E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Brett Koonce, and Project Gutenberg
Distributed Proofreaders
Professor DOUGLAS W. JOHNSON
Columbia University, New York
1917.
The following letter, written by Professor Douglas W. Johnson, of
Columbia University, is in reply to a letter, pleading the cause of
Germany, which he received from a German correspondent. Professor
Johnson's letter appeared in the "Revue de Paris" of September, 1916.
February, 1916.
Your two letters, with enclosed newspaper clippings, and your postalcard were duly received. I can assure you that my failure to reply morepromptly was not meant as any discourtesy. The clippings were gladlyreceived, for I am always anxious to read what prominent Germans regardas able and convincing presentations of their side of disputed matters.Your own letters, particularly the long one of July 9, were read mostcarefully. I appreciate your earnest endeavour to convince me of therighteousness of your country's cause, and am not unmindful of the timeand trouble you spent in preparing for me so carefully worded apresentation of the German point of view touching several matters of theprofoundest importance to our two Governments.
My failure to reply has been due to a doubt in my own mind as to whethergood would be accomplished by any letter which I could write. I couldnot agree with your opinions regarding Germany's responsibility for thewar, nor regarding her methods of conducting the war; and it did notseem to me that you would profit by any statement I might make as to thereasons for my own opinions on such vital matters. Your letters clearlyshowed that you wrote under the influence of an intense emotion—anemotion which I can both understand and respect, but which might wellmake it impossible for you to accord a dispassionate reception to areply which controverted your own views. With your country surrounded bypowerful foes, with your sons deluging alien soil in an heroic defenceof your Government's decrees, with the nation you love most dearlystanding in moral isolation, condemned by the entire neutral world forbarbarous crimes against civilisation, you could hardly be expected towrite with that scientific accuracy and care which would, in normaltimes, be your ideal.
For this reason I have not resented much in your letters which wouldotherwise call for earnest protest. I feel sure, for example, yourassertion that I and my fellow-countrymen derive our opinions of Germanconduct wholly from corrupt and venal newspapers, or usually from asingle newspaper which doles out mental poison in subservience to asingle political party, was not intended to be as insulting as it reallysounded. Your emotion doubtless led you to make charges which your senseof justice and courtesy would, under other circumstances, condemn. Ibelieve also that in a calmer time you would not entertain the sweepingopinion that "the daily press has become one of the direst plagues ofhumanity, an ulcer in the frame of society, whose one object it is, forprivate ends (wealth, political influence, and social position), to pitthe races, nations, religions, and classes against one another." Irealise that some of our papers are a disgrace to the high calling ofjournalism; I believe that some sacrifice honour for gain and that someare subservient to s