With WW1 raging across Europe, the United States claimed neutrality, but the Wilson administration was far from neutral. Throughout the war, the U.S. (justly) demonized Germany for breaking international law but ignored Great Britain’s violations. This double standard continued beyond just the battlefield and onto the negotiating table.
In an effort to weaken the German homeland, Great Britain used its naval strength to set up a hunger blockade and prevent Germany from importing food. According to historic international law, taking food for soldiers destined for hostile ports could be captured as contraband, but blocking food for citizens from reaching neutral ports was a flagrant violation of international law.1 This, however, was Great Britain’s admitted intention. To quote Ralph Raico, the “aim was, as Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty candidly admitted, to ‘starve the whole population—men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission.’”2 In addition to targeting civilians, the British hunger blockade violated international law because it was a “distant” blockade set up with mines that indiscriminately destroyed all ships that entered the war zone rather than a “close” blockade set up with ships that only attacked war vessels. In both of these ways, the British hunger blockade violated international law.
In response, Germany declared all the British waters a war zone in February 1915. The United States and other powers were warned to only enter the war zone at their own risk. Wilson rejected this and dogmatically said the death of a single American—even an American aboard a belligerent ship—would be subject to strict scrutiny and force the U.S. to act. Unfortunately, that fateful day came on May 7, when 124 Americans were killed aboard the Lusitania. The President doubled down on his prior pledge to hold Germany accountable. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan viewed President Wilson’s hawkish position as dangerous and illogical.
He tried to reason with the President: “Germany has a right to prevent contraband going to the Allies, and a ship carrying contraband should not rely upon passengers to protect her from attack—it would be like putting women and children in front of an army.” He reminded Wilson that a proposed American compromise, whereby Britain would allow food into Germany and the Germans would abandon submarine attacks on merchant ships, had been welcomed by Germany but rejected by England. Finally, Bryan blurted out: “Why be shocked by the drowning of a few people, if there is to be no objection to starving a nation [Germany]?” In June, … Bryan resigned.3
When more Americans were killed aboard the Sussex, the Germans formally offered President Wilson a deal: they would stop attacking ships without warning, giving passenger-filled ships time to abandon ship, if the U.S. would pressure Britain to end the hunger blockade. Wilson declined. And on January 31, 1917, in response to Britain’s hunger blockade, Germany declared a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare that targeted both military and merchant ships, throwing Germany into the group of those who violated international law.4 Were they provoked? Yes. But it was still illegal and immoral.
Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan summarized President Wilson’s bias best when he accused the President of caring about the death of a few while ignoring the starvation of an entire nation. Surely, if he were not biased, Wilson would have accepted the Sussex Pledge and called on Great Britain to end the hunger blockade—not for Germany’s sake, but for the sake of its civilians. Alas, Wilson likely shared Churchill’s position on wanting to “starve the Germans into submission.”
Asher Sisneros 