H.L. Mencken

Baltimore Evening Sun/November 16, 1915

§1.

The spy tales now being issued to the press by eminent patriots at Washington run true to type. That is to say, they are based, in the main, on “confessions” and “discoveries” that no sane judge would allow a jury to listen to, and they are revealed to a gaping populace, by a curious and benign coincidence, at exactly the right moment to make it forget once more the little business with England. . . . Did the English grab the Hocking? Then—Down with the German spies!

§2.

Nevertheless, it goes without saying that various actual attempts to cripple and discourage the pious munitions traffic have been made, and it also goes without saying that more of them will be made hereafter. If the United States, as a holy duty to Anglo-Saxon Kultur, sacrifices its legitimate commerce to the shell business, it must expect, of course, to face and bear the burdens and discomforts that go with that sort of enterprise. One cannot engage in war, even as valet and gun-loader to one of the contestants, without running some risk of getting hurt. The thing to do, if one wants to avoid unpleasantness, is to keep out of it. The United States had an excellent chance to keep out of it, and at the same time to make a lot of money by selling lawful commodities to the belligerents, but it appeared to Dr. Wilson, as he has since frankly stated, that duty and international law laid upon us the necessity of taking a more active part. The smoke from burning munition plants shows what penalty that sort of part carries with it. Let us, by all means, face this penalty with something approaching philosophy and good sportsmanship! Let us not whine and blubber like the English!

§3.

One thing that should be remembered here, despite all the ranting and raring now going on, is this: that history will probably be a good deal kinder to the alleged German and Austrian “spies” among us than it will be to the brave super-spies who pursue them so gallantly—and so safely. These “spies,” so far as the evidence shows, are simply gentlemen who try to do what they may, even at the risk of their own hides, to reduce the heavy odds against their brothers across the seas. This enterprise, though it may shock the moral sensibilities of the stockholders in mushroom arms plants, is not inherently immoral, even judged by Puritan standards, nor is it likely that it will be considered immoral by the generations after ours. The worst we may say against it is that it is highly unpleasant—to us. But to this the so-called “spy” makes the ready answer that the munitions business (and particularly the ill-concealed Government patronage of it) is even more unpleasant—to him. . . . Surely we are not British! Surely we do not demand that our opponent be forced to come into the ring with his hands tied! Surely we are not going to deafen the world with our screams every time he lands a wallop!

§4.

I speak of our opponent. What I mean is that, in all that concerns this munitions business, the Government of the United States has obviously aligned itself with the Allies, and that every pretense to the contrary is empty, hypocritical and dishonest. Not only is it fostering and protecting the actual business in a thousand subtle ways: it is also dallying openly with the doctrine that it is bound to insure the safe delivery of the goods that our arms factories have made. It is this doctrine that is mainly responsible for the “plots” now unearthed daily by the Secret Service (which has become, to all intents and purposes, a branch of the British Intelligence Department), and fed to the press with such gusto by the Hon. Mr. Lansing, that great exponent of the square deal. The English have a dozen cables open and can transmit messages, whether containing military information or not, without the slightest censorship. The Germans and Austrians have no means of military communication whatever, for their wireless man been seized by the Hon. Josephus Daniels (another affecting neutral), and every message they send is rigidly censored, and all military information—e. g., about the sailing of British arms ships—is cut out. Is it any wonder that, with these handicaps to bear, they turn to methods that are highly obnoxious?

§5.

What else, indeed, could one expect of them? Are they dummies and poltroons, that they should stand idle and impotent while England pours arms and ammunition into France? What would any decent American think of them if they did? What would we think of Americans who took it lying down in like case? Alack, the very acts for which these so-called “spies” are denounced in our dishonest newspapers are acts that do credit to their courage, their resolution and their patriotism. Suppose the shoe were on the other foot? What would be our view of Americans who went into Germany, defying official opposition and a public phobia, to combat at the risk of their lives the gross and cruel advantages of the enemies of the United States?

§6.

Maybe it will be argued that I exaggerate the dishonesty and unfairness of the neutrality practiced at Washington—a neutrality which, under thin disguises, permits English torpedo boats and submarine destroyers to be built in the United States, but forbids the German naval attaché to inform his Government of their dispatch. If so, let me quote the Review of Reviews, surely not a pro-German gazette, videlicet:

“We have to ask ourselves some searching questions in all sincerity. If Germany seemed hard to deal with, and if German public opinion seemed embittered against us, was it not largely due to the fact that we were demanding that Germany observe every jot and tittle of international law, while we were submitting without complaint to an unlimited interference with our neutral rights at sea on the part of Great Britain? And at the very same time were we not ourselves violating the spirit of neutrality by greedily seeking immense profits in the business of supplying Germany’s enemies with munitions of war? . . . We are identified in the most colossal way with the cause of the Allies. . . . It is desirable that we should think clearly and candidly, and not deceive ourselves as to the bearings of our recent conduct. . . .

§7.

Here is the truth from a source that is surely beyond suspicion of having been corrupted with German gold. Our policy toward England has been one of steady compliance, with only the most formal and insincere complaints to ameliorate it. Our policy towards Germany and Austria has been one of furious and ill-natured insistence, of cheap and dishonest hair-splitting and pettifogging, of relentless bullying and browbeating. We have taken full advantage of every technicality against them; we have pushed them as hard and as persistently as we dared; we have allowed nothing whatever for the heavy odds against them, nor have we shown the slightest appreciation of the stupendous courage of the fight they have been making. We have pursued them with obscene drivel about our concern for humanity (with our hands red with blood of the arms traffic); we have abused them as murderers and pirates for every act of war, while applauding their enemies for the same (or worse) acts; we have vented upon them all of the hatred and meanness of the Puritan with his blood up. In brief, we have made a diligent effort to do them injury at every opportunity, and in addition we have insulted them with incredible pecksniffery and nastiness.

§8.

To what end? What are we going to gain by this pious dirtiness, this experiment in virtuous dishonor? In order to build up a fungoid and unhealthy arms traffic we have had to sacrifice our legitimate commerce—particularly our cotton and meat trades, and our shipping. The moment England makes her inevitable move for peace, the “war bride” stocks will collapse with a bang, and thousands of foolish amateur Morgans and Rockefellers will be ruined. Worse, there will be a simultaneous readjustment of values all along the line, with honest investors getting the worst of it. Still worse, there will be a nasty labor situation to face, for on the one hand the abandonment of the munitions plants will throw huge numbers of men out of work (and men grown accustomed to short hours and high pay), and on the other hand Europe will dump upon our markets an immense stock of cheap commodities, and not even tariff walls will suffice to keep them out.

To what end, then, the fanatical nursing of the arms traffic, the idiotic theory that every man who opposes it is an enemy to the United States? What are you and I getting out of it, messieurs, that we should approach it with awe and hushed breath? Or out of the steady, the deliberate, the wholly gratuitous irritation of the Central Powers? One sees how gentlemen in office nay personally benefit by “spy” hunting. The sound of the waldhorn is intensely agreeable to the popular ear: the way to enchant the boobs to hunt something, to raise a loud shout, to give a thrilling show. But what of the rest of us? What of the country? Is it benefited by alienating and outraging beyond endurance the strongest and most warlike of modern peoples? What does it profit us to bludgeon the Germans from behind, with the Germans winning steadily, surely, stupendously? What have we to expect from them in the future? Or, for that matter, from the English? The English do not love us for yielding to their rough usage; they merely hold us in contempt. It is a hard thing for sentimental Anglomaniacs to believe, but it is a fact none the less. Of all the peoples now at war, the English probably like us, at bottom, least. It is extremely difficult, indeed, to find an individual Englishman who will even say that he likes us; his nearest approach to praise is always conditioned by innumerable embarrassing ifs and buts. . . . Suppose, now, the English, in their traditional way, try to save themselves by a prudent compromise? Suppose they conclude their so pathetically vain effort to destroy Germany by coming to terms with Germany? . . . What then?