It was in Broad Street, Philadelphia, before we went to war, that I
overheard the foolish—or propagandist—slur upon England in
front of the bulletin board. After we were fighting by England’s side for
our existence, you might have supposed such talk would cease. It did not.
And after the Armistice, it continued. On the day we celebrated as
“British Day,” a man went through the crowd in Wanamaker’s shop, asking,
What had England done in the War, anyhow? Was he a German, or an Irishman,
or an American in pay of Berlin? I do not know. But this I know: perfectly
good Americans still talk like that. Cowboys in camp do it. Men and women
in Eastern cities, persons with at least the external trappings of
educated intelligence, play into the hands of the Germany of to-morrow, do
their unconscious little bit of harm to the future of freedom and
civilization, by repeating that England “has always been our enemy.” Then
they mention the Revolution, the War of 1812, and England’s attitude
during our Civil War, just as they invariably mentioned these things in
1917 and 1918, when England was our ally in a struggle (or life, and as
they will be mentioning them in 1940, I presume, if they are still alive
at that time).
Now, the Civil War ended fifty-five years ago, the War of 1812 one hundred
and five, and the Revolution one hundred and thirty-seven. Suppose, while
the Kaiser was butchering Belgium because she barred his way to that
dinner he was going to eat in Paris in October, 1914, that France had
said, “England is my hereditary enemy. Henry the Fifth and the Duke of
Wellington and sundry Plantagenets fought me”; and suppose England had
said, “I don’t care much for France. Joan of Arc and Napoleon and sundry
other French fought me”—suppose they had sat nursing their ancient
grudges like that? Well, the Kaiser would have dined in Paris according to
his plan. And next, according to his plan, with the Channel ports taken he
would have dined in London. And finally, according to his plan, and with
the help of his “army of spies” overseas, he would have dined in New York
and the White House. For German madness could not have defeated Germany’s
plan of World dominion, if various nations had not got together and
assisted. Other Americans there are, who do not resort to the Revolution
for their grudge, but are in a commercial rage over this or that: wool,
for instance. Let such Americans reflect that commercial grievances
against England can be more readily adjusted than an absorption of all
commerce by Germany can be adjusted. Wool and everything else will belong
to Mathias Erzberger and his breed, if they carry out their intention. And
the way to insure their carrying it out is to let them split us and
England and all their competitors asunder by their ceaseless and ingenious
propaganda, which plays upon every international prejudice, historic,
commercial, or other, which is available. After August, 1914, England
barred the Kaiser’s way to New York, and in 1917, we found it useful to
forget about George the Third and the Alabama. In 1853 Prussia possessed
one ship of war—her first.
In 1918 her submarines were prowling along our coast. For the moment they
are no longer there. For a while they may not be. But do you think Germany
intends that scraps of paper shall be abolished by any Treaty, even though
it contain 80,000 words and a League of Nations? She will make of that
Treaty a whole basket of scraps, if she can, and as soon as she can. She
has said so. Her workingmen are at work, industrious and content with a
quarter the pay for a longer day than anywhere else. Let those persons who
cannot get over George the Third and the Alabama ponder upon this for a
minute or two.
