“Savagery” vs. Sanity

ONE of the chief bitternesses against the Committee on Public Information was that it did not preach a gospel of hate. It is significant indeed that the attack never proceeded from the fighting force itself, or from men and women actually and actively engaged in war-work, but came invariably from "leagues" and "societies" operating in the name of "patriotism." It was not that these groups were bloodthirsty, or that they did not want to be helpful, but simply that chauvinism was forced upon them by the necessities of their organization. Being dependent for existence upon cash donations, it was essential that they "make a showing" in order that contributions might continue to be attracted. As they were outside the regular war-machinery, and especially as they were not organized for fixed service, it was inevitable that these "societies" and "leagues" should turn to the emotions as a field of activity, and try for an effect of value by noise, attack, and hysteria.

In the first days the Committee tried faithfully to establish working relations with such organizations, but it soon developed that they did not want to put their emotionalism in harness, but preferred to keep it free for exhibition purposes. For a time they filled the air with all sorts of sensational charges with regard to "spies" and "intrigue," but after one high official was called before a New York grand jury and forced to admit sheer recklessness of statement, they confined themselves to general thundering. The following correspondence is submitted as an illustration of method:

March 27, 1918. GEORGE CREEL, ESQ.,

Committee on Public Information, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CREEL:

As patriotic citizens endeavoring to support the Administration and to help win the war, we now feel compelled to bring to your attention a feature of the activities of the Committee on Public Information which we believe to be harmful. We protest that the attitude of that Committee is so pacific that now some of its work amounts to giving comfort to the enemy.

As an exhibit, we cite herewith the letter of the United States Commissioner of Education, Dr. P. P. Claxton, to Dr. R. L. Slagle, president of the University of South Dakota, published by the Creel Committee on Public Information on March 19th, in an Official Bulletin, from which we quote the following astounding statement: "Germany may even yet become one of the leading nations for the preservation of the peace of the world." We are greatly surprised that Mr. Creel should publish this pro-German letter in the Official Bulletin.

We respectfully point out that on the side of our enemies the present war has no parallel in any of the previous wars in which our country ever engaged. The rapacity, the ferocity, and the unspeakably vile methods of the military millions of Germany constitute a factor never before met with in warfare between civilized peoples. Our present enemies are in a class by themselves, and the conditions they have created must be met on our part by new alignments of thought and action. We can fight Christian enemies who fight honorably and fairly, and with humane regard for the weak and the defenseless, and easily become friends with them after the conflict. This is possible because fair-fighting enemies do not forfeit respect.

With Germany, however, we are confronted by a totally different case. On account of innumerable brutal and debasing acts, the whole German nation has forfeited our respect; and aside from a very small minority, the acts and the character of Germany and the German people will not be forgotten by the American people in any less than one hundred years. Every true history of the war will be a history of the crimes of Germany.

Although the crimes of Germany in Europe have been committed by men in uniform, so far as we know, no eye-witness observer of the so-called "German people" ever has published one statement that the civilians of Germany were opposed to the war, or that they deplored the ruthless methods of the German military monsters of cruelty and destruction. On the contrary, we know from eye-witness testimony that "the German people" have universally taken great delight in the destruction of the unarmed people of London by air-craft bombs, the destruction of the passengers of the Lusitania and hundreds of other merchant ships by submarines, and they have silently acquiesced in the murder of eight hundred thousand Armenian Christians by the brutal Turks.

It is our conviction that the great majority of the American people now regard the army, the navy, and the people of Germany with horror and aversion. We are quite sure that the German language now is a hated language, and long will remain so. We believe that all efforts to condone its use in our schools will be resented by the American people, as we ourselves resent them. We regard the letter of Commissioner Claxton as an error of judgment, and decidedly calculated to give "comfort to the enemy."

Furthermore, we believe that the Creel Committee on Public Information has signally failed to put into the hands of our American soldiers and sailors any publication adequately telling them in plain language what they are fighting for, and why they should hate the enemy they are expected to meet and kill. We say this because we are informed that to-day many soldiers are asking their officers why America is in the war, and we are told that those officers need the information in order to give it out. In speaking of captured American soldiers now in Germany, the Vossische Zeitung newspaper says:

"They don't seem to entertain any deep-rooted hatred of Germany. If you ask them why they are making war on Germany you will always get the same answer: * Because Wilson says it is necessary!"3

It is common knowledge that about three months ago out of about one hundred American soldiers in France who were asked one by one, "Why are you in the war?" the great majority of the answers showed an astounding lack of information regarding Germany, of appreciation of the crimes of her troops, and of the real reasons why we are in the war.

Very truly yours, THE AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY. R. M. HURD, Chairman, Board of Trustees. H. D. CRAIG, HENRY C. QUIMBY, Secretary. Chairman, Executive Committee. April 2, 1918. MR. R. M. HURD,

American Defense Society, New York, N. Y. DEAR SIR :

Your circular letter, sent to various officials of the government, as well as to myself, deals principally with the Claxton letter which appeared in the Official Bulletin of March 19th. I admit to you that I am absolutely opposed to many of the points made by Doctor Claxton, and had I seen the letter prior to its publication I would not have consented to its appearance. It came over from the Department of the Interior, however, and the editor of the Bulletin felt that it was official matter duly authorized, so did not take it up with me as is usually the case with articles involving policies. I have not made the matter the subject of any public dissent, for I feel that these mistakes of judgment should be remedied through personal approach, and not in the columns of the press.

Your flat statement that the Committee on Public Information has signally failed in its duty to acquaint the people in the fighting forces of the United States with the causes of war, and the true nature of the foe, proves only that you have not taken the trouble to examine the matter sent out by this Committee. As to why we fight, I am sending you, under separate cover, a copy of How the War Came to America, The War Message and Facts Behind It, The President's Flag Day Speech with Evidence of Germany's Plans, together with various other pamphlets bearing upon the same subject.

As evidence of the cruel and inhuman character of the war methods of the foe, I send you also a copy of German War Practices, Conquest and Kultur, and other pamphlets of similar nature.

Your quotation from the Vossische Zeitung strikes me as a trifle naive, for it is the point of view that a German paper would naturally take, and is in support of the lies with which they have been filling their people from the beginning. To have the American Defense Society swallow their propaganda whole is indeed a victory for the German campaign.

Your insistence that the great majority of soldiers in France show "an astounding lack of information regarding Germany," and "of appreciation of the crimes of her troops," is somewhat amazing to me. For three years the daily papers of the United States have been filled with the horrors of Belgium, the shame of the Serbian campaign, the ravishment of northern France, and the brutalities of the U-boat campaign, and what you ask us to assume is that the youth of America have never read these papers, and are waiting for some government pamphlet to tell them about the Lusitania and other crimes of the Imperial German government.

It is true that this Committee has never preached any doctrine of hate, for it is not our duty to deal in emotional appeals, but to give the people the facts from which conclusions may be drawn. And nothing is more untrue than to say that we have failed in this regard. Proof of this can be found in inspection of literature we have issued, the articles we have sent out for publication in the press, the speeches of Four Minute Men, and all the other varied activities of the Committee.

I dispute flatly your assertion that after three years of German warfare the people of the United States are still ignorant of German savagery, just as I dispute flatly your assumption that the speeches of the President of the United States, defining the causes of war, have not been read by any one. The people of the United States do understand, and the proof of it lies in the fact that the mothers of the country have given their sons to the Selective Service Law without question, that every Liberty Loan has been oversubscribed, and that no request of government has ever lacked complete response. Perhaps it is that this very indomitableness of resolve, this iron determination, leaves no room for the manifestations of surface passion.

Very truly,

GEORGE CREEL, Chairman. 447 THE NATIONAL SECURITY LEAGUE

September 12, 1918. NATIONAL SECURITY LEAGUE,

31 Pine Street, New York, N. Y. DEAR SIR:

Certain New York papers, under date of September 12th, carry articles to the effect that the National Security League has forced the suppression of a book, entitled 2,000 Questions and Answers About the War, with the foreword by me, the plain inference being drawn that this "Masterpiece of Hun Propaganda," as your organization styles it, was being freely circulated without criticism of any kind until your own investigators took patriotic action.

I cannot forgo a public protest against the singular dishonesty and even indecency of this publicity. The book, instead of being without responsible authorship, bore the imprint of The Review of Reviews, and so far back as June 26th I wrote the following letter to Dr. Albert Shaw:

June 26, 1918. DR. ALBERT SHAW,

Review of Reviews, New York City, N. Y. MY DEAR DOCTOR SHAW:

While it is true that I glanced through the proofs of 2,000 Questions and Answers About the War, before I wrote my foreword, it is equally true that I relied less upon my hasty reading than upon my absolute faith in you.

The last week or so I have made a more careful study of the book, and I must confess to a very definite disturbance of mind. The whole tone of the book strikes me as being 50-50, for nowhere in it can I find the fundamental truth that Germany was entirely responsible for this war, and that it is a war of self-defense upon the part of the liberal nations of the world. In connection with atrocities, deportations, hostages, use of gas, I am also unable to find anything that is in the nature of a straight-out condemnation of the Germans.

I feel sure that you yourself could not have had much to do with the book, or else the articles would have had a more intense Americanism and less of the evasive, straddling note. If there is a second edition, I do wish that you would take the whole matter up with me, so that this very valuable contribution to war can be given greater effectiveness.

Sincerely, GEORGE CREEL Chairman.

This letter was followed at once by seven single-spaced typewritten pages, pointing out specific objections. Doctor Shaw replied at once, promising instant correction and fullest revision. He also stated that the book was based upon the accumulation of material secured in advance sheets from the well-known British journalist, the son of the late William T. Stead, and because of its source the editors had not given it the necessary searching scrutiny.

I then took up the matter with Mr. George H. Doran, the publisher, who, with his usual eager patriotism, agreed that the sale of the book should be stopped until its contents were satisfactory to me. Because there was not the slightest evidence of any premeditated pro-Germanism in the matter, because the good faith and true Americanism of all the parties in the controversy were so obvious, and because the book itself had been stopped and a new edition under way, I avoided all publicity in the matter out of my desire to work no injustice to any one.

All these facts were laid before Professor van Tyne of your organization. By his careful suppression of them in the story that he gave to the press, I am led to believe that his sense of honor is somewhat subordinated to his weakness for a little cheap notoriety.

Very truly, GEORGE CREEL, Chairman.

September 20, 1918. MR. CHARLES E. LYDECKER,

President, National Security League, New York City, N. Y. DEAR SIR:

Your letter of the 13th instant, for some reason or other, ignores entirely the fundamental questions in controversy. Over his own signature, Dr. Claude H. van Tyne, speaking for the National Security League, made this explicit statement: "No author's name is given, so that no one else is responsible but the writer of the introduction.

"If Mr. Creel indorses ideas like these, as it seems he must, since he heartily recommends this book in his introduction, is he a safe man to occupy the position he does, so potent for the good or ill of our cause?"

At the time when he made this statement he was fully informed that the book, 2,000 Questions and Answers About the War, had been prepared by The Review of Reviews, and that Dr. Albert Shaw was responsible for its issuance.

Also, at every point in the publicity of Doctor van Tyne, he gave the inference, and permitted the deduction, that I had done nothing whatsoever in the matter of suppressing the book, but that his task of suppression was undertaken by others more vigilant and more patriotic than myself.

At the time that he gave this unfair and misleading impression to the public he had been informed that at my own request, made two months before, the first limited edition of the book had been withdrawn from sale; that the new edition had been held up, and that every force in my power had been devoted to preventing the circulation of matter against which I myself had been the first to protest.

It was because of these two things, and these two alone, that I branded the publicity of the National Security League as "indecent and dishonest," and by this statement I stand unalterably.

The New York Times, in its issue of September 13th, after considering the whole controversy, concluded with this paragraph :

"The National Security League, through its publicity agent, E. L. Harvey, said, when asked why the explanation of The Review of Reviews had not appeared at the same time with the attack on the book, that it was not the business of the League to defend the magazine or its publishers. If they had any defense, he added, they could make it themselves."

I say to you \ j;ry deliberately that this point of view, whether that of any employee or of the organization itself, is in itself as singularly dishonest and indecent as the original offense.

This whole matter is worthy to be dealt with in some detail, since it establishes quite clearly the fundamental differences between the Committee on Public Information and the National Security League.

When Dr. Albert Shaw first approached me with regard to a foreword, I glanced hastily through the proofs in order to ascertain its nature. The purpose impressed me as important and my failure to give the book any closer reading was due to these facts: my faith in Doctor Shaw; knowledge that the material came from British sources exclusively, and that every line of it had passed through the British censorship. This may not be an excuse, but it is an honest explanation.

The book was issued on June 20th in an edition of five thousand. On June 26th, certain disturbing points having been called to my attention by my associates, I wrote Doctor Shaw, protesting specifically against the 50-50 tone of the book and its failure to make a straight-out condemnation of the Germans. I followed this up immediately by a personal interview with Doctor Shaw, in which he gave his assurance that no single other copy of the book would be issued until it had been changed to meet my own ideas and the ideas of the French and the British. In confirmation of this, Mr. George H. Doran, the publisher, returned every unsold book to The Review of Reviews.

I had then two courses of action open to me, either to make public announcement of my position or else to rest satisfied with the instant and eager acquiescence of the publishers in the work of suppression and correction.

To take the first course was to save myself from attack at the expense of the men in whose honesty and patriotism I had every faith. Like myself, Doctor Shaw had accepted the source as authoritative; Mr. George H. Doran, the publisher, is a onehundred-per-cent. American, and at no point was there the slightest evidence of premeditated pro-Germanism. To-day the whole matter is being rewritten by British and French official authorities and by the highest sources of American public opinion.

It is also true that my relations with the publishers of the country are very intimate and very important. Without force of law, and with no larger authority than an appeal to their patriotism, I have procured the suppression of scores of books that, while not pro-German in any degree, have at the same time given false and misleading impressions of America's war aims. All this work has been done without blare of trumpets. It has been done without discredit to honest publishers, and so it was that I resolved to adhere to this fixed policy and rested content with the virtual suppression of the book. It is with this policy that the National Security League seems to be in fundamental disagreement. Your emphasis is on the destructive rather than on the constructive; more on your own identity and less on justice and unity.

Very truly, GEORGE CREEL, Chairman. WHEN I "THANKED GOD"

WASHINGTON, April 10, 1918. SENATOR OLLIE JAMES,

The Senate Office Building, City. My DEAR SENATOR JAMES:

I have just received your note asking for the facts in connection with the charge that I "thanked God" that we were not prepared when America entered the war. I am only too glad to give them, but trust that you will not let your generous feeling in the matter lead you into any open discussion on the Senate floor.

These hues and cries are best handled by being permitted to die of their own violence. Lies are only fanned to new flame by thrashing at them. My enemies — newspapers and partizan malignants — do not mean to be fair, and I have found that this very unfairness comes in time to be my best defense. It is also the case that I am driven night and day by the demands of my work, and I have not the time, even if I had the inclination, to engage in long, tedious debates or correspondence whenever a reporter or a member of Congress tortures some act or word of mine into a crime.

The speech in question was made before the lecturers of the Lyceum and Chautauqua Association, men and women who go from coast to coast in the course of the year, talking intimately to thousands. The meeting, in fact, was held in Washington at my reqi&st, for I wanted these people to gain the inspiration bred by hearing Cabinet members, high executives, ambassadors, and all others concerned with the direction of the war. As part of my regular work I secured their speakers, and no more important list was ever compiled.

In opening the session I told them that they should regard themselves as soldiers called to the colors in the fight for public opinion, and that wherever they went, wherever they spoke, it was their duty to drive home the justice of America's cause. In the sane sense of the word, these men and women were pacifists, meaning that they hated war. And Chautauqua audiences, for the most part, are rural in their character, sharing little in the mob excitements of cities, peace-loving to the last degree, and holding deeply to the traditional prejudice against "entangling alliances."

What I tried to do in my speech was to prove conclusively that the war was a war of self-defense, and that our free institutions were as much attacked, and in as great danger, as if the foot of the German was on our very soil. And because the question of our "preparedness" was, in its essence, the moral ground upon which we rested our justification before the world, I went into it from the very beginning.

In my remarks, I tried to point out what seemed to me the state of mind of the American people during the first years of the European War. It was not immediately, by any means, that the full horror of Germany's crimes and purposes penetrated the national consciousness. Not at the time of the German invasion, or for months afterward, was the question of a protest by the United States even suggested in Congress or advocated in the press. The visit of the Belgian deputation in September, 1914, moved our sympathies, but not our resolution.

As the war progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the neutrality approved by the nation and enforced by President Wilson was menaced at many points by the refusal of the Imperial German government to abide by international law. As our protest was against the use of force as a means of solving international disputes, our first logical and consistent course could have been no other than an honest appeal to the law that we were insisting should be respected.

President Wilson, following in the footsteps of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Grant, all of whom were Presidents during periods in which belligerents violated American rights of neutrality, held to orderly procedure, refusing to resort to force until every peaceful means of adjusting differences had been exhausted.

The notes to Germany were more than diplomatic exchanges designed to redress certain definite wrongs. They were affidavits 30 453 V, attesting our passion for peace and the utter selflessness of our purposes; they were the foundation stones for our present justification; and because of these notes it is the case to-day that the citizen confesses disloyalty and treason who dares to say that war was not forced upon America and that it is not a war of self-defense in behalf of free institutions and human liberty.

Even in Germany to-day they admit the justice of our cause when they debate the wisdom of their policy in driving us into the war. At home, this historic and just policy laid the foundations for unexampled national unity on the part of our people in support of measures against a power whose hideous purposes stood self-confessed. It created a national morale which will not only weather every storm, but stand unshaken when the deeps of our national and domestic life are stirred by sacrifice and suffering.

I stand absolutely on the sense of my words when I say that it is the glory of America, as it is of Belgium and of England and France, that is asking and expecting these sacrifices to the uttermost; we can say honestly to every man in the trenches and every home in sorrow that we strove to keep the peace, and that these supremest offerings may be given to a nation that never betrayed itself or its people by striving for peace as a blind for preparing for war.

What I thanked God for was that America could stand before the world with conscience clear of blood-guilt; that to the future we could hold clear hands; that while we pleaded for peace we did not tug secretly at the sword; that not until pleading became dishonor did we put down the pen and turn to the business of war.

I shall always thank God for this fact. I would rather be an American, killed in the unpreparedness that proved devotion to declared principles, than a German living as the result of years of lying, sneaking, treacherous preparation for a wolf's spring at the throat of an unsuspecting world. And it is this deep conviction of honor and faith that will win for us.

I can only add in conclusion that the men and women who heard me united in an unanimous vote of thanks for my "most patriotic speech."

Believe me, sir, Very gratefully yours, GEORGE CREEL.