This is posted in my capacity as the Chairman, CEO and only member of the neutralistassociationofthe.us.
Below is a column written by a correspondent for the Manchester Guardian, a journal that persists today online as The Guardian. The author is identified only as W.A.G.
I was alerted to the piece by Dr. Pascal Lottaz, PhD. Dr. Lottaz heads up Neutrality Studies, a valuable resource for those seeking an alternative to the warfare state. The Neutrality Studies Youtube channel is informative for those wishing to see alternative discussions of events.
W.A.G. presents American attitudes before our entry into World War I. I shall post some comments afterward about the disaster of forsaking neutrality.
WHAT AMERICA THINKS.
"NEUTRALISM" AS A POLICY.
HOW ALLIED CRITICISM
STRIKES THE STATES.
FROM A CORRESPONDENT IN THE
UNITED STATES.)
JANUARY 30.
It is a mistake to think of the Americans as being all divided by the war into two enthusiastic camps. Nearly every American has a fancy for one side or the other, but the preference often goes no deeper than our own partisanship. at the time of the Boatrace, for light or dark blue. In many cases. where the preference might become more serious, it is instinctively or deliberately repressed. " After making a slow and devious journey across the country. I believe that neutralism —using this word to distinguish the popular attitude from the official " neutrality " —is everywhere characteristic of the great bulk of the people, alike in the east and in the west. Nowhere is acute feeling —either way —conspicuous by its presence. unless one goes to some of the foreign-born minority. or to some of the leisured and intellectual classes, whose voices are disproportionately audible in Europe. As for the partisanship of the American press, I think it relieves rather than reflects the minds of the many. In some cases it if boughtand paid for; in others it is a revulsion against such bargains. The German intrusion into the native journals has, in fact, created a sort of journalistic warfare, which often reflects little else than the antipathies of editorial offices. In other cases, again, the advocacy has higher motives. But, whatever its motive, the general result of, war partisanship in the newspapers is to diminish corresponding sentiment in the masses; it says "damn" for them. And it is to be feared, this is no less true about such friends of ours as Life" than about such enemies as "The Fatherland." This neutralism is-not to be dismissed as apathy; it is a very active force. Nor is it largely a result of mixed descent, such as a Texas editor complained of the other day. "Whenever our Dutch is aroused, it gets our Irish up,and we feel like kicking ourselves." It is a product of present conditions. You must live for a while in some of the smaller towns in order to realise why the people shrink from taking sides keenly. In many places business and social relations would go to pieces if they did, and their fondly cherished development of the one and only town be arrested indefinitely. Even as it is there are not seldom fights at kinema theatres over war films and so on. Life would become almost impossible if the townspeople allowed a general cleavage to happen along the lines of the European war, and they are resolved not to allow it. They do not think it would do any good either to themselves or to the Europeans.
"The Way Britain Talks."
Some deductions of practical interest to ourselves may perhaps be drawn from a recognition of the vast force underlying American neutralism. A New York editor of long experience whom I asked about the probability of trouble occurring over our interference with American "
rights"-for that, of course, is the American idea of our interference. with their trade-answered: "The. thing that is most likely to make trouble is not your maritime policy, but the way some of your people talk." He referred to the various arguments we have been using to persuade the Americans to assent to our interference —that is, as they view the matter, to abandon
'their neutrality in our favour. He instanced the argument that American objection to our
interference is mercenary, and he mentioned as even more irritating the argument that it is ungrateful, because we are fighting their battle for them. Indeed, if we perceive that their neutralism is their nationalism, we may suspect that such arguments would very probably excite resentment. In a word the tendency of "the way some of your people talk," so far as it is not utterly futile, is to transform American neutralism into American chauvinism. Would that be to our advantage? The Germans in the United States at least do not think it, for there is nothing they desire more than to bring this, very transformation about. Hence the proposal' recently made by the well-known German advocate at Harvard, Professor Münsterberg, that Mr. Roosevelt, who has so violently denounced the Germans, should nevertheless be adopted by the German Americans as their candidate for President. Mr. Roosevelt's real influence is, all towards national chauvinism, and no matter by what means the neutralism was changed into that, Professor Münsterberg —he has said so frankly—believes that, as things stand, German interests could only profit by the transformation.
Indeed ' the Germans over here have little chance of fishing, in the calm waters of neutralism; they badly need & storm of chauvinism to ride upon. To understand this we must remember that chauvinism, once aroused, is likely to seize upon the principal present object in sight, and that that would almost certainly be our continued interference (however legitimate we may think it) with American "rights," in the form of American trade.
The Danger of Quotation.
It is not so much a question of our being "careful, what we say" as of our understanding what we say, and why we say it. Intelligent discussion may always do good, even though neither side yields up its position; unintelligent discussion is particularly to be deprecated this year, when the great election campaign will give unusual prominence to foreign expressions of opinion. They will often be quoted by both sides. The Republicans will quote our criticisms of President Wilson, for instance, to show how little is thought of him abroad. The Democrats will quote them to show how firmly he has been upholding American interests. To take an instance, an article- this
month by the editor of the “North American Review” has already been dragged into the arena. It says that English people are friendly to the American people, but scorn the (present) American Government. It tells how a "keen-witted" English nobleman remarked: The only way in which
America can regain her own honour and the self-respect of her kin throughout the world is by repudiating the "Administration of Woodrow Wilson." Newspapers which, unlike the author of the, article, belong to: the party that elected, and may perhaps re-elect, President Wilson have been making some very caustic comments about. this keen-witted nobleman.
Anyhow, a time. when a nation is sensitive about its cohesive quality is not a time for outsiders to intrude unnecessarily into its domestic party politics. The fact that some Americans are giving utterance to certain criticisms of President Wilson might rather seem to relieve ourselves of any necessity which may exist for expressing them.
W.A.G.
W.A.G. seems to present a fair picture of American attitudes and, though different today, not radically so. There is a full-court press in the media supporting the Ukrainian side in the Proxy War and therefore most Americans see it more favorably than the Russians. However, polls show the people adamantly opposed to getting involved in the actual war.
The writer makes the point that though people were for one side or the other, they were still for neutralism before WWI.
Wilson’s neutrality was more or less a sham, judging by the speed with which he entered the war after his re-election. Despite such “provocations as the sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman Telegram, there was no compelling reason to enter the European war.
The slogans, "make the world safe for democracy,” and "The war to end all wars" were not bought wholesale either.
The basic neutral attitude, back after Versailles, persisted until World War II as the Roosevelt administration could only get into the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Therein lies the solution for getting around the inherent neutralism of the people. It is there, even if the American people can't or don't annunciate it, and an incident is necessary for acceptance of war.
What happened when an incident didn't happen, but a war did?
The Vietnam war did have the Tonkin Gulf incident, but that was thin gruel. The peacetime draft was going be a wartime draft of troops and that was not greeted with universal acclaim. The protest movement gained momentum and the end of the draft occurred before the end of the war.
The Vietnam crusade collapsed embarrassingly, especially so as it was televised. I remember watching stunned as the South Vietnamese helicopters landed on our carriers, disgorged the clinging civilian passengers, and then took off to ditch in the sea.
Since, our relations with Vietnam have been tranquil. Sort of like they disconnected the phone and we left no forwarding address. It was a horrible war, but with the best result.
So, how would we do war post-Vietnam.
Pascal observed:
"And interesting observation about the 73k volunteers! * Yes, war used to be a tough sell to the US! The change from 1916 to 2022 where war becomes basically the default is something we need to study for many many years. It’s such a fundamental change in the national psyche it seems to me."
Interesting how it has evolved. We were at least publicly "gunshy" for a time after Vietnam, but gradually got over it.
Except we only kinda got over it. No politician ever suggests we have to have conscription for the next war. Occasionally, there will be that think tank article that the draft might be a solution for something and there are calls for do-gooder national service, but they go nowhere.
Yet, we seem to go to war at the drop of a hat. This is especially true in the current Proxy War. The media is all about how saintly the Ukrainians are and evil the Russians are, yet the idea of getting directly involved has no traction in any polls.
What is known by various names as the Blob or MICIMATT** is escalating the support for the Ukraine. Will they go too far and involve us too deeply. It will be interesting to see how the citizenry react.
*Disappointing number of enlistments after six weeks making obvious the need to conscript.
**Military-Industrial-Counter-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank complex - a term coined by CIA officer turned political activist Ray McGovern.
WHAT AMERICA THINKS: "NEUTRALISM" AS A POLICY HOW ALLIED CRITICISM STRIKES A CORRESPONDENTThe Manchester Guardian (1901-1959); Mar 7, 1916; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 5