--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Tanner, Joseph M. collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 20 number: 5 published: 1917-03 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'Joseph M. Tanner, "The United States and Germany," *Improvement Era* 20, no. 5 (March 1917): 446–448.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera2005unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera2005unse start_page: 446 end_page: 448 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1917-03) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera2005unse publication_year: 1917 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1917, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # The United States and Germany The United States and Germany By Dr. Joseph M. Tanner Soon after the outbreak of the great war the Germans declared the North Sea a war zone, and threatened vessels carrying on trade in the regions of her so-called blockade. The German note was of such a character as to challenge the rights of neutral nations, and especially the international law which gives the passengers and crew of a merchant ship the right to be landed and properly cared for before the ship is sunk, even if the warring nation has the right to sink it. When the Lusitania was sunk, the fact that over a hundred American citizens lost their lives through the failure of the German submarine to care for the passengers before sinking the ship, gave rise to intense excitement throughout the United States. Other ships were subsequently sunk, and the same principle of international law was invoked against Germany. Finally, after the sinking of the ship Sussex, the United States, through its President, warned Germany that a repetition of such conduct would result in the severance of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Germany finally assented to the demands made upon her by the United States, and promised indemnity for the loss of American lives taken unlawfully upon the high seas. Germany, however, in her concessions to the United States, was insistent that the United States compel Great Britain to cease its blockade stoppage of the mails and interruptions of freight. To this the United States replied that Germany's trouble with Great Britain was a matter between these latter two countries, and that American rights upon the high seas could not be jeopardized by Germany because of any wrong that Great Britain might be committing. Besides, the United States occupied a position toward Great Britain that had in it some embarrassment, from the fact that the very acts of which the United States was complaining had been committed toward Great Britain during the Civil war in this country. Later, the question of armed merchant vessels came up, and the controversy which arose out of it is now leading to the gist of the contention between our country and Germany. It has been an accepted principle of international law that a merchant man might carry a gun on the ship to protect itself in case of THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY 447 attack by warring vessels, and in the effort of the merchantman to make its escape, it might fire upon its enemy. In the beginning, Germany seemed to contend that if a merchantman were armed, it could be attacked and sunk without warning. When, however, the proposition arose to put a gun both in — front and at the rear of the merchantman fore and aft, as it is called by sailors— Germany protested, and declared that it would regard all such ships as auxiliary war vessels which it might sink without notice. Our government has taken the stand that guns carried fore and aft are within the rules prescribed by international law, on the ground that the principle by which a merchantman might defend itself, and especially from a submarine, allowed armament at both ends of the vessel, due to the fact that a submarine might emerge from the water in front of the ship; and that, unless a merchantman were permitted to arm itself in front, its legal protection by international law in the matter of armament would be of little or no value. On this point the United States and Germany are directly at variance. It will be remembered that some time ago, one of these merchantmen armed fore and aft was seized, and sixty-four American citizens on it were made prisoners of war. If such a ship were a warship, the Germans had a perfect right to make those on it prisoners of war. If not, all that the Germans could do, in taking them from the ship, was to place them in a position of safety. Germany, however, acceded to the demand that these sixty-four Americans be released, on the ground that the seizure was prior to the blockade ordered by Germany to take place February 1 of this year. When the Teutons marked out a large zone extending from Spain in the south, westward far out into the Atlantic, then northward, so as to cut off all of Great Britain, France, and the Scandinavian countries, they directly, by the terms of this blockade, abrogated their promise to the United States that they would respect the principles of international law for which the latter country had been contending. This gave rise to two distinct objections: First, a blockade, to be recognized by international law. must be an effectual one, and this the Germans could not claim merely from the presence of submarines within that zone. In the next place, Germany withdrew her pledge to the United States, and announced her intention to wage an unrestricted campaign against all vessels found within that zone. This led immediately, on Feb. 3, to the severance of diplomatic relations between the two countries. War, of course, did not follow, but was contingent upon some overt act on the part of Germany, before the United States could declare war. This 448 IMPROVEMENT ERA government stands upon its rights of the so-called freedom of the seas, and refused to grant a convoy of warships to merchantmen sailing from the United States to Great Britain, on the ground that Germany's blockade and submarine program were entirely illegal, and that if through such a blockade an overt act in violation of American rights were committed, it would be immediate cause for war. A most remarkable condition has arisen, due to the fact that a large number of American citizens, who might be drafted into the war in case of conscription, are of German birth. If war were declared between the two countries, a most embarassing complication would arise for these socalled German-Americans, and people naturally ask the question whether they would be willing to fight for the country of their adoption, for the Stars and Stripes. Doubtless a large majority of them are sincerely patriotic in their allegiance to our institutions and our flag. But what of war? It would be a most painful thing to require them to fight against their Fatherland, and especially ifthey were compelled to fight side by side with the English in the trenches of eastern France. Imagine how such citizens of our country would feel! The Germans have inherited a hatred for England. They have been taught in their public schools to hold the English in contempt, and the present cruel war has greatly increased German hatred for the people of Great Britain. "God punish England" was long the battle-cry in Germany. Of course, the logical thing is not always the usual thing. In our relations with Germany, due regard will always be shown for citizens among us who are either descendants of Germans, or themselves born in Germany. Whatever they may feel for France, or for England, or for Russia, they must stand by the nation that has been to them a country of great opportunities and enlarged freedom, and it is very easy to imagine that, should war break out, any public demonstrations of disloyalty for America would meet with the most drastic punishment. The situation is full of anomalies. It is easy to speculate on what might happen. What will happen, it is not easy to predict. It is unthinkable that Germany would deliberately provoke the people of the United States to war. The situation is moreover intense, because so many things may happen to bring on war, and because the Germans are desperately enraged over the refusal of the Allies to concede peace. A curious comparison comes to mind: When the great Napoleon escaped from the island of Elba to marshal the armies of France that finally went down at Waterloo, he had overrun Germany in the most ruthless manner. He had met his defeat finally, and had been banished to Elba. On his escape, he sent out proclamations of peace. He was willing to devote himself