Roosevelt, Col. Theodore.—Ex-President Roosevelt’s early position on the war has never been cleared up satisfactorily. For more than two months after the outbreak of the war, August, 1914, he held that we were not called upon to interfere on account of the invasion of Belgium. During this time he was not only accounted neutral, but rather friendly to the German side, as was generally understood. He had been cordially received by the Kaiser, whom he allotted the chief credit for his success in bringing about peace between Russia and Japan, and during his term of President one of his most intimate friends was Baron Speck von Sternburg, the German ambassador. He was publicly charged by Mr.Andre Tardieu, the French editor, with trying to influence the Algeciras convention of the powers to favor Germany’s claims in Morocco, although, as M.Tardieu intimated in an article, he must have known of the secret understanding between this government and Great Britain. At all events, in the fall of1914, Col.Roosevelt wrote in the Outlook Magazine that we had no concern with the invasion of Belgium. In September, 1914, the great war then being in its second month, Col.Roosevelt wrote:

It is certainly desirable that we should remain entirely neutral, and nothing but urgent need would warrant breaking our neutrality and taking sides one way or other.

Still later Col.Roosevelt wrote:

I am not passing judgment on Germany’s action.... I admire and respect the German people. I am proud of the German blood in my veins. When a nation feels that the issue of a contest in which, from whatever reason, it finds itself engaged will be national life or death, it is inevitable that it should act so as to save itself from death and to perpetuate its life.... What has been done in Belgium has been done in accordance with what the Germans unquestionably sincerely believed to be the course of conduct necessitated by Germany’s struggle forlife.

Col.Roosevelt’s neutrality was a subject of newspaper comment, as indicated by an article in the New York “Times” of September14, 1914, headed: “Roosevelt Neutral—Confers with Oscar Straus Again, Presumably about Mediation—Is the Kaiser’s Friend.” The lines gave the import of a dispatch from Oyster Bay, Roosevelt’s place of residence, and related that “Mr.Straus’s talks with Roosevelt, coupled with the diplomatic activity of Mr.Straus in diplomatic circles in Washington and New York, have given rise to rumors that Roosevelt’s aid is being sought by those who are endeavoring to pave the way for a settlement of thewar.”

The true import of Mr.Straus’s mission to Oyster Bay in September, 1914, has not yet been made public, though it precludes the suggestion that it was to persuade Roosevelt to pave the way to a settlement of the war, since Mr.Straus soon revealed himself as one of the most active partisans of the Allies in America. It was within a short time after that visit that Roosevelt reversed himself, and from an avowed neutral became a pronounced militant in the cause of the allied powers, denouncing the invasion of Belgium as an act that compelled the United States legally and morally to take up arms against Germany. Although his contention was persistently opposed by papers like the New York “Sun” and “World,” which showed that the article of the Hague convention which guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium had never been signed by England or France, and therefore was inoperative as to all other signatories.

Col.Roosevelt’s view of the invasion seems to have been that of the British government at the beginning. The official English White Book, (edited September28, 1914), Article6 of the Preface, is contained in “The Diplomatic History of the War,” by M.P. Price, p.vii (“Great Britain and the European Crises”), Charles Scribner’s Sons. Itsays:

Germany’s position must be understood. She has fulfilled her treaty obligations in the past; her action now was not wanton. Belgium was of supreme importance in a war with France. If such a war occurred it would be one of life and death. Germany feared that if she did not occupy Belgium, France might do so. In the face of this suspicion there was only one thing to do.

Col.Roosevelt’s ultimate extremely indignant attitude, in which he identified himself with every form of violent anti-German invective then current, even turning against his former most loyal supporters, professed to be primarily based upon Germany’s invasion of Belgium; yet had he lived a little longer he would have been apprised by subsequent revelations that England, about 1886, offered to let Germany invade Belgium in an attack on France. On November7, 1914, he wrote a long letter to Dr.Edmund von Mach, an extract from which seems well placed here. He said:

As regards all the great nations involved, I can perfectly understand each feeling with the utmost sincerity that its cause is just and its action demanded by vital consideration.... I have German, French and English blood in my veins. On the whole, I think that I admire Germany more than any other nation, and most certainly it is the nation from which I think the United States has most to learn. On the whole, I think that of all the elements that have come here during the past century, the Germans have on the average represented the highest type. I do not say this publicly, for I do not think it well to make comparisons which may cause ill will among the various strains that go to make up our population.... I should feel it a world calamity if the German Empire were shattered or dismembered.