"So long as our opponents have unreservedly taken the stand-point that the integrity of the Allies' territory can offer the only possible basis of peace discussion, I must adhere to the stand-point hitherto always adopted and refuse the removal in advance of the Belgian affair from the entire discussion."

The chancellor took the same attitude toward the question of freeing and restoring the invaded French territory and of the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France to right an old wrong. "The occupied parts of France are a valued pawn in our hands," said the chancellor. "The conditions and methods of procedure of the evacuation, which must take account of Germany's vital interest, are to be agreed upon between Germany and France. I can only again expressly accentuate the fact that there can never be a question of dismemberment of imperial territory."

The next four Wilson requirements (VIII to XI), relating to a readjustment of the frontiers of Italy, autonomy for the subjugated races of Austria-Hungary, the restoration and integrity of Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro were not Germany's immediate concern, and the chancellor airily relegated them to Austria-Hungary for consideration. As to Turkey, for whose subject races the President demanded self-government, as well as a free Dardanelles, the chancellor intimated that her integrity vitally concerned the German Empire, while the future of Poland was to rest entirely in the hands of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Finally, President Wilson's proposed league of nations admitted of basic consideration only when all other pending questions had been settled.

The chancellor's answer was a mere repetition of the defiant and arrogant presentations of the German position with which the Allies had become familiar. The war aims of the President to which Count von Hertling could assent were of trivial importance compared to the Allies' chief aim—the overthrow of Prussian militarism. Peace gropings had produced another declaration of war. Germany openly announced that she was engaged on a war of conquest. Chancellor von Hertling's address admitted of no other interpretation. The fate of Poland was to be decided by the kaisers, that is, annexed in substance, if not in form. The Baltic provinces of Russia were earmarked for Germany, and Russia, thus cut off from the western seas, was to have icebound Archangel and distant Vladivostok as her only ports. The disposition or division of Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro was to be left to Austria-Hungary, with Germany pledged to support her decisions. Armenia, Palestine, and Arabia, were to be returned to the Turks, while as to Constantinople and the Dardanelles no settlement could be permitted that was not agreeable to German imperialism. As to Belgium, the conclusion was that it would receive the same status as Luxemburg had before the war, with railroads, ports, commerce, and army in German hands. Not even the return of northern France was promised, this being a question to be discussed, not with the Allies, but only between Germany and France, and Alsace-Lorraine was to be kept on the fraudulent claim that it was and always had been German territory. The question of Italia Irredenta was remitted to Austria-Hungary, and the German colonies were to be restored, regardless of the wishes of their inhabitants or the safety of their neighbors.

When this grandiose scheme of conquest was ratified and realized, then, and then only, would Germany consider entering into a league of peace, or discuss mutual disarmament, or other of the Allies' proposals for safeguarding peace when it came. Germany sought to be placed in possession of doubled power before she would even talk about creating conditions making for a durable peace. She must be able to reject flatly any scheme proposed, and then, snapping her fingers, defy the Allies to do what they would, for she in no wise bound herself to disarm a single soldier or spike a single gun.

The Austrian Reichsrat heard a speech of a different tenor by Count Czernin, Foreign Minister, on the subject of President Wilson's peace aims. The contrast in tone from that of Chancellor von Hertling was so marked and significant as to revive the preexisting belief that the road to peace negotiations would eventually be opened through Austria. Though Count Czernin's speech resolutely upheld the integrity of Austria-Hungary and the preservation and development of her neighboring interests without dictation from the Entente Powers, he held out an olive branch that seemed less of an imitation than those offered by Berlin.

"I think," he said, "there is no harm in stating that I regard the recent proposals of President Wilson as an appreciable approach to the Austro-Hungarian point of view, and that to some of them Austria-Hungary joyfully could give her approval.

"Our views are identical not only on the broad principles regarding a new organization of the world after the war, but also on several concrete questions, and differences which still exist do not appear to me to be so great that a conversation regarding them would not lead to enlightenment and a rapprochement.

"This situation, which doubtless arises from the fact that Austria-Hungary on the one side and the United States on the other are composed of States whose interests are least at variance with one another, tempts one to ask if an exchange of ideas between the two powers could not be the point of departure for a personal conversation among all States which have not yet joined in peace negotiations."

This conciliatory overture—significantly addressed, the Allies quickly noticed, only to the United States—was clearly governed by expediency. Count Czernin revealed a recognition of the critical condition of internal affairs in Austria-Hungary, and sought to make advances that would placate the restless and war-worn people of the dual monarchy without offending the autocratic rulers in Berlin. If peace could come by compromise, then let there be compromise, and approaches to the United States seemed to afford a line of least resistance.

Austria's sincerity, however, was questioned alike in Washington, Paris, and London. Count Czernin was suspected of dangling a familiar bait to split the Allies. The Administration view was that his endeavor to single out the United States as a party with whom to begin preliminary peace conversations was so naive as to be amusing if the situation were not so serious. His invitation was not acceptable. The American Government had thrown in its lot with Great Britain, France, and Italy, and was determined to stand or fall with them. His attempt to promote a separate peace between Austria and the United States was viewed as inspired by a hope that its consideration would either lessen the effectiveness of America's part in the war or provide an opportunity for the pacifists in the Allied countries to extend such a peace movement to the other powers before the war's purposes had been achieved.

The French view was that while the deliverances of Count von Hertling and Count Czernin disclosed that a real cleavage on peace sentiment existed in the two Central Empires, and that the Austrian minister was the first of their spokesmen to show breadth and detachment, the contrast between the two speeches indicated Germanesque stage play. Germany's move was not to show a conciliatory spirit; she left Austria to perform that rÔle. The Allies could take their choice in measuring the negotiable value of the two outgivings.

The Allies decided that the war must proceed. Germany regarded herself as a conqueror, was determined upon aggression, and would listen to no peace terms except her own. Count Czernin's conciliatory tone was discounted by his declared fidelity to Austria's alliance to Germany. The two speeches were believed to have been concocted in collusion with the object of springing a combined diplomatic offensive against the Entente Allies.

"The attack," said the London "Times," "obviously was intended to shake the solidarity of our defense at several points, but President Wilson manifestly was the chief objective of the converging forces. Neither speech discloses the least readiness to make any concessions which the Allies declare to be indispensable."

The effect of the Austro-German pronouncements on Great Britain was to stiffen her resolution to continue hostilities. Little weight was attached to what Austria, the tool of Germany, had to say; the former's peace yearnings, set against the latter's aspirations, were impotent unless energized by a revolution in the dual monarchy. The British only took cognizance of Count von Hertling's words, which confirmed the prevalent belief that Prussian militarism considered itself more firmly seated in the saddle than ever, and that although the chancellor seemed to hold the reins, the team which drew the German car of state was at the mercy of Ludendorff's whip and Hindenburg's spur.