President Wilson's Dealing with the Lusitania Crisis - Essay Example

A Critical Analysis of President Woodrow Wilson’s Handling Of The Crisis Caused By The Sinking Of The Lusitania On May 7, 1915. I. Introduction For many years, the subject of the sinking of the Lusitania and the foreign policy of President Wilson has been the subject of much scrutiny. Several scholars have attempted to interpret the actions of then President Wilson and even delve deeper into the probably reasons why the president did not jump into the prospect of the use of violence to avenge the death of the Americans in the Lusitania. Many scholars believe that President Wilson was acting in cowardice and that he was not ready to use his power as president of the strongest nation in the planet to influence the outcome of the war. There were also others who believed that President Wilson wanted to play God thus he ignored the opinions of other people and prove he alone knows what is best for the country. Others are also of the opinion that he was just being cautious of the impact of war on the economic interest of the country and that the president wants to stay neutral to give the country a better chance of furthering its economic activities in the European continent. In this essay, I would like to expound on the idea that the President understands the importance preserving life, protecting the interest of the nation, the use diplomatic channels and how the calculated use of force to address specific problems can achieve more compared to the indiscriminate wielding of firepower. To understand better what really happened before and after Lusitania was hit by a German torpedo, let us first look back into the history of that era. II. The Establishment Of The Marine Blockade The early 20th century witnessed the start of World War I. Long before the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, the blockade has been established in the some areas of the seas of Europe. The rules of blockade were not clearly defined and there were clear written terms as to what things are permissible and what are not. The Paris Declaration of 1856 was the only international declaration that set a few broad rules on setting up of blockade and clearly, this in not enough to protect marine vessels from harm. Note that under the Paris Declaration of 1856, the following broad rules were established: neutral goods except those considered as contrabands should not be subject to capture, flying a neutral flag serves as protection for the goods of a belligerent nation in transit provided that these goods do not fall under the category of contrabands and that for a blockade to be legal it must be affirmative. Although the Paris Declaration of 1856 mentioned several times in the word “contraband” it did not really define what contraband means. In effect, the nation setting up the blockade is free to interpret its meaning which further made it difficult to pinpoint the limitations of the word. To help define the legality of a blockade, an effort to codify the laws of maritime war was initiated in 1908-1909 which resulted in the promulgation of the Declaration of London. Unfortunately, even though the Germans announced their intentions to abide by this law, the British, despite the persuasion of the United States, did not ratify the accord thus the efforts to set up the laws of maritime war failed. Nonetheless, the declaration was still used as an unofficial rule in maritime war and was considered as part of the customary law at sea. When the war broke out in Britain, the British started to implement measures that were in direct violation of the traditional laws of blockade. It expanded the definition of the word “contraband” to include other goods such as food and other goods that had been traditionally considered as exempt from confiscation or blockade. Britain also institution prolonged search of natural ships at the ports of Britain and declared that that the entire North Sea is a war zone. The actions of the British of declaring the entire North Sea as war zone were considered in direct contravention of traditional laws of blockade since the customary searches used to be conducted at sea and not at the port of destination of the marine vessels. Furthermore, the fact that the British declared the entire North Sea as war zone opened this area to mining. When we say mining, we mean the setting up of explosives to sink ships that are passing through the maritime war zone. According to Bailey et. al. (1975), the act of the British at this point is illegal. Bailey noted that according to the traditional law of blockade, the blockade must be effective for it to be considered as legal. Note that according to the Paris Declaration of 1856 "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy." Furthermore, according to Article 1 of the Declaration of London, "A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy." Then again, the provisions of the Declaration of London were not really binding to the British since they never ratified the accord in the first place thus, the Royal Navy proceeded to set up the mines and torpedoed marine vessels that are considered as hostile and are carrying contrabands for the enemies. The acts of British effectively cut off the Germans from the commerce of the seas. In retaliation, the Germans announced on February 4, 1915 that it is adopting a blockade policy that is just as oppressive as that of the British. Germany declared the waters around the British Isles as war zone and that all enemy merchant ships in that area, whether armed or unarmed, are considered subject to destruction. Although international laws mandate that merchant ships be given warning and its crew and passengers allowed to abandon ship before the vessel is sunk, the Germans said that giving fair warning may not be possible all the time and that there is always a possibility that the ship could be struck before warning is given. Although the United States recognized the illegality of the actions of the British in setting up the blockade, it did not really made a strong protest about it as compared to the way the United States protested against the blockade set up by the Germans (Bailey et al 1975). While some observers think that such action only shows how the United States sided with the Allies, Link (1956) offered another explanation to the situation. According to Link, the boats used by the British were small boats and their firepower was not really great compared to the German U-boats. Since the German U-boats used powerful torpedoes to attack its enemies, they usually make more damage compared to the British. The U-boats caused more death and destruction compared to the British ships. Link (1956) offers yet another perspective into why the United States did not really complain so much on the blockade set up by the British. According to Link, the British had always been very careful when it comes to dealing with the Americans. In fact, the British took extra care not to offend the Americans to make retaliation inevitable. No matter how ruthless the British are in implementing their blockade, they are always on the look out not to harm the properties of the Untied States. In fact, the British were known only to confiscate the most obvious contrabands on board American ships and in all doubtful cases, they always pay the full value of the properties which were wrongfully confiscated (Link 1956). Apparently, the British realized that the United States can command great powers over the other countries and being in good terms with the United States could later on be useful in the war. Moreover, the fact that the United States was supplying arms and ammunition to the British (Baily et al 1975) made is more important for the British to treat the Americans right lest they be cut off from the supply of arms. III. RMS Lusitania Before And During The War Long before the Germans set up their blockade around the British Isle, the RMs Lusitania has been peacefully crossing the Atlantic Ocean. This British ocean liner is a popular cargo and passenger vessel at that time and is considered as one of the fastest and more luxurious (Kludas, Arnold (1972). When World War I escalated, the Lusitania was equipped with 12 six-inch guns, presumably to protect herself from perils at seas (Simpson, Colin (1972). As decribed by Bailey et al (1975), the weapons carried by these vessels are mounted on the stern and designed only to be fired against pursuers. Accordingly, the vessels that are armed are those vessels only that are carrying food to Britain. Furthermore, these merchant vessels are said to be under instructions that they are to surrender when overtaken by foes. The arming of the Lusitania and other merchant vessels draw protest from the Germans at that time. The Germans pointed out that since these marine vessels are now armed; they are now forced to abandon the usual “stop-and-search” procedures at sea (Kenworthy, J. M. and Young, George (1928); Bailey et al (1975). Note that before the arming of the marine vessels, British and German submarines would just usually surface, ask the ship to stop, board her and then conduct a search for contrabands. In the event where the vessels are found to be carrying contrabands, the crew and passengers of the ship are allowed to abandon the ship before it is sunk. According to Bailey et al (1975), the arming of the merchant vessels was a mistake as this gave the Germans ample reasons to simply attack these vessels without warning. Reacting on the issue of attacks without warning on merchant vessels, President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Bryan made a protest through the diplomatic channels and calling for “freedom of the seas” and respect for the rights of Neutral vessels (Kenworthy, J. M. and Young, George. (1928). Despite the heavy threats of torpedoes in the Atlantic Ocean and the despite the warning issued against crossing the blockade, the Lusitania boldly set out from New York on May 1, 1915 to deliver goods and passengers to England (Hoehling, A. A. and Mary Hoehling. (1958). The Lusitania never made it to its destination. She was torpedoed the German U-bout on May 7, 1915 off the coast of Southern Ireland (Hoehling, A. A. and Mary Hoehling. (1958) and within the next 18 minutes, the merchant vessel sunk killing passengers and crew. Although the Germans insisted that they only fired one torpedo at the Lusitania, the merchant vessel was said to have suffered two explosions (Hoehling, A. A. and Mary Hoehling. (1958). It was believed that the second explosion which eventually sunk the Lusitania was caused by the arms and ammunitions that the ship was secretly carrying (Bailey et. al 1975; Engelbrecht, H. C. and Hanighen, F. C (1934). IV. The Aftermath of the Sinking of Lusitania The sinking of the Lusitania drew massive outrage in the United States and Britain. The British in particular openly called on the United States to declare war on Germany. However, President Woodrow Wilson did not think that it was wise to go into war at that time since popular sentiment of the American populace at that time was to stay out of the war and maintain neutrality. Instead of going to war, President Wilson sent a formal protest to Germany. The action of President Wilson earned his a lot of bitter criticisms from the British the point where Wilson was called a coward. Although people at that time may have seen the acts of President Wilson as a form of cowardice, if we take a look at the scenario at a different point of view, we can see how the President actually exercised strong character. Note that at that time, the United States was “the richest and one of the most powerful nations in the world” (Ross, 1972). The country at that time enjoyed a strong economy and had great surplus in terms of food and other commodities. Furthermore, the United States in 1914 has already developed industrially and is capable of producing its own machinery, arms and ammunitions, and could sustain itself in times of war (Ross 1972). In other words, the United States is more than capable of fighting a war if it chooses to. However, the general sentiment of the people in the United States at that time was to stay out of the fight and not use its resources to destroy the enemies. For President Wilson, going to war over the sinking of the Lusitania is not the solution to the problem. Instead of using force and creating hostile enemies, the President chooses to negotiate. He refused to be drawn into the war at this point because he believed that there is still something that can be done through diplomacy. Why did President Wilson choose to negotiate instead of going into war? Although there are some people who suggest that President Wilson is largely influenced by the general sentiment of the American people at that time, this simplistic interpretation of the actions of the president is simply too narrow. Yes, the sentiment of the people probably helped sway the president against going to war but it was not the only reason for the president’s decision. The President is a person who sees that wars have very complex origins and should therefore be acted upon in a more restrained manner. One of the most probably reasons why the President refused to go to war against the Germans at that time was due to the fact that the United States have considerable economic interest in this country. Note that although the United States has advances technologically and has a surplus in terms of food, it has also become vulnerable to the political and economic disturbances all over the world (Link, Arthur (1954). Note that the powerful European countries are the partners of the United States in terms of commerce. Since the United States is producing more goods than it can actually consume, it needs the European countries to absorb some of its products (Ross, 1972). Three of the most powerful belligerent countries in Europe namely Britain, France and Germany are partners of the United States thus it is but natural for the United States to maintain neutrality so as not to offend the any of these partner countries. Technically, the United States has to maintain a balanced flow of goods and serves to the belligerent nations. Furthermore, since Germany had strategically located its u-boats around the British Isle, any act on the part of the United States to stop supplying goods and services to Europe will only make matters more difficult for France and Britain (Link 1956). In effect, the United States will not only cut off supply to Germany, it will also cut off supply to both France and Britain (Clarkson, Grosvenor B. 1923). In other words, the United States cannot just simply severe its ties with Germany because of the sinking of Lusitania and not suffer from the consequences of such action. Many would argue that the United States is self sufficient and that it can survive even without the support of the European nations. Yes, this basically true. Given the fact that the United Nations is already independently rich, it can most certainly survive on its own but the fact is clear that maintaining as self-contained economy will not help the economy of the United States. President Woodrow knows very well that the country needs to protect its economic interests abroad to keep its economy growing. Given this scenario, it is but natural for the President to strive not to create a situation where the United States might be blocked from shipping its goods abroad. At this time, the balance of power in Europe was still very fragile that it becomes apparent to President Wilson that the sinking of the Lusitania is not reason enough for the whole country to jeopardize its interest under European territories. Note that once the United States declare war against the Germans, it will be more difficult for the United States to continue supplying goods and services to other parts of Europe (Link 1954). Furthermore, by treating other country as belligerent, the United States could face the consequence of opening itself to retaliation for other belligerent nations. Since President Wilson understood that the losses brought about by war is far greater than the benefits that it will give to the winners of the war, going through the diplomatic channels is a far better option than rising in arms. Contrary to what the President’s critics has to say on this matter, I firmly believed that the decision of the president at this point is not an act of cowardice but rather a well thought of strategy to keep the country from losing its economic interest while protecting the rights of the people against harm. Wars are not always won by force. Sometimes, wars are better won by diplomacy. The fact that President Wilson at that time was able to look into the issue of war dispassionately was actually a plus factor for the country. V. Letters Exchanged In the Diplomatic Channels Despite the outcry for war from the British, President Wilson remained steadfast on his decision to use the diplomatic channels. The famous exchange of letters between the United States and Germany followed after the sinking of Lusitania. In his first letter, the President made it clear that the United States values human life and the freedom of the seas. According to Link (1954), the decision of the president at this point is highly reflective of his strong Presbyterian upbringing. Link believed that the humanitarian side of the President would not permit the blatant disregard for human life. I strongly agree with Link at this point. The President clearly understands that there are no winners in a war. Nations who go to war are bound to lose something that they hold dear. The first letter of protest sent by President Wilson under the name of Secretary Bryan was met with defiance. The Germans accused the Lusitania of carrying guns and ammunitions to Britain which made it a hostile vessel (Bailey et. al). Furthermore, the Germans accused the British government of giving orders to the captain and crew of the Lusitania to ram U-boats (Bailey et. al). In reply to the letter of Germans, President Wilson met the accusations of the Germans head-on and proceeded to challenge the Germans to prove that the United States did not perform its duties to ensure that the Lusitania was not armed for attacks or carrying cargo that are prohibited by the statutes of the United States. He insisted that the question of whether or not the Lusitania was carrying contraband and exploding cargo is beside the point. According to him, the real issue under protest by the Untied States is that there was no warming given by the German U-boats before firing their torpedo upon the merchant vessel. The second letter of President Wilson was met with more defiance from the Germans which created a diplomatic deadlock. According to the Germans, the British were the first one who violated the principles of humanity by attempting to starve the Germans into submission by blocking the flow of food (Bailey et. al 1975). As an act of self-preservation, the Germans had no choice but to make a counteraction against the British. Furthermore, the Germans stated that it was the British who first erased the distinction between a merchant vessel and a military warship by arming the formerly peaceful merchant ships. Aside from giving justifications as to what happened in the Lusitania sinking, the Germans also offered concessions to the United States regarding safe passage. According to the Germans, it is willing to guarantee the safety of Americans when passing through the Atlantic Ocean but it is not willing to abandon its marine warfare. Furthermore, the Germans said that they are willing to guarantee the safe passage of the American ships that are flying the Stars and Stripes provided that these vessels are appropriately marked and are not carrying contrabands. Although the safe passage offer of the Germans is worth exploring at this point, President Woodrow Wilson took another path in his dealing with the Germans. Instead of accepting the offer of the Germans, the President continues to press for freedom at seas and pressed the Germans to cooperate. On the third letter of Wilson to the Germans, he narrowed down his demands and accepted the idea of marine warfare provided that such marine warfare is in consonance with the rules of war. All throughout the exchange between the President and the Germans, we can see how the President tried to champion the right to the freedom of passage at sea. He was not prepared to surrender the rights of the United States to sale under belligerent waters (Bailey et al 1975). The idealism expressed by President Wilson is not really uncharacteristic of him. Born and raised in a patriarchal household, he had always been known to stick to his own opinion on different matters (Amborsius, Lloyd (2002). Several times along the negotiation process, Wilson is said to have acted alone and disregarded the advice of his advisers. In fact, during his terms as president of the country, he was known to write most of his own letters and won some diplomatic victories by sheer perseverance and single minded determination (Link 1954). Unfortunately, in the case of the sinking of the Lusitania, the diplomatic skills of the president were not enough. In the end, it was not just about idealism and patriarchal influences that eventually made President Wilson declare war against Germany. Again, there were many considerations that President Wilson took before he eventually declared the war and top most of this reason is economic in nature. Note that at this time, Germany was getting the upper hand on the war and was committing hideous crimes against humanity (Amborsius, Lloyd (2002). Germany also returned to its unrestricted marine warfare and many more marine vessels that belong to non-belligerent states were torpedoed and sunk by the deadly German U-boats. Clearly, Germany had no intentions of abating its attack on vessels at sea. Even if the Germans are willing to grant safe passage of the American merchant vessels as the claimed to, there was really no assurance that other merchant belonging to the other non-belligerent nations are safe from the attacks of the U-boats. The seemingly fruitless attempts of President Wilson to negotiate after the sinking of the Lusitania left a mark in his administration. This must be the reason why the President asked the American troupes to get ready for war right after he sent his third communication to the German government (Esposito, David (1996). VI. Conclusion The sinking of the RMS Lusitatia in 1915 was a turning point in American history of foreign policies. As the emerging superpower of the world at that time, the Untied States did have the capacity to quash it enemies. However, it chooses not to quash its enemies for humanitarian reasons, popular sentiment of the people and of course economic motivations. The popular sentiment of the people not to go to war did play a vital role in the decision of the President at that time and it just rightly so. May critics of the President may say that the President was “a prisoner of the people’s sentiment at that time” but if we really take a good look at the situation, the president does have the moral obligation to take cognizance of the popular sentiment of the people. Note that in a democratic society, the power of the sovereign rest on the people thus, following the will of the majority is but a logical thing to do. Many critics of the President were very quick to punch on the President’s economic motives for not declaring war against the Germans immediately after the sinking of the Lusitania. Little did these critics realize that the action of the president was actually a noble act to protect the way of life of the American people. Wars can have very devastating impacts on the economy and it can destroy a country. Since poor economy can lead to deprivation and even dehumanization at different degrees, the act of the President not to engage into war for economic reasons is indeed justifiable. Bibliography 1. Amborsius, Lloyd (2002) Wilsonianism: Woodrow Wilson & his legacy in American Foreign Relation. Palgrave, McMillan. New York 2. Bailey, Thomas A. and Ryan, Paul B. (1975) The Lusitania Disaster: An Episode in Modern Warfare and Diplomacy. New York: Free Press, 3. Ballard, Robert D. and Spencer Dunmore (1995)  Exploring the Lusitania and "A Lusitania Chronology" by Eric and Bill Sauder.  Warner Books, 4. Ballard, Robert D. with Spencer Dunmore (1995) Exploring the Lusitania: Probing the Mysteries of the Sinking that Changed History. New York and Toronto: Warner Books and Madison Press, 5. Beesly, Patrick. (1982) Room 40: British Naval Intelligence 1914-18. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 6. Clarkson, Grosvenor B. (1923) Industrial America in the World War: The Strategy Behind theLine 1917-1918. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 7. Devlin, Patrick. (1975) Too Proud to Fight: Woodrow Wilsons Neutrality. New York and London: Oxford University Press 8. Discussions between President Wilson & Secretaries Bryan and Lansing (based on the letters issued December 1, 1914[Washington] , November 19, 1914[Cambridge, Mass]., and January 20, 1915 [Washington] President Wilson’s Protest To Germany (21 July, 1915) 9. Engelbrecht, H. C. and Hanighen, F. C (1934). Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 10. Esposito, David (1996) The legacy of Woodrow Wilson: American War Aims In World War I. Praeger, Wespoint, Connecticut 11. Ferrell, Robert H. (1985) Woodrow Wilson and World War I. New York: Harper & Row, (New American Nation series). 12. Gregory, Ross (1972). The Origin of American Intervention in the First World War. Norton & Co. Inc. New York 13. Hoehling, A. A. and Mary Hoehling. (1958)  The Last Voyage of the Lusitania.  Madison Books, 14. Kenworthy, J. M. and Young, George. (1928) Freedom of the Seas. London: Hutchinson & Co., American edition published in New York by Horace Liveright. 15. Kenworthy, J. M. (1933) Sailors, Statesmen--and Others: An Autobiography. London: Rich & Cowan, 16. Kludas, Arnold. (1972) Great Passenger Ships of the World, Volume I:  1858-1912.  Patrick Stephens, Ltd., 17. Lansing, Robert. (1935) The War Memoirs of Robert Lansing. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 18. Link, Arthur (1956). Wills on the Diplomats: A look at his major foreign policies. Albert Shaw Lectures on Diplomatic History, 1956 19. Link, Arthur. (1954) Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era 1910-1917. New York: Harper & Row, 1954 (New American Nation series). 20. Preston, Diana. (2002) Lusitania:  An Epic Tragedy.  Berkley Books, 2002. 21. Simpson, Colin. (1972) Lusitania. Originally published by Longman of London, 1972. All citations in this paper are from the Penguin paperback edition, 1983. 22. The Lusitania Controversy http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika02.htm Read More