# Diplomacy and the War/Part 2/Chapter 1

CHAPTER I.
Our Political Mistakes.
The war was inaugurated in such difficult circumstances that it was not permissible to commit any further mistakes. Absolute supremacy in military and political leadership alone could have ensured satisfactory results for us. Unfortunately, however, our diplomacy failed us during the war. Nothing damaged the Central Powers so much as the invasion of weak and neutral Belgium, although there are sufficient precedents. As a rule, the belligerent parties disregard international law during war. There is no nation which has never done so, and there is no war in which international law has not been violated. No international principle which endangers success is ever respected in war, for the following reasons. To begin with, international law is a lex imperfecta, and there is no court which is in a position to pronounce judgment in such a case, and there is no power in a position to enforce the adhesion to the rules of international law, because the existence of the state is in question. Moreover, the state is the highest judge of ​her own actions, and every party to the war expects the worst from his opponent and must necessarily do so in accordance with experience.
I do not know of a single nation which would have lost a war or waged one under much more difficult circumstances because she respected international law.
England has not always regarded the violation of Belgian neutrality as such an appalling breach as she does to-day. An English official, a military attaché, occupied himself not long ago with the question as to whether the neutrality of Belgium should not be violated against Belgium's wishes (1912). While England supported the Triple Alliance and regarded Russia as her enemy, Dilke (1887) asked what England would do if Germany should violate Belgian neutrality in a war against France. The Government press took up the point of view that this could not be avoided, and that England would have to content herself with securing Belgian neutrality and independence in the treaty of peace. Dilke summarized his experiences by saying that he realized that England was determined to get rid by any pretext of obligations which she had contracted.
In the present war, the breach of Belgian neutrality was not the only action which was legally questionable. Our enemies also violated international law. The neutrality of Greece and Corfu was not respected. The blockade of Central Europe was also an action that contravened international law. Nevertheless, I regard the invasion of Belgium as a great misfortune ​and a great mistake. To begin with, it cannot be denied that we committed the first illegal action by the invasion of Belgium, and that this fact could serve as a justification or excuse of all subsequent breaches of the law. This action turned the public opinion of the whole world against us, which brought a decisive influence to bear upon the whole course of the war. The sufferings of Belgium made England's interference easy, and gave the strongest weapon to the military party in Italy and created hatred in America.
Bismarck, who was a statesman no one can accuse of sentimentality, recognized that it would be a mistake to begin a war against France by violating the neutrality of Belgium. When the Belgian question was opened in England, as I have already mentioned, in 1887, Bismarck said in his paper: "Germany would never begin a war with the violation of a European agreement. Anyone who thinks that political leadership is subjected to the point of view of the General Staff and not vice versa, is making a grave error."
The real motive of the British Government which decided her to interfere in the war was not the breach of neutrality which had been committed in Belgium, but the fact that England could not allow Germany, which was antagonistic to her and which had been her rival during the last decade, to gain unquestionable supremacy on the continent, and especially could England not permit that Germany should rule over the coast that lies immediately opposite to England after vanquishing France. Nothing but the sufferings ​of Belgium could silence the pacificism which was so deeply rooted in the general feeling in England.
The invasion of Belgium also created painful sensations for us. We recalled other occasions as precedents in vain. Everyone felt that the originators of this breach would not gain glory by their action. We defended this action only because we were forced to do so, and because we felt that one could not begin a war of life and death with a feeling of guilt, and because we knew that the German Government had only been guided by patriotic conviction when they came to this erroneous decision. At the same time, it pained all of us to expose a nation to the terrors of war which had not contemplated attacking us. The evidence which has subsequently been produced as to the belligerent intentions of Belgium I do not consider to be tenable.
Personally, and quite apart from the legal standpoint, I considered this action of the German Government to be a great mistake, because it was the result of the out-of-date war programme of Schliessen. His idea was the result of the assumption that France could be isolated and vanquished by German supremacy before the Russian Army appeared upon the field. This assumption, however, no longer corresponded to the facts. The effect of the Russian Army made itself felt much more quickly than one could assume at the time Schliessen formulated his plans. Moreover, France did not remain isolated, for the very reason that Belgian neutrality had been violated. It was British ​support which caused the cessation of the rapid successes of Germany. I had always been of the opinion that the best plan would have been to attack Russia first and content oneself with defensive action in the West, I will give my military reasons for taking this point of view later, and will only point to the political reasons here.
The weak spot in the side of the Entente was Russia. I always counted upon the internal collapse of this country. The events which took place after the Japanese war and the growing discontent allowed one to suppose that it was highly probable that a serious defeat of the army would bring about an internal collapse, and that this internal collapse would carry with it complete military and political destruction. As I had no insight into the diplomatic and military reports of the actual situation, I was in the position of believing in the Russian revolution almost up to the moment when it occurred, and I was just giving up hope when the catastrophe was imminent.
The natural continuation of the diplomatic battle would have been to attack Russia, against whose aggressive policy the war was directed. The most favourable beginning of the fight would have been common action of the allies, which could naturally only occur in the Russian theatre of war; that is to say, in the only theatre of war where both allies were interested to the same degree. The strongest political argument for an offensive against Russia was that by this means only could the neutrality of England be ​secured and only thus could the attitude of the democracy of the whole world be influenced favourably. It would have been as difficult for the democracy of the West to mobilize her influence in favour of Czardom as it was easy to create enthusiasm for the preservation of international law and the defence of poor Belgium.
In order to carry out rapidly the plan of war conceived by Schliessen, Germany risked the blame of declaring war against several nations one after the other, all of which could have been avoided if we had directed our offensive against the East.
As the Belgian question had to be solved, I cannot conceive why Germany did not make a proposal to the British Government to renew the agreement which Gladstone made in the year 1870 with Napoleon and the Emperor William. This suggestion was to the effect that Germany was inclined not only to respect the neutrality of Belgium, but even to protect it by force of arms, if England would undertake to do the same in case of French aggression. If England had accepted this proposal, everything would have been in order and the neutrality of England could have been regarded as secure. If, on the other hand, England had not accepted this proposal, which was probable, because England was only interested in 1870 in the fate of Belgium, whereas now she was interested in the position of France, England would have lost her most advantageous casus belli. If England had rejected the means by which in 1870 Belgian neutrality was saved, by her own initiative she would have betrayed ​her intentions and it would have become known publicly that England refused to draw her sword either in defence of Belgium or in defence of international law.
When I told Bethmann-Hollweg my point of view during the war, he told me that he had not been in a position to undertake this step, because the military command did not permit the slightest delay but had urged an instant offensive in the interests of success. I failed to see this, as no serious loss of time was to be anticipated. Lengthy discussion need not have been entertained, as England had only to say yes or no. The agreement made between Bismarck and Gladstone was ready on the table; it was only necessary to accept or refuse it.
It is, of course, true that the offensive against France very nearly realized the success that was expected of it when the Battle of the Marne frustrated all our hopes and nothing remained out of the whole combination except the blame.
I also did not consider the manner in which the Serbian question w«s brought up to be a fortunate one. The latest Austrian Red Book shows that two points of view existed which were opposed to each other. One opinion was that war was to be commenced immediately, and so as to effect a surprise; the other opinion was expressed in the desire that a peaceable solution should be found bv making difficult but nevertheless acceptable conditions, and that war should not be declared unless these conditions ​were rejected. The course of action that was finally decided upon was in accordance with neither of these points of view. I am under the impression that the proposal of Tisza was used for the purpose of transferring the blame for the war to the opponent; at the same time it seemed that official policy regarded the war as the proper solution. The note was drafted in such a way that its acceptance was very difficult indeed.
This decision was fatal! The intention was apparent and became even more clear when we refused Serbia's conciliatory answer and declared war. We were thus unable to throw the blame off, and furthermore, we were accused of intrigue. If our Government did not consider the war against Serbia necessary, the note should have been worded differently, and Serbia's answer should have been used as a basis for negotiations. If, on the other hand, we wanted the war, then Serbia's policy, which led to the assassination in Serajevo, was sufficient cause, as these actions endangered the integrity of the Monarchy. Even later on there was no other motive for the war which could not be challenged than this one, as the investigations which were made in Serajevo did not even throw any suspicion upon the Serbian Government, which allowed one to suppose that they had taken part in the preparation for the murder. For this reason immediate action would have been more valuable than the transparent pretence of long-suffering and mercy. Rapid military success and a rapid offer of acceptable peace ​conditions in case the Entente had interfered, would have removed the danger of a world war far more easily than the method which was actually adopted.
But in my opinion our position was not quite hopeless even then. The control of our internal line of communications, Russia's organic weakness, the incomplete development of the British Army, our greater military rapidity and our more homogeneous and superior leadership, all combined to make it possible that we would be able to contest the fight successfully in spite of the numerical superiority of our enemies and in spite of British supremacy at sea. It was quite certain, however, that we had a very difficult fight before us, and that we should have prevented the entry of new enemies into the war even at the cost of the heaviest sacrifices. Unfortunately, however, we failed to achieve this end.
Italy was the first state with whose entry into the war we had to reckon. When Italy did not support us at the outbreak of war, it was quite clear to me that our main efforts would have to aim at preventing Italy's entry into the war against us. The danger was already apparent through her motives for neutrality. In explaining her motives she described our policy as aggressive. As the quick military successes on which we had counted with certainty did not occur, I felt that the neutrality of Italy could only be secured by giving her territorial concessions. Although it was a painful decision to hand over territories which are one's legal right for merely political reasons without getting ​any support of arms thereby, I considered nevertheless that this step was inevitable.
Cavour renounced the traditional seat of the dynasty in 1859, Savoy; and also the birthplace of Garibaldi, Nice, in order to create the Italian union. In the course of the war, Turkey gave back to Bulgaria those territories which Turkey had only recently acquired in order to assure herself of a free hand during the war that she had commenced. And should not we also have made sacrifices in order to be able to defend our existence?
I felt no confidence that we would be able to meet another foe, and Italy's entry into the war seemed to me all the more dangerous as I was certain that Roumania would follow her example simultaneously.
In the first instance, it would have been our duty to make territorial concessions only in case we could thereby secure Italy's active co-operation, or if our victories resulted in rearranging the continental balance of power in such a way that Italy would have ground for satisfaction. At the same time, we should not have rejected Italy's demands, even if she had insisted upon actual handing over of the territory in question. This statement seems obvious when it is considered that our existence trembled in the balance. We should even have displayed inclination and goodwill, and we should have avoided, by careful circumspection, giving the impression that we were only following the line of least resistance, and that we were only intending to give way to superior force and would entertain thoughts of revenge in case victory fell to our lot.
​When I saw that in the autumn of 1914 nothing was done in this direction, I began to feel very restive. During December I called upon Berchtold in order to communicate my anxiety to him. I saw that the Minister for Foreign Affairs had already considered this question a good deal, and that he came close to agreeing with my point of view. I got the impression that he intended to gain time without making Italy bitter or running the risk of making her distrust us. Our General Staff was of the opinion that a decision could be enforced within eight months at the outside. Berchtold proceeded to allow a great deal of this time to elapse without making our relations with Italy any worse. But then he was also of the opinion that a decision would have to be arrived at shortly.
On January 11 I was again with Berchtold, and cautioned him to take a decision. The Minister for Foreign Affairs informed me that since our last discussion a decided step in the right direction could be noted, because the Italian Ambassador, Avarna, had notified officially for the first time the Italian demand for Austrian territory. I received the impression that Berchtold shared my opinion and recognized the necessity of a friendly agreement. He asked me what relationship existed between Tisza and myself, and whether I believed that I could influence him. I replied thereupon that I had supported Tisza since the outbreak of the war, but that the political situation was never touched upon in our conversation, whereupon Berchtold begged me to call upon the Vienna ​representative of the Hungarian Government, Burian, and to communicate my point of view to him.
I carried out Berchtold's wish and Burian told me personally that in his opinion Italy brought forward the territorial question because they regarded Berchtold as excessively conciliatory, and that the Italians had gathered courage from the journey of Prince Bülow to Rome. He believed that the Italians could be taught to keep such demands to themselves by more forcible and self-conscious language. Burian considered it possible that the moment might arise later on when it would be necessary to cede territory to the Italians, but he considered that at this time such an attempt would be premature. He expected an important military success in Galicia which would damp Italian aspirations for ever.
It was only on the following day, January 13, that I learnt that Berchtold had resigned, and that Burian was to be his successor. I regarded future developments of this question with the greatest anxiety because I was afraid that Burian's attitude might create such distrust in Italy that an advantageous solution of this question might be rendered impossible in the future.
The anticipated military success which was to be the reoccupation of Przemysl unfortunately did not take place. Burian conducted, as can be seen in the Red Book, much more forcible negotiations with Italy than Berchtold, because Italy did not alter her intentions. The conviction grew in Rome that Italy's aims could only be achieved by force of arms.
​If the Government had believed in the peaceable solution she would have reduced her agitation and ceased her armament activity. Italy, however, proceeded to arm, whereby her self-consciousness was increased and the decision to enter into the war was facilitated. The Government, moreover, did nothing to prevent the agitation against us; quite on the contrary, this agitation was fostered by all possible means. In consequence of these circumstances, a peaceable solution became daily more difficult, and the Italian demands increased continually in size. The Republicans, the Irridentists, the Francophiles, the enemies of Austria, all worked ceaselessly to make the war inevitable. The Entente also made every effort to bring this about. The pressure which England asserted by means of her enormous superiority on the sea was also very successful. No means to foster the agitation were left untried. The sufferings of Belgium were part of the most successful means to this end, and in the name of democracy and the freedom of nations the crusade was preached.
Nevertheless, the majority of Parliament supported neutrality. Giolitti, the political leader of the majority, announced in the Italian press at the end of January that it appeared that the concessions could be obtained without war. In view of the general terrorism, he did not dare to appeal publicly for peace. At the same time, he attempted, by emphasizing the possibilities of peace, to create an atmosphere in support of it.
During this period I attempted, by means of articles ​published in Rome, to create to the best of my ability the belief that we entertained friendly feelings towards Italy although they did not come to our assistance, and that we were inclined to come to an understanding. It was, of course, impossible to define my standpoint accurately before the Government had publicly declared her readiness to make territorial sacrifices.
In the Neue Freie Presse, I wrote on January 27, 1915, as follows: "If Italy wishes to settle the question that exists between us at this critical moment by means of a friendly agreement, and if Italy remains neutral, she can count with certainty upon Austria-Hungary as her constant ally. We will be in need of Italy's friendship even after victory. It rests with Italian statesmen that this friendship is made secure and permanent. It would be a mistake to assume that because Italy did not join us we entertained any bitter feelings against her. We have made friends, as it were, with this decision of Italy's for all time and without any mental reservations. We must recognize that the interpretation of the obligations which Italy has accepted are Italy's sovereign right, and no one can condemn the policy which is determined to enter into the world war only if this is inevitable and if Italy is forced to do so by absolute necessity."
"It is my unshakable opinion that, with a little goodwill and on the basis of the Triple Alliance, it should and must be possible to place the relationship of the two neighbours during the present crisis upon an even more solid basis than has existed heretofore." ​What good, however, could such declarations achieve as long as the official negotiations remained barren of results?
When the Italian Parliament met in February, it looked as if the Government and the leading politicians had agreed that Italy must acquire neutrality at our expense and even at the cost of a war.
An evil result of the distrust was Sonnino's demand on March 13, in which he suggested an immediate execution of the possible agreement, and the fixing of a period of fifteen days for the negotiations.
The tactics of delay brought about a gradual change in the problem itself. In the beginning we had to come to an understanding with the Italian Government. In April, however, we had to negotiate over the heads of the Government with the Parliamentary majority. This problem was, of course, more difficult than the previous one, but it was not insoluble. The majority still seemed to want peace. The war involved such risk that anyone who was not a fanatic naturally fought shy of it. The Catholic party, the Social Democrats, the workmen and the majority of the peasants wanted to avoid the war. The King did not desire the war either. The possibility of peace, therefore, still existed, even against the will of the Government. Just at this time Venizelos, who had agitated for war, fell in Athens, and the love of peace of the brave King gained a victory over the policy of the Government. Was it not possible that the same should occur in Rome?
​There was only one means to attain this end: by means of a rapid decision we should have offered everything which we were prepared to give as the price of Italy's neutrality, and by some means or other we should have published our offer. Instead of proceeding in this manner, we merely gave way. Even at this moment we did not create the impression that we were seriously determined to bring about an understanding. The conviction grew in official Italian circles that a friendly agreement was dangerous because the victory which we might owe to Italy's neutrality might be used by us for purposes of revenge.
Even the moment at which we finally made an offer was unfavourable. We made our first territorial offer on March 28, one week after the fall of Przemysl (March 22). Our later and more complete offers followed in rapid succession at a time when an agreement had already been reached between the Italian Government and the Entente (April 25) in consequence of which Italy would have had to violate her new agreement. But even at this time there were such powerful forces arrayed against entry into the war that the majority party was not lost finally. The Government was not as yet the unchallenged master of the situation. The majority in Parliament was decidedly in favour of Giolitti. The Government could only succeed by combining with the terrorism of the street. The Government resigned on May 17, and by screams of revolution frightened everybody who dared to assist in the formation of a cabinet. With the greatest ​expenditure of effort we continued to tight up to the last moment. Bülow negotiated untiringly at this time. In accordance with Tisza's request I made an interpellation to him with a view to calling forth a manifestation by which the Hungarian Parliament declared her readiness to adhere to Italy's friendship in future (May 17). We made new concessions, but Sonnino cried out sarcastically: "Troppo tardo." Terror and passion throttled every counter-argument. The majority in Parliament gave way, and the Government declared war on May 23.
If this crisis had occurred while no agreement had as yet been reached between Italy and the Entente, and before public opinion was imbued with the feeling that we would regard an agreement as such a disgrace that we would have to reject it at the first opportunity, everything could still have been regularized.
Could we have counted on Italy's tenacity to neutrality if we had come to a final agreement, and need we not have feared that she would desert us in the end? We are not justified in assuming that the Italian Government would, of their own accord, have violated her definite undertaking before the ink was dry upon the signatures. Moreover, it is to be assumed that her neutrality would have brought about such successes that our friendship would have developed into an imperative interest for Italy. It is also to be assumed that if the Italian attack had not hampered our fighting power for years, we would have gained such successes on the other fronts, especially in the ​East immediately after Gorlice, that Roumania would also have come in on our side. And can it not be assumed that, if Italy and Roumania had been neutral, in consequence of which the collapse of Russia would have been brought about earlier than it actually occurred, we would have had an opportunity of concluding a loyal peace by agreement before we entered into a conflict with America, and it is probable that we would have remained so strong that Italy, in her own interests, would have adhered to the new agreement?
Moreover, the assumption that Italy would not honour the agreement did not play a leading part in the consideration of the Government, because the Government was determined to conclude the alliance with Italy.
The outbreak of the Italian war was a catastrophe. Her entry into the war influenced our position so adversely that it became one of the main causes of the tragic conclusion of the war. A further result of these events was that the relation between Vienna and Berlin became even worse. If Prince Bülow and our diplomats had played their cards together, I believe that they would have achieved a favourable result. As, however, this was not the case. Bülow's attempt to keep Italy out of the war did not only fail, but left with us a painful feeling permanently and became one of the main causes of that unsatisfactory relation between us two allies, to which I will return later.
I was not informed as to the attitude of Roumania during the war. I am not in a position to judge ​even to-day whether it would have been possible to prevent Roumania from going into the war. At the same time, I am under the impression that Roumania's attitude was chiefly determined by our military situation, and that Roumania would only have remained neutral if it had not believed that we would lose, and especially if we could have retained supremacy in the Eastern theatre of war. This circumstance was likewise a tremendous argument for turning our main forces against Russia.
A terrible mistake in our attitude was our relation to America. I did not believe that Wilson intended to take part in the war. I was rather of the opinion that it was his ambition to see his name immortalized in history as the creator of international peace. No one could have desired a more noble part. To put an end to the most murderous war in history and to represent, during the most important peace negotiations, all the feelings and common interests of humanity, and to play the part of the judge who stands above all parties, would be the most glorious problem for any man or any nation. By such a course of action, Wilson would also have fulfilled America's tradition, which was that America would never interfere in the problems of Europe. I believe even to-day that it would have been possible to prevent the Americans from entering into the war, but we should not have offended against her interests or her pride, and we should never have created such a casus belli as we gave to England by violation of Belgian neutrality. ​Such a ground for war was only a means for mobilizing the widest sections of democracy.
America could not possibly wage an unpopular war. Bismarck said very beautifully in his letter addressed to Salisbury, to which I have referred above, that no matter who was Kaiser and no matter what the Kaiser wished, it was impossible to mobilize the millions of Germans if the nation did not comprehend the causes of war and did not approve them. This applies undoubtedly to America much more than to Germany.
With the U-boat war we furnished an ideal casus belli to America. The self-consciousness of America was offended because her threats were disregarded. In view of her highly developed trade, America considered her interests endangered by the U-boat war. The killing of women and children also offended American sentiment. The disregard of international law, moreover, furnished the military party with a powerful weapon against the Central Powers. And finally, if there had been a possibility of preserving peace, this possibility vanished in consequence of the fact that the plan was made public that the German Government had intended to ally herself against America, with Mexico and Japan. Germany had determined to make an ally of Mexico, which was the object of the deepest hatred and the most bitter contempt in America.
When I was in Berlin in the summer of 1916, I had an opportunity of discussing this question with several leading politicians. The Chancellor gave strength to my conviction that the use of the U-boat war was a ​fatal error. He explained to me that the submarine warfare could not bring about a military decision, but rather, that it could only press America into the war, in which case we were bound to lose, because, under the given circumstances, we were not capable of coping with the enormous military power of America.
The leaders of the Conservative party, on the other hand, expected everything from the U-boat war. I was astonished when I saw and heard with what prejudice and determination they clung to the hope that by this means they would force their chief enemy, England, upon her knees.
I do not know what can have persuaded Bethmann-Hollweg to alter his point of view with regard to this question. It is possible that in the meantime he had come to the conclusion that America would come into the war anyhow, and it is possible that he gave way to the pressure of public opinion. It is also possible that he did not dare to advise the Kaiser to renounce this weapon on account of the pressure of public opinion. He may have asked himself the question whether the Kaiser would not be made responsible and condemned if, in spite of the pressure brought to bear by the experts and public opinion, he was afraid for political reasons to use this weapon of which so much was expected? Unless I am much mistaken, similar reasons led the Kaiser to order the Zeppelins not to bombard London. I have been told that even such attacks on the British capital were naturally opposed to the inclinations of the Kaiser. The Chancellor also ​was little delighted at the prospect, but the public expected so much from this procedure, and would not have understood or allowed any consideration to be shown for England which had punished Germany so severely by the blockade. I must therefore assume that the responsible personalities were forced to swim with the general stream in opposition to their better judgment.
If their conscience had prevented them from resorting to the use of these arms, no pressure of public opinion would have made them give way. They were only afraid to use these arms because they regarded them as unsuited to their purpose.
If we mean to be just, we must understand this. It is premature to expect completely dispassionate judgment, but the time must come when nations who are opposed to each other will be in a position to judge each other's actions correctly. Public opinion among the nations of the Entente is convinced that the German people had consciously brought about the war in order to secure for themselves the supremacy of the world, and consequently the Entente was revolted when she saw that her opponents used such cruel means as the Zeppelins and U-boats for the realization of so criminal an aim. This accusation, however, is unfounded. The instinct of self-preservation makes people in the anxious moments of a fight for life and death judge things in the light of what will assist their means of action most forcibly, and of what will satisfy their consciences. The German nation was convinced that the jealousy ​of England, the desire for revenge in France, and the ambition of the Slavonic world, had combined in order to rend the German Empire to pieces. The German people believed themselves to be the victims of a Macchiavellian plot which had been hatched a long time ago. They believed that they were face to face with a plot the contemptibility of which could only be rivalled by the hypocrisy and intrigues of the members of the Entente. And in believing the above, the German nation was, of course, revolted to see that so dastardly an attack made use of the cruel weapon of the blockade. Those, however, who did not judge the intentions of the enemy so hardly found in this general opinion the justification of a reckless means of pursuing the war, because they did not want a war against the Entente. The Kaiser and the Chancellor, who were appalled by the idea of a European war, and who believed that they had gone to the very limit of their power to prevent this war, compatible with the interests of the nation, and having condemned the motives of the Entente strongly, were prepared to use the most powerful means in order to save the nation that had been committed to their charge. Englishmen and Frenchmen, who saw the psychological result of the destruction wrought by German airmen and who were influenced by the sufferings of their innocent brothers, from whom they could discover what mental condition is produced by the use of brutality against defenceless men, could understand what an immeasurable revolt was created by the wholesale murder of the blockade ​in the minds of the German people. Many more unarmed citizens perished in our country behind the front line than in the countries of the Entente. The submarines only injured such individuals as were in dangerous zones; there were relatively only a few Zeppelins, whereas the blockade caused everyone to suffer without exception. Special suffering was caused to the diseased, the poor, the aged, and the children. Among these sections the war reaped a rich harvest. If we failed to conquer the enemy, or if we were not prepared to throw ourselves entirely upon his mercy, we had to face seeing the population of part of our possessions given over to starvation, and therefore a feeling was created which led us to desert all feeling of consideration and to choose any means which promised success. It was not cruelty but consideration which was regarded as a crime against the Fatherland and women and children.
It is a terrible thing, and perhaps the most tragic element of the catastrophe which has fallen upon the world, that highly cultivated nations, which stood upon a lofty moral basis, were plunged into such an attitude of mind. For this reason it is neither true nor just to condemn single nations, because every nation which took part in the war has shown brutal traits, and everyone was more or less criminal. Let us look within and recognize that much of the beast clings to man. He who resorted to the weapon of the blockade has no right to despise and to condemn the party who resorted to submarine warfare, and this argument applies vice ​versa. Whoever used either of these weapons would also have used the other if he had the opportunity for doing so. Anyone who believed his nation exposed to the extremest danger in consequence of an unjust weapon will consider himself justified in using all and every weapon of which he would never think in ordinary life, especially if his opponent uses uncommonly brutal means. I believe that this statement will make many enemies for me, and that I will satisfy no one, but this fact cannot detain me from recognizing the truth without taking into consideration its momentary effect, because only truth has the power to heal. At the same time, I wish to emphasize the fact that this attitude must not be identified with the Hungarian nation; it is my personal point of view, for which I alone am responsible.
Our Government, it seems, opposed the U-boat war for a long time. The Government did not believe in its effectiveness, but finally gave way. When Tisza, one of the leaders of the Opposition, communicated to me the decision of the Allied Governments, we were already faced with a fait accompli. He requested me to take note of the decision which had been reached. From the point of view of the experts I had no independent opinion and I could not possess one. No facts were at my disposal. In view of the fact that, notwithstanding what Bethmann-Hollweg had told me personally only a few months since, and had nevertheless agreed to this measure, I gained the impression that the submarine fleet had increased in a quite unexpected measure and that its military effectiveness had become ​much more decisive than had previously been believed. Of course, I entertained the greatest anxiety of its effect upon America's attitude, and I did not let this anxiety pass unstated. Tisza also counted upon the intervention of America, but he pointed to the hope expressed in military circles that the war would be decided in European theatres of war before America could organize her army and before she was able, in view of the difficulty of the submarines, to send her forces to the Continent. He seemed to be more afraid of the moral effect of the intervention of the great Republic, and he feared especially the possibility that such European States would follow the example of America which were closer to the scene of action. He did not expect the submarines to bring about so sudden a collapse of England as the more sanguine members of the Admiralty of our nation expected. But in personal conversation with me he supported the view that the U-boats would exercise a decisive influence in the European theatre of war, because they would make the transport of troops and the arming of our enemies so much more difficult. It seems that even he expected a final victory in the French theatre of war as the result of this action.
However, these conversations proved themselves to be inaccurate. Our enemies retained their liberty of movement, and the Anglo-French front could not be broken down, nor could England be starved. America brought her troops at the right time, and with enormous power, to Europe, without making it impossible to supply the Entente with all necessities. The war was ​thus lost for us permanently. The prophecies of Bethmann-Hollweg had come true word for word.
I noted the decision of the Government in Parliament, but I remarked, in my speech of February 26, 1917, "that the use of the U-boat war was only right if this weapon was so effective that the intervention of new enemies would be less disadvantageous than the greatness of the advantage brought to us by the use of this weapon. Whether this will be so or not, we cannot tell; for this we (the Opposition) cannot accept any responsibility. The Military Command alone is responsible." I did not wish to shake the faith of the nation by subsequent and fruitless doubts, and I did not want to spread any unrest. In a similar situation I would act in the same way. If I, as a responsible member of the party which supported this decision, had given my approval, it would be quite another question. In any case, I would only have done so if the calculations of the War Office had convinced me of the correctness of this step. On no account would I have done so under pressure of Germany, as Czernin did, who prophesied the fatal consequences of this decision with uncommon clarity and certainty, and accepted responsibility for it none the less. In this war, in which everything was at stake for Austria and Hungary, the victorious conclusion of which became more doubtful every day, it was not permissible to commit new errors knowingly for the sake of anybody or as the result of any pressure. One should rather have severed the relations between Germany and ​Austria-Hungary than resort for her sake to such a means the detriment of which was subject to no doubt. One must not destroy a nation for the sake of the wrong calculation and the strong-headedness of a friendly statesman and military leaders who have been entrusted with the care of Government.
With regard to the questions of foreign policy which were raised during the war, it was the Polish question that engaged my attention most. I was the first to bring this question before the public in the article which I wrote for the Neue Freie Presse in September, 1915. And it was I who started the discussion on this problem in the Hungarian Parliament on December 17, 1915. I considered it one of the most urgent and most important of all our problems. Justice, our own interests, instinct and calculation, all urged us on in the same direction. The only right policy was to make every effort to gain the Polish nation for ourselves. Our enemies delight in accusing us that we intended to ruin the small nations. It was almost a battle cry that the Entente had to protect all weak nations against us. The fate of Serbia and of Belgium made such an agitation easy. A just solution of the Polish question and the liberation of a subjugated nation, together with making amends for an old crime, would have been a brilliant refutation of the accusations that were made against us. There was an admirable opportunity to improve our compromised position before the public opinion of the whole world. Moreover, we were in a position to gain a friend in one of the main theatres ​of war, and also to acquire good military material within a certain period of time. The Habsburg Monarchy could have achieved the one expansion which really meant an increase in power. The reason for this was that this expansion was not in antagonism to the sentiment or the interest of the population in question; and, so far from involving the restriction of the liberty of the people, would have resulted in their liberation. By this means we would have deprived Russia of one of her bulwarks of attack, we would have secured an advantageous strategic border, and would not have created a position which would have been unbearable for the Czar.
In my opinion, the only right solution of this question would have been the so-called Austro-Polish solution. A sovereign State should have been created out of Galicia and out of Russian Poland, on whose throne the Polish people should have placed our ruler. Instead of a Dual Monarchy, we would have gained a Triple Monarchy.
Any other solution would have been dangerous for us, because, even in case of victory, any other solution would have led to the loss of a certain portion of territory, or, at any rate, it would have endangered it. It could easily be seen that, if we did nothing in the interests of the Polish nation, Poland would take refuge under the wing of Russia. Poland would have nothing further to expect from us, and would therefore turn as a last hope to Russia, which, although it was not in a position to liberate her, could at any rate unite ​the Polish nation which had been torn into three parts. This feeling would also have become dominant in Galicia, which always shared the sentiments of the Polish nation and remained an alien to Austria. If we left Poland to Germany, this would mean the painful enslavement of the Poles, which frightened them more than Russian tyranny. They would merely exchange a Slav ruler for a German one who was stronger, and with whom they had had more serious encounters in the last decade than with their Russian ruler. A new division of Poland between Austria-Hungary and Germany would only have been a repetition of the historic crime, and would justify the accusations that were brought against us, and foster revolutionary tendencies at a time when the danger of revolution was imminent anyhow. We would have acquired one of the bitterest enemies in one of the most important theatres of war, instead of obtaining a friend.
If we had made the attempt of converting the Government of Warsaw into an independent country, we we would only have created artificially a beehive of Irridentism. The only object for a country that was so small and so incapable of supporting her own existence was necessarily liberation and alliance. We would have created for ourselves a new Serbia, with the difference that the unity of the Polish people was a positive fact, whereas the unity of the Southern Slavs was only an apparent one.
The idea of mutual possession did arise in the minds of the Governments of the two states, which was an ​imitation of our unhappy occupation of Silesia, and would have led us only once more into difficulties with Germany. The mere idea of a protectorate was an insult to the Poles, because this attitude seemed as if the Polish nation, with her tremendous historical past, needed a guardian, and this notion was in itself insulting.
The idea that Poland as an independent State should enter into an alliance with Austria-Hungary found favour with the King-Emperor Francis Joseph as well as his successor Karl. None the less, we did not take a serious step in this direction. Our leading statesmen were unable to view the situation clearly for a long time. Tisza was decidedly against this plan. When I told him for the first time that I was a supporter of this solution, he expressed the greatest surprise. "Surely you do not wish to risk the principle of the Dual Monarchy," he said, "you, the son of the man who created the idea, and you, who have always been a faithful supporter of this system."
He thought that Hungarian interests might be endangered because in certain questions Austria and Poland could combine and thereby obtain a majority vote against Hungary. He was in favour of winning Poland for the Monarchy, but he wanted to join this country to Austria much in the manner in which Croatia was tied to us. In order to establish the balance between Austria and Hungary, he wanted to bring Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina under the Hungarian crown. All my arguments in favour of the ​proposed solution were in vain. I pointed out in vain that, although Dualism would cease to exist, the independence of the Hungarian states would appear in greater relief. In conjunction with Trialism the common army would also cease, and in questions of foreign policy it would be necessary to give the Hungarian Parliament the power to veto. Bureaucratic and centralized Austria would disappear as the result of this solution, and the Polish nation, which was a national State, would become the natural ally of Hungary, which was also organized upon a national basis. I pointed out in vain that Dualism would cease to have any right to existence if Poland were tied to Austria, and in consequence a nation with 40,000,000 people would be confronted by the nation of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, which only numbered 20,000,000. I pointed out that it was impossible to rule Warsaw from Vienna, as this degree of independence, which did not satisfy Croatia with her two millions, could satisfy Poland with her twenty millions even less, especially in view of her great past. Tisza recognized that it was in the interests of Europe, the Monarchy, the Dynasty and Hungary, that Poland should join us. At the same time I pointed out in vain that the principle of Dualism was anyhow untenable if this principle prevented the alliance between Poland and ourselves. Tisza, however, would not give way. He came to the conclusion that it was better for Poland to remain Russian or to be divided than for us to change our constitution. The idea of Dualism was such a funda​mental bedrock of the whole of our political system that he did not wish to endanger the principle, even when the war had created an entirely new situation.
The powerful individuality of Tisza lacked that mental elasticity which renders adaptability easy. He did not belong to those statesmen who continually learn by ceaseless observation, and who are ready to adjust themselves to new events. In most questions he took up the attitude which he had acquired in his youth. As a leading statesman, he regarded it as his duty to realize and to preserve everything which he had considered true as an adolescent youth, and to which he clung during the whole course of his career with all his faith and tenacity. This tenacity was one of the factors which made his power of action so great. This trait made a great impression on his supporters and increased their trust. On the other hand, his weakness was that he did not recognize that the changes of life often necessitate a change of policy.
This new idea, however, did not meet with difficulties only in Hungary, but also in Austria. A large number of the Austrian statesmen were not inclined to lose Galicia for Austria in order to gain Poland for the Monarchy. They wanted to have a guarantee that Poland would depend economically upon Vienna and would do so permanently in order that the Austrians would not have the same experience with Poland as they had already had with Hungary, whose markets they had had to buy from time to time by means of difficult negotiations. The real Austrians were offended be​cause even the Poles of the highest society and those who were the most spoilt pets of the court were guided chiefly by their national Polish sentiments. It was with difficulty that the truth came to be recognized that the union could only be of advantage if it involved the satisfaction of the Polish nation, and that only this method was a moral one, and that every other solution involved new dangers for us. After the fall of Tisza, Hungary did not oppose the Austro-Polish solution, but no clear agreement had been reached between the Austrian and Hungarian Governments, and in fact I believe that even the Hungarian Government had not arrived at a firm decision.
This situation made it only more difficult to arrive at an agreement in this matter with Germany. When I went to Berlin in the autumn of the year 1915, on account of this very Polish question, I discovered that an agreement with Germany, especially with Bethmann-Hollweg, was possible. This statesman recognized that the history and the sentiment of the Poles had created an unbridgeable gulf between them and Germany, and that the only natural solution which corresponded to the will of the people was the idea which I represented. In case of economic and military agreement with Germany, the Chancellor would have been prepared to accept this idea of mine. However, Bethmann-Hollweg was not the master of the situation in Germany. Strong forces were at work against him and against the Austro-Polish solution. The military command would not hear of giving up Poland. They were of ​opinion that the Germans had conquered Poland and that we were incapable of organizing Poland and of defending her against Russian pressure, and that this question was very important for Germany, as Poland protected our eastern border. The military staff also considered that only German force and German discipline could succeed in turning Poland into a country capable of resistance. They pointed to the experience in Galicia, to the numerous treacheries among the Ruthenes, as proof of the fact that Austria was not capable of liberating Poland from Russian influence. There was, moreover, little sympathy among the Germans for the Poles, and little trust in their good-will. German industry wanted to secure Polish raw material for itself. The Pan-Germans would possibly even have placed their hands upon German Austria; they did not want to hear anything of the idea that Poland should be added to the Habsburg Monarchy. The smaller our expectations of expansion were in the West, the more difficult was it to make the Germans accept a solution which would place our dynasty at the head of Poland. Moreover, the opinion was expressed that they could not face German public opinion and come home empty-handed, although they were the stronger, while we, the weaker ally, acquired a new kingdom.
In consequence of the difficulties of this coalition, a certain distrust began to spread, very unfortunately, in German circles. The question was raised whether in case Warsaw and Prague should come under the ​sceptre of the same ruler, Silesia would not be completely surrounded and endangered. They wondered whether a kingdom with twenty million Poles would not press the dynasty of Habsburg into Slav tendencies, and whether Polish influence would not make the alliance with Germany impossible. In such circumstances it was very difficult to gain the consent of Berlin, especially as long as we did not know precisely what we wanted ourselves, and did not know how we were to include this new freed country into the Habsburg Monarchy. The difficulty was increased, moreover, by the fact that we did not see clearly ourselves, nor did Germany, how the German-Austro-Hungarian relation was to be developed. In consequence of the uncertainty of our attitude, it was also impossible that a strong public opinion in our favour could be formed in Poland.
When I visited the German Chancellor in the summer of the year 1916 for the second time, he also considered the idea impracticable which a few months earlier he had approved in conversation with me. Germany now wanted to make out of the Warsaw Government a proper State under a German prince. This idea, however, was wrong and did not come to be realized. Finally we made out of the annexed provinces an independent country.
The new Polish State was given neither body nor soul. Poland was made independent on paper, but in point of fact she remained divided between the two neighbouring powers without any independence. The ​administration was supplied by a foreign army. Polish regency had no real sphere of activity. The borders of the country were not determined, and the independence on paper really only made the actual dependence all the more unbearable, and even this was not enough. For this shadow of independence, the sacrifice of blood was demanded, and it is almost naive to think that these sacrifices were not made for the Polish army but for the army which was led by Germans. On the day on which the kingdom of Poland was proclaimed, soldiers were demanded from this State whose existence was purely imaginary.
Both the two allies rivalled ceaselessly with each other, with the result that the respect for both of them was undermined, and it was impossible to gain Polish sympathy, which would have been easy, as Poland had always favoured us. We crowned the mistake that we had made hitherto by giving the province of Cholm in the treaty of Rrest-Litovsk to the Ukraine. The majority of the population of Cholm is Polish. Moreover, Cholm is necessary, from every point of view, for the military defence of Poland, and is specially dear to Polish patriots on account of the many battles which Poland has waged for it in the past. The Poles accused our Government, on account of allowing this province to go to the Ukraine, of breach of faith.
The state of affairs in our Polish policy was therefore highly unfavourable. This policy weakened the alliance with Germany, failed to gain the Polish nation, nor did it create the expected military force, and ​rendered a separate peace with Russia more difficult. If there had been more mutual trust and more complete agreement with the Polish nation in view of the well-known sympathy, and if our decision had been reached with greater rapidity, the Polish question would have served as a link for the two allies and have brought about real and substantial support on the part of the Poles, together with the military assistance that we longed for so much. If the policy of Hindenburg and Ludendorff had been followed, we would at any rate have made it easier to come to a separate agreement with Russia. As it was, we had no advantages, only disadvantages. This sad result was hardly changed by the fact that when the war was already lost and it was obvious that our will would not decide the Polish question, Germany approached our standpoint, and the mistake with regard to Cholm was made good. All this was much too late!
The Polish question leads necessarily to a discussion of our relations with Germany, for these questions are organically bound up with one another. I have already pointed out that our Polish policy was detrimental to our relations with Germany. After the Italian question it was the Polish difficulty which, more than anything else, disturbed the harmonious co-operation of both powers. And the unsatisfactory relationship between these powers was not without its effect on the situation in Poland.
Just as mistakes had been made in the Polish question, so were mistakes made in the German question, and ​they were made by both sides. The mistakes made on the part of Germany, apart from their handling of the Polish problem, lay in the tactless attitude of the separate newspaper organs, the boasting of their superiority, and in the repeated official expressions of contempt; in other words, the chief mistake they made was one of bad manners. There was no disloyalty, and they fulfilled their duties as allies, but nevertheless the feeling of bitterness grew with us from day to day. On our side there was much defiance and petty quarrelling, hand in hand with blind obedience. Our behaviour often made the impression on me of a smirking and servile menial. We should have shown much more trust towards Germany, and we should have recognized the true relation of power without fear. On the other hand, it would have been necessary to assume more independence in the more important questions. I was afraid, and I did not keep this from the Emperor Francis Joseph, that Austria-Hungary must lose in any case, as the Monarchy would be on a bad footing with the conquerors and those who were the strongest. If the Monarchy lost the war, this was natural and inevitable; but in view of the bad relations between us and Germany, the distrust and the contempt which spread in Berlin, even a common victory would have brought dangers for us in its train. Such an event would have subjected us to German control. In order to avoid this, I considered it necessary to clear up the relations with Germany, and to define the objects of the war.
​For a long time I was a supporter of the so-called Central European solution, but not in the way in which this was understood by Friedrich Naumann, who wanted to create a complete fusion of the States of the allies, which would have involved the complete dissolution of the weaker monarchy in the German power. What I had before my mind's eye was a purely defensive, dissoluble political alliance, together with a military convention. Such a military convention would have made it possible to control the equal armaments and equipment of the armies, subject to mutual supervision, without interfering with the independence of the leadership or with the parliamentary right of determining the strength of the force or settling the war budget. Economically I was in favour of recognizing the right that Germany and we would give each other advantages which other and most favoured states could not demand ipso jure. The economic convention which was to be concluded should be the subject of renewed and free agreement from time to time. The agreement that I contemplated was to be such that any opposition or quarrel between us should be decided by an international court so that a war was made impossible by legal guarantees.
I considered such an agreement necessary because the harmonious co-operation of both allies was secured during their fight for life and death, upon which the existence of both depended. By this means the German fear would disappear, and distrust be annihilated. The German Army would protect the Austrian and Hun​garian frontier, and they would have made sacrifices so that the Polish Crown and our own might be placed upon the same head. At the same time Germany would be strengthened by the fact that this agreement would make any friction within the Coalition impossible.
I also considered co-operation necessary, because it was obvious to me that the war would not be changed into a permanent peace by mutual pacification of the two groups of states. And I also considered it necessary because I did not think that the protection of the results which had been achieved could be safeguarded without an alliance. After the war, which demanded such terrible sacrifices, we would not have been able to solve the problems of internal restoration even in case of victory by ourselves. It would have been impossible to look to our vanquished enemies for support, so that we were anyhow dependent upon one another. The problem that was before us was quite clear to me. The fundamental principles of my policy were always these: it was our duty to represent mutual pacification, peace and the interests of mutual understanding within the alliance, and to secure the peace which was based upon supremacy by the creation of constant institutions which would render the peace permanently secure. I always saw our duty in the fart that we had to negotiate between Western and Eastern Europe and thereby prepare mutual understanding. This part would have been easier to play because Poland was at heart always Francophile, and I can assert with pride that we Hungarians entertained, neither before nor during the war, any hatred against our enemies.
​This intimate relation between us and Germany would also have been necessary because we should have played this blessed rôle of negotiator during the war. In the actual position in which we found ourselves we were not able to do anything useful in this direction. Our petty jealousy and apprehension undermined the trust of Germany, and other nations placed less and less faith in us because of our unbounded obedience. We were considered to be more dependent than we were in reality. The Czar Nicholas said once that when he spoke about Russia he also meant to imply Austria, because Austria was dependent upon Russia's decision. It is true that Germany did not say the same, but in point of fact this was the actual situation. We had ceased to be independent factors, and our will was not taken into account because nobody seriously believed in our emancipation from Germany, and finally Germany did not place any more trust in us. How could we then have assisted in ameliorating the Anglo-German and the Franco-German tension? An agreement with regard to the future, and disarming German mistrust, should have been our first step, and this relation, based upon trust, once it had been secured, should have been exploited self-consciously and openly in the interests of European understanding.
I also recognized clearly that in case of a common victory Germany would press Central Europe upon us in any form which pleased her. For this reason, would it not have been wiser to have made an agreement with Germany while Germany still needed us and before she ​had obtained a world hegemony? During the war Germany needed us just as much as we needed Germany. At that time we would have been able to protect our interests; a procedure which became highly problematical later on. I also believe that we would have made peace more easily if our common action had been established. The calculation of the Entente that we could be played off one against the other would have fallen to the ground. And the condition that we demanded could have been reduced if our future had anyhow been secured by the formation of a Central Europe. I do not think that I am mistaken when I assume that America and England acted in the interests of French integrity in defiance of their traditions, only so that France, which sought protection on her Rhine frontier, might be exchanged for Anglo-Saxon assistance, and that France could therefore renounce her demands. The creation of a Central Europe would have exerted a similar influence upon Germany.
On the other hand, I was afraid that a peace by agreement would be impossible because, in order to frustrate the creation of a Central Europe, the Entente might wage war to the bitter end. When we were already in a very bad position, and I thought the only salvation could be found in a rapid attempt to make peace, I gave up the idea of a Central European concentration; in fact, I considered it mistaken to continue negotiations with Germany concerning a long economic treaty, because even this gave the military party in enemy countries a weapon against us. I was not ​afraid, however, that a previous agreement would endanger the possibility of a peace by agreement. Quite on the contrary, I counted upon the fact that a solution between Germany and us would make the conclusion of peace more easy and would render other concessions superfluous.
At one time there was a decided determination in Germany to create a Central Europe. On our side there was no decided opposition to this plan, but I believe that there was also no definite policy in favour of it. As far as I know, the military command did not want to hear anything of a military convention, but there were strong supporters among the German Austrians and the Hungarian agriculturists for an economic approach to Germany. This policy was also included in the programme of the Cabinet of Wekerle, but the idea met with strong opposition from a certain section of industry and from the Czech and South Slavonic parties and from all those elements of the Monarchy which entertained antagonistic feelings towards Germany. The suitable moment was allowed to slip by. It became more and more difficult to achieve an advantageous result, until I finally considered the pursuance of this policy a mistake in view of the diminished prospects of victory. My only thought was how to secure peace—an object which would only have been endangered by continued negotiations with Germany.
With regard to our relations with Germany, I only wish to emphasize that during the war I considered a common, homogeneous military command as absolutely ​necessary, and that I did everything in my power to bring about the absolute control of Hindenburg. Our main advantage lay in our internal line of operations, which we could only exploit provided a concentration was carried out according to a common plan. The prestige of Hindenburg was also very great among us. Public opinion recognized him to be the great Field-Marshal of the war. The thought of success was associated with his name, and trust in the leader is already half the victory. The necessity of common leadership was recognized later on by the Entente, and events have proved that the Entente was only able to achieve a military victory after she had secured unity of command.
At an early time I recognized the necessity of agreeing upon the conditions upon which we were ready to make peace.
We had to take three possibilities into consideration.
The first possibility was victory. The second was the victory of the Entente, which became probable in the measure in which the war was prolonged. The third possibility was an agreement before a final decision, which I regarded as the most advantageous for us since Italy had entered into the war. It was not necessary to provide for the possibility of the second case, because, in the circumstances, we would not have had anything to say in fixing the conditions of peace. We had, therefore, only to find a common programme, which we must carry through in case of victory, or which must serve as a basis in case of negotiations.
​The conditions which could be obtained were fixed by the cause of the war. If the famous phrase of Clausewitz was right, that the war was only the armed continuation of the political battle which led to a combat, it is equally true that the peace negotiations were the logical conclusion of the armed exertions of the belligerents. The aims were to remain the same throughout the three phases; only the means were to change. Victories often make it possible to carry the aims of the war far beyond the causes of it. At the same time, it is rarely a sound policy to exceed the original purpose and to suit the demands completely to the results. The fall of Napoleon was due to the fact that he wanted to realize the possibilities which he had achieved by means of his military genius. For this reason every one of his wars was the cause of another one. He finally created an empire which could not be maintained permanently, and he made so many enemies that their united efforts made it impossible for him to resist them. It is very much to the credit of Bismarck that he kept the demands of Prussia in 1866 within the confines of the original purposes for which he went to war, and that he was not carried away by the possibilities which victory offered him.
It is a general rule that one may only conquer that which one can keep and that which assists actually to strengthen the conqueror. One must only strive after such a position of power as bears relation to one's constant strength, and not one which aims at a position which is only the result of passing military successes ​or momentary alliances. Anyone who disregards this changes the fortune of to-day into the misfortune of to-morrow.
Moderation in case of victory was the only right policy for us. The relation of power was unfavourable from our point of view. If we had exploited the possible victory completely, we would only have exposed ourselves to the feelings of revenge of the superior powers. There was no necessity to develop the position of our power; our only aim was to secure those factors which existed already, and our conditions had to be made accordingly.
The most natural and the most justified demand was the removal of the main cause of the war. The Serbian danger had to be abolished. And we would have been able to achieve this if we had ceded Macedonia to Bulgaria, and if we had contented ourselves with adjustment of our strategic frontiers which assured the military domination of the valley of the Danube and the Bay of Cattaro. The remaining portions of Serbia and Montenegro might have developed into a federal state capable of existence together with Scutari under King Nicholas, provided they obtained a port and an army which could safeguard internal order and by making a tariff union with ourselves.
Our headquarters and certain political circles in Austria, however, demanded the conquest of the Serbian and Montenegrian people in toto. I was attacked strongly in the press by Tesrhen on account of my moderate attitude. Leading military personalities took ​the view that the Serbian danger could only be removed if the whole of the domain of Serbia was united under the sceptre of the Habsburgs. It was my opinion that the Serbs, who were accustomed to independence, would never content themselves with a new situation created in this manner. To bring them the unity of the Southern Slavs would have been quite useless, and they would only have used it in order to secede and acquire their freedom in the process. I am convinced that the real motive in the South Slav problem is not to be found in the desire for union in the nation, as was the case in the really homogeneous Polish people, but that the main stimulus was given by the desire for independence. Internal unity does not exist among the Southern Slavs. The history of centuries, the fight between East and West and between Rome and Byzantium, and between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, have torn the internal unity of feeling to pieces in spite of the ethnographical cohesion. The various elements of the Southern Slavs are also influenced by their topography to pursue an autonomous and independent existence. Their local patriotism has always been stronger than their national feeling. All that is happening now after the war in Croatia and Bosnia, i.e., the great opposition to a centralized Serbia, speaks in favour of the correctness of my point of view. One can see already that the Jugo-Slavs do not form a political unit. And anyone can see that it is difficult to rule Zagreb, Serajevo and Ragusa from Belgrade, and it would be even more difficult to rule Belgrade from any one of these towns. ​If we had attempted to put Jugo-Slavia under Croatian leadership we would have made an impossible demand. If we had permitted that Jugo-Slavia was formed upon a Serbian basis, we would have sacrificed those Croatians who fought bravely on our side, and we would have added strength to Irridentism within our own borders. If we had held the Croatians and Serbians apart, we would have offended the imperialistic tendencies of both parties. Furthermore, I did not consider it to be in the interests of the Monarchy to increase the nationalities on a large scale. The majority of Hungarian opinion agreed with me on this point, and Tisza, Apponyi and Karolyi took a similar attitude to my own. For this reason alone it is absurd to look for the origin of the war in any Hungarian desire for conquest where only the necessity for defence made Hungary take any part in the outbreak of the war.
With regard to Germany, it would have been desirable to acquire a portion of Lithuania and Kurland. Apart from this, she would have been able to secure for herself enormous economic advantages in Russia, but any conquest further west was regarded by me as a fatal error. The conquest of French, Belgian or Italian territory bore within itself the seed for a war of revenge. In the West the only thing which could have been discussed would have been a very small strategic readjustment, together with mutual exchange of territory; this applied as much to Germany as to ourselves. The mistake made by Germany which led to the European ​War was that she crossed the path of England and Russia simultaneously. In concluding a peace, this mistake was not to be repeated; otherwise, the peace could never have been a real one. One would have had to content oneself with closing the doors of Russian aggression, separating Russia from France, and pacifying the West.
I never considered it possible to conquer England in such a manner that the British Empire would be forced upon her knees. If, however, we had achieved a victory on the continent and brought about a peace by agreement, it would have been possible to regain the German colonies and to effect a territorial exchange, which would have heightened the ability of these colonies to support themselves.
When I was in Berlin at the end of 1915 and during the summer of 1916, I touched upon these questions in conversation with Bethmann-Hollweg, and I noted with satisfaction that we were in agreement. The peace programme which had been sketched above was the maximum of that which we could demand in case of victory. I soon realized, however, that we would have to content ourselves with less than this maximum, and in 1916 I saw that if we could secure the status quo ante along the whole line, this would amount to complete success.
Our position was comparable with that of Frederick II, King of Prussia, during the seven years war, whose tremendous success consisted in the fact that the far more powerful coalition against him was unable ​to conquer him. We could have been more than content, if the enemy coalition had failed to bring about our downfall. A peace before the final decision was so much in our interests and in the interests of humanity that I would always have been prepared, in case of necessity, to make territorial sacrifices in order to secure peace.
I was one of the first who spoke the word "peace" in parliament on December 7, 1915, when Tisza replied that he agreed with everything that I had said, but that he bore me a grudge nevertheless for having said it. In my opinion, the main impediment in making peace before a final decision was reached lay in the fact that the Entente did not wish to conclude peace before they had achieved complete victory. Accordingly, for the benefit of the foreign public I expressed myself twice on this subject in the Revue Politique Internationale (Autumn, 1916, and Autumn, 1917). As the conviction which I held then is best expressed by these essays, and as the questions dealt with are still actual to-day, I quote the following from them:
"La prolongation de la guerre n'est qu'un crime contre l'humanité; les avantages, que l'on pourra retirer d'une victoire finale ne valent pas les sacrifices en vies humaines qu'elle exigerait."
I pointed out that the war need not be continued in order to reform international law, which was asserted to be the case by the Entente. I explained that we also were ready to accept such reforms, and, moreover: "le problème d'une paix durable trop compliqué pour ​qu'un homme détat responable puisse se contenter d'en chercher la solution dans une simple réforme du droit international. Pour assurer la paix d'une façon serieuse, après la guerre actuelle, il faudra tout d'abord éliminer les antagonismes irréductibles, il faudra surtout empêcher que de nouvelles sources de conflits soient créées dont jailliraient inévitablement des guerres nouvelles."
I pointed out that the complete victory of the Entente would by no means lead to the long peace which they expected: "La période de paix que l'Entente promet à l'humanité sera indubitablement compromise par la rivalité des vainqueurs."
In the first of my two articles I pointed to the rivalry between England and Russia, which, however, has lost its importance in view of Russia's collapse. In face of the possible Anglo-Russian conflict, however, the competition between America and England has been substituted. This situation is, perhaps, not an imminent one, but it is an undeniable danger of the future. Concerning this I wrote in my second article: "Le succès de l'Amerique ne signifia-t-il pas sa prépondérance en même temps que la déchéance de l'Europe?" … "Au point de vue économique Londres n'est plus le centre du monde. Or si les Etats-Unis sauvent l'Entente par leur intervention militaire, c'est encore ceux qui joueront le premier rôle diplomatique. Quelle ne sera pas la force d'attraction de la puissante Union Américaine sur le Canada et sur l'Australie." . . . . "Que deviendra l'idéal de la ​plus Grand-Bretagne en face d'un panaméricanisme triomphant? L'impérialisme de Roosevelt est-il compatible avec l'héritage politique de Joseph Chamberlain?"
I also mentioned that the expansion of Japan might lead to conflict which would endanger peace. Italy also would be dissatisfied: "Même en cas de triomphe, l'Italie ne jouerait qu'un rôle secondaire; certes, elle deviendrait la maîtresse de l'Adriatique, mais dans la Méditerranée et en Afrique, où ses ambitions l'appellent, elle serait condamné à s'effacer devant l'Angleterre."
The rivalry between Italy and the Slavs will become so serious as to threaten war: "Ils se disputent déjà pendant la guerre la possession de la rive orientale de l'Adriatique. Là, il est impossible de tracer une ligne de démarcation entre les deux races; la il est évident que l'une tomberait sous la domination de l'autre." . . . . "Si l'Italie ne recevait rien de l'héritage ottoman, elle serait déçue dans ses ambitions impérialistes. Si elle en obtient quelque chose, il y aura des nouvelles possibilités de conflits entre elle et ses alliés d'aujourd'hui, car, en Afrique et en Asie-Mineure l'Italie ne pourra jamais jouer qu'un rôle effacé, ce qui lui serait sûrement douloureux après les immenses espoirs qu'elle nourrissait."
"L'amitié anglo-française paraît encore la plus assurée. Cependant, le partage de la Turquie et des colonies allemandes ne sera nullement facile et pent toujours créer des amertumes nouvelles." "Lorsque la haine de l'Allemagne sera assouvie lorsque de ​nouvelles surfaces de frottement se créeront entre les puissances le problème anglo-français entrera aussi dans une nouvelle phase."
In addition to the rivalry of the conquerors, there is also: "un danger nouveau: la revanche des peuples vaincus. Quatre-vingt millions d'Allemands habitent au centre de l'Europe un territoire compact. Leur science, leurs talents d'organisation, leur grand patriotisme, leurs qualités militaires et économiques, leur natalité croissante sont des facteurs dont aucune défaite, aucune humiliation, aucun traité de paix ne pourra les priver et qui seront en contradiction criante avec la situation nouvelle qu'on veut leur imposer. Même si l'empire germanique subit un morcellement nouveau, si son unité est supprimée en droit public, rien ne pourra empêcher que son passé glorieux, le souvenir des vertus admirables qui se manifestent dans la guerre actuelle, ne maintiennent l'unité des âmes en dépit de tous les artifices et de toutes les restrictions."
Neither Hungary nor Bulgaria nor Turkey will be won very easily for the programme of the victorious Entente. I defined this as follows: "La victoire de la Quadruple-Entente signifierait le partage de la Turquie, l'asservissement de la Bulgarie par la Russie, le demembrement et l'affaiblissement de l'Autriche- Hongrie, la décentralisation et le morcellement de l'Allemagne, y compris la perte de ses colonies."
And the continuation of the war to the utmost limit in spite of the possibility of peace would lead to revolution: "Refuser consciemment une possibilité de ​paix, c'est ébranler dans l'âme des peuples la confiance à l'égard des formes des gouvernements que les états représentent aujourd'hui, c'est rendre odieux l'ordre social contemporain, c'est réparer la voie à ses détracteurs." "Comment empêcher que le mécontentement sans cesse croissant qui gronde dans les masses populaires hostiles à la guerre ne conduise à une bouleversement absolu de l'ordre social?" "Pourquoi ne pas mediter ;'exemple que nous offre la Russie? La tsarisme, et avec lui tout le système bourgeois, s'effondrent sous le poids de leur responsabilité en ce qui concerne la guerre. Les gouvernements qui refusent la paix lorsqu'elle est possible ne peuvent pas fermer les yeux sur le péril qui les ménacera si la guerre mondiale, au lieu de conduire à une paix capable de guérir les plaies, se transforme en guerre civile, guerre autrement passionnée et autrement destructice que la lutte actuelle. Les expériences de l'Histoire ne sont-elles pas la pour servir de leçon aux classes dirigeantes? Faut-il que chaque nation passe par l'école de la souffrance, faut-il que chacune fasse à ses propres frais l'expérience du chaos qu'elle pourrait éviter si elle avait des yeux pour voir?"
My chief hopes for a permanent peace were based upon the fact that: "le résultat de la guerre signifierait une défaite de l'imperialisme conquerant." "Une guerre qui finit sans l'écrasement d'une partie des belligérants, une paix qui maintient l'équilibre des forces dans leurs traits fondamentaux, une solution qui ne comporte aucune réalisation impérialiste, ne ​pourraient encourager personne à la répétition des horreurs actuelles. Les adversaires de la guerre auraient beau jeu dans tous les pays, car nulle part les sacrifices consentis ne pourront être considérés comme une mise de fonds heureuse. En Angleterre, on finira par se convaincre de l'impossibilité d'écraser l'Allemagne, car il sera difficile de mettre sur pied une coalition encore plus puissante que celle de la Quadruple-Entente. En Allemagne, on comprendra que la Grande-Bretagne est invincible et que sa suprématie navale constitue un fait accompli jusqu'ici inébranlable avec lequel il faudra compter.
Comparez les deux tableaux que nous venons de tracer et dites où il faut chercher les vraies garanties de la paix future; est-ce dans l'expérience que l'équilibre du monde ne peut plus être facilement bouleversé par le sabre et que la victoire elle-même est une mauvaise affaire, ou est-ce dans la preuve qu'il est toujours possible de créer par l'épée des empires gigantesques à l'instar d'Alexandre le Grand, de Jules César et de Napoleon, et que les guerres sont toujours des opérations fructueuses? Laquelle des deux cartes porte-t-elle les marques d'une œuvre destinée à durer: celle que certains hommes d'états tiennent à octroyer au monde dans leur enivrement de victoire et de haine, ou celle qui résultera d'un compromis en s'accommodant, dans ses lignes essentielles tout au moins, des nécessités de l'évolution historiques?"
I also pointed to the necessity of making sacrifices for the sake of peace before the decision was reached, ​in the following paragraph: "Aujourd'hui l'Entente n'est pas vaincue. Même l'Italie, à laquelle les Puissances Centrales viennent de porter quelques rudes coups, continue à résister héroïquement. La paix que l'on pourrait conclure en ce moment devrait compter avec ce fait. Celui qui désire la paix actuellement—et nous le désirons sincèrement—ne peut poser de conditions humiliantes pour aucune des parties belligérantes." … "Sur aucun point nos désirs n'excluent le respect des intérêts de chacun, nulle part nous ne voulons humilier aucun de nos adversaires, nulle part l'Autriche-Hongrie ne s'opposera à une politique de conciliation permanente."
Nevertheless, it was excessively difficult to realize the peace by agreement. The position of the Entente was comparable with our own. Our self-consciousness could be satisfied completely by our brilliant resistance, but for all that we were opposed to an enormous superiority of power. Many people in the nations of the Entente saw a humiliation in the fact that an absolute victory had not been achieved. On the other hand, we did not believe that the aggressive policy of one of the enemy powers was a constant danger for us and for mankind—a belief which the agitation "God punish England" failed to make general. The majority of the Entente believed honestly that without the subjugation of Germany the freedom and justice of the world would always be in danger, and that the greatness and security of their own country would become illusory. Whereas we were guided by the feeling that the time was against ​us, the Entente, and especially England, was convinced by what Kitchener said in Egypt in the course of a private conversation as follows: "The battles will perhaps be won by the Central Powers, but the war will certainly be won by the Entente, because she is able to endure longest." How could the idea of a peace by agreement be carried out successfully in view of such an attitude held by the Entente? Was it ever possible? Czernin and Ludendorff assert that such a possibility never existed. They point out that concrete and acceptable conditions were never submitted to us. This may be true, but it does not prove that if we had approached the matter differently the Entente would not have accepted such conditions. The question is not only whether we allowed actual opportunities to slip past, but also whether a better policy would not have been capable of creating advantageous opportunities for peace.
At any rate, the conditio sine qua non of bringing about a peace by agreement was: first of all, unified action, the display of power and self-consciousness in order to shake the consciousness of victory in the Entente. I considered it to be the greatest crime to use the will to make peace as a tool for internal politics. At any rate in our midst, the agitation of the pacifists brought about the certainty of the prolongation of the war. Among the Entente the result was that the conviction grew that we were already conquered and that a compromise was no longer necessary. The pacificist propaganda in Austria and Hungary was ​especially mistaken because it was entirely superfluous. The young King wanted peace and only peace, and everybody knew it. Public opinion also was in favour of peace. A military party of any importance existed neither in Vienna nor in Budapest. It would have been impossible to continue the war as soon as public opinion had obtained any knowledge of the possibility of concluding peace. Even the leaders of the army advised peace for a long time.
The difficulties which were placed in the way by Germany should not have been surmounted by pacifist propaganda but by an energetic, secret action on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On final analysis, I would not have been held back even by the threat of a separate peace, only I would have exerted my utmost power to avoid public quarrels, because this could only increase the consciousness of victory in the circles of the Entente.
As a matter of fact, the opposite generally occurred. The opposition between Vienna and Berlin became public, and we were not in a position to exert a moderating influence in Berlin because they knew there very well that it was possible to persuade us against our own inclinations. Would the Entente not have used less violent language, and would the friends of peace in London and Paris not have found a more fruitful soil for their aspirations, if we had co-operated more and if the war agitators of the enemy had not always been in a position to point to the decisive political power of German militarism?
​By means of an able propaganda we ought to have exploited, and we could have exploited in a far greater degree, firstly our desire for peace, and secondly the refusal of our enemies to make one. I approved of the official peace proposals which we had made at the end of the year 1916; in fact, I recommended that such a step should be taken in October, 1915, to Bethmann-Hollweg personally. In other words, I was prepared to pursue such a course once Serbia's power had been broken down, only I was of the opinion that the greatest importance would have to be laid on the fact that such a step should not be regarded as weakness on our part. It was a question of political tact and ability to reconcile the two contradictory considerations of displaying simultaneously the readiness to make peace and the ability to wage war. A peace move could only be made when the military position was favourable. At the same time an effort should have been made to get in secret touch with the enemy. My chief trust lay in England, and I was of the opinion that the main duty of Austria-Hungary was to get into touch with London. But it was impossible to give a complete trial to these possibilities, because our relation with Germany was never sufficiently good for Germany to regard such an action without jealousy.
In Hungary the Social Democrats and Karolyi's party expected to bring about peace by the propagation of the annexation principle and of the principle of no mutual compensation, which resulted in increased activity on the part of the International. I always ​regarded this expectation as dangerous and short-sighted. The Social Democrats were not sufficiently strong to enforce the peace. The general mobilization, the unusual power which was at the disposal of the Government, and the highly developed nationalistic and imperialistic feelings made it easy for the Government to counterbalance the efforts of the International so long as exhaustion and military catastrophe had not become established. In many places a considerable proportion of the Social Democratic workers joined the military party.
I considered the one-sided acceptance of the fundamental point of view which approved of a peace without annexation, completely mistaken, because this would have persuaded our opponents that, no matter how much they demanded from us, and no matter how long they continued this murderous war, and no matter how much they might be conquered, we would have tied ourselves in such a way that we could demand nothing either in money or in territory. It would have been nothing but a positive instigation to the military party to continue the war. In case of victory they could hope for everything from us; in case of defeat they were protected from the worst consequences of their own policy. We enhanced the value of the favourable conditions made by us before a final decision, by the continuation of [he war with the risk that this involved. It might have been right to offer to accept on a suitable occasion the status quo with an emphasis upon the fart that our demands would alter in accordance with the ​situation; in fact, it might even have been advisable to bring territorial sacrifices in case of necessity, but anything binding should have been avoided on principle because it is impossible to depart from this policy without moral loss. A politician who accepts the socialistic and pacifist theory becomes a slave of his belief, and cannot, without heavy moral damage, become a politician in the opposite camp again. This was the weakness of Count Czernin, who cloaked himself with the mantle of pacificism and wanted to secure at the same time the possibility of exploiting practical political measures. This contradiction between words and action also became the heel of Achilles in the historic figure of Wilson. The appropriation of the battle-cry of the socialists assured to socialism such a power against which a defence could only have been led successfully if peace had not been brought about in spite of their efforts.
Ludendorff and Tirpitz describe in their memoirs the publication of this desire even after a peace by agreement, as a mistake. As—in their opinion—the enemy did not desire to reach an agreement but to achieve victory, only the readiness to fight, energy and endurance could have saved us.
This last assertion certainly corresponds with the truth; but it was a failure to analyse the psychology of modern nations, to assume that this tenacity and this endurance could be kept alive by promises and by imperialistic successes. As the defensive aim was the only justification of the war in the eyes of the masses, and since ​the conquest by mighty parties was abhorred in principle by the multitude, and since complete victory could hardly be hoped for when seriously considered, the unity of our inner front line could only be achieved by the proclamation of moderation, the defensive objects, and the peace by agreement. There was nothing that endangered the determination to go to war in a higher degree than the policy which placed the peace programme of the military party in the foreground and the pretence which asserted that the war had to be continued in accordance with the demands of the General Staff and the big industries. From the point of view of concluding peace and continuing the war, we would have been in the best position if it had been possible to exploit theoretical success by elastic and modest war aims, which at the same time permitted it to be recognized that we were ready to make peace as soon as our previous position could be guaranteed.
I considered the situation most favourable for peace after the success at Gorlice, after we had beaten the Russians, after the Italians could not achieve any visible success, and after the Serbians had been conquered. This was at the end of the year 1915. I also considered the moment after the Russian Revolution as favourable, as our Eastern front gradually became freer, and when the Western Powers were exposed to the danger that those victorious armies which had greater achievements to their credit than any army in the whole course of history would be turned with the whole of their power against them (1917). Unfortunately, however, the ​exploitation of this opportunity was made more difficult by the mistakes which we had committed. We paid a heavy price for the fact that, especially at that time, we were not united. The famous resolution adopted in the German Reichstag was the product of an atmosphere of panic, and created an impression of increasing weakness. At the same time, however, the German Government and the highest command made an imperialistic policy felt which was in opposition to this resolution. In consequence of the confusion of this situation, it was difficult to have faith in our honesty. We could neither command respect nor inspire confidence. The chief mistake, however, was made at the time of the peace negotiations at Brest-Litovsk, during which the means of the negotiations were mistaken as well as their aims.
The means of negotiation were mistaken because they lent weight to Bolshevism, because it was regarded as a revolutionary act that the leading Ministers of two Emperors sat down at the same table and negotiated for weeks with bourgeois representatives of any sort of authority of the enemy. Trotzki boasted truly that the strikes in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest were the direct echo of the negotiations in Brest-Litovsk. While negotiations were proceeding, the Bolshevists attempted, by means of pamphlets, to make the soldiers of the German Army and of our own unfit for battle, and to cause a revolution behind our front line. All this could have been foreseen in advance. It was impossible to come to an agreement with the Bolshevists. One should ​not have negotiated with them, because they were in constant and irreconcilable opposition, not on account of their foreign policy but on account of their principles, to every form of bourgeois society and to every unity of the state. They should only have been approached with a sword in one's hand and with orders and an ultimatum.
There was acute opposition on the one hand between our demands, and on the other between the point of view from which we started and the means of solution we adopted. Our procedure was not an honest one. We clothed our imperialism in the cloak of socialism and pacifism. The Ministers spoke of peace without annexation and without compensation, while in Berlin the German mind was occupying itself with the realization of the greatest imperialistic scheme which had ever been conceived. This conception consisted in the idea that Germany should, by circumventing Austria-Hungary, obtain a communication apart from the Hamburg-Bagdad line over Kiew and Central Asia to Asia and India, and that this communication should lead through countries which were to be subjected to the military influence of Germany. Round the table at Brest-Litovsk everyone spoke of the right of self-determination of nations, but the one party wanted, under the protection of the German Army, to carry out their own will, whereas the other were determined to carry out the will of their own people under the protection of the Red Guard.
The chief blame of this mistake rests upon Germany. ​The programme of Count Czernin, which he recommended for acceptance to the German Government, was a perfectly sound one. Our Monarchy did not aim at any imperialistic ideals, but it only sought to secure the possibility of supplying the Monarchy with food and was not even able to achieve this modest end. The Ukraine, which was disorganized and exhausted by war and revolution, was not able to supply us with the expected raw materials.
The peace of Brest-Litovsk supplied a weapon to those who had always asserted that the victory of Germany would mean a German domination of the world and the enslavement of all other peoples. This happened at a moment when the possibility of making an advantageous peace could have been gained perhaps most easily if we had exploited the position which we had gained by the defeat of the Russians and had remained modest in our demands.
I considered the method of negotiations proposed by General Hoffman, which was a rapid and decided soldierly appearance together with moderate conditions as the proper means of procedure. He wanted less socialistic turn to the conversation, less imperialistic ambition, and more determination and rapidity of action.
I also did not consider the way in which Roumania was treated a happy one. I was of the opinion that it would have been better not to make peace with Roumania before the complete defeat of her army had been brought about. At that time Roumania was sur​rounded on all sides. In the opinion of competent authorities, it would have been easy then to overcome the Roumanian army completely. As it happened, however, that portion of the Roumanian army which remained intact became a constant danger in case we should fail to come to an agreement with the West.
We were continually threatened by the policy of the court in Jassy, which was approved of by the Entente. With regard to the conditions of peace that should have been demanded from Roumania, I would only have desired an adjustment of the frontiers and the leading statesmen of Hungary agreed with this view of mine. In broad outlines, Wekerle, Apponyi and Tisza also shared my opinion. There were only very few Hungarian politicians who thought of larger conquests at the expense of Roumania. Karolyi and the Socialistic party were in favour of a peace without annexation and without indemnity. The monarch also was inclined to accept this point of view. I was unable to ascertain the point of view of Count Czernin, in spite of the fact that I negotiated with him on this subject. Czernin was trying to point out that the disadvantageous effect of our policy at that time was due to the demands made by Hungary. This attempt of his, however, was unjustified, and due to his well-known hatred of Hungary. The peace of Brest-Litovsk and not the peace of Bukarest, was decisive for the European situation, and the result would have remained exactly the same if we had not taken the scarcely populated frontier region of Roumania. If, however, this unimportant adjustment ​of the frontiers met with so much opposition, this occurred only because this measure was taken at a time when we were playing with pacifism and socialism, for which Hungary is in no way to blame. Another cause of the discontent was due to the heavy demands made in the course of the negotiations on the part of Germany. Germany intended to make Roumania practically an economic colony of her own, and went so far as to make us, the neighbouring state, anxious, and we felt ourselves injured. In addition, there were the requisitions made by the army, which are used now, after the war, by the Roumanians as a justification for their own plundering.
The few pieces of wooded country which Hungary had gained by the peace of Bukarest have not played an important part in Roumania's interference or in the cause of their desire for revenge. The territorial decisions of the peace of Bukarest would only have been an example of moderate policy if they had not been an integral part of the promises made to Russia and if the economic conditions had been more moderate. It was a serious mistake made in drawing up the Treaty of Bukarest that we injured Germany's economic demands made against Bulgaria with reference to the Dobrudscha, and this procedure subsequently became one of the causes of Bulgaria's secession.
The negotiations of Brest-Litovsk and Bukarest had an injurious effect upon Austria-Hungary's determination to continue the struggle, because they created the impression that, even in case of victory, we would lose ​our independence. A Germany which would take over the leading political and economic rôles in Warsaw, Kiew and Bukarest, would have placed us at a considerable disadvantage.
I was not conversant with the secrets of diplomacy except at the time when, in consequence of a decision of the Chamber of Deputies, Count Albert Apponyi, Stefan Rakovszky and I myself were informed of the exact position by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Burian. This period, however, was brought to a close when Burian declared that he did not feel justified in informing us of secrets of international policy which were not purely his own. (This took place from the 6th of July to the 23rd of August, 1916.)
Regarding the state of affairs from outside, I gained the impression that there was no real opportunity for concluding peace. It appears now, however, that negotiations took place which promised serious possibilities of peace. The negotiations referred to were those which Count Revertera conducted at Czernin's request with the French Count Armand in August, 1917, in Switzerland, and which Czernin made public in the last speech which he delivered as Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was the speech which contained an attack upon the French President Clemenceau. I understand that those negotiations led to a favourable result. Clemenceau was not as yet at the head of the French Government, and the defeat of the Russian front exercised a depressing effect upon the Allies, and in consequence there was a strong peace tendency in ​Paris. Confidence in victory had been shaken. It must be admitted that the French demanded Alsace-Lorraine, but in the exchange they promised to return the German colonies, and they even promised to extend them. Furthermore, they were prepared to give Germany a free hand against Russia in the Eastern section. They also demanded from us those regions which were inhabited by Italians.
Czernin considered these conditions favourable, and if one considers the final result there can be no difference of opinion to-day that such a peace would have been more desirable. The Germans, however, would not hear of such a treaty. They counted upon victory, and conducted the negotiations in such a forcible manner that Czernin gained the impression that, if Austria-Hungary wanted to enforce peace, the German Army would immediately occupy Bohemia. Consequently, Czernin gave way and peace was not achieved. The fearful struggle and the butchery of mankind continued, Clemenceau became the head of the French Government, and we reached the final act of the tragedy.
Czernin was undoubtedly in a very difficult position. If he had entertained any hope that we should be victorious, or that we would, at any rate, be able to resist long enough for him to hope for better conditions of peace, I could understand that he gave way to German influence. But Czernin regarded the future as sinister. While he was still Ambassador in Bukarest, he urged peace because, in his opinion, victory was out of the question. As Minister, he handed a memorandum in April, 1917, to the Kaiser, in which he explained ​that the Monarchy could at most resist until the end of the year, and that the Monarchy was faced with military collapse and revolution.
In such circumstances, I cannot understand his procedure. An individual has the right, and may even have the duty, of sacrificing himself for the sanctity of his word. But Governments are not entitled to demand completely hopeless sufferings and sacrifices from those millions of people in whose name they are acting on account of the wrong attitude of the power to whom they have been tied by an alliance. Moral law is valid also in politics. Meanness is also mean in politics, and to keep your word is also a duty in politics, and not only a duty, but also to your own interests, for trust is a political power of the first order and even honesty is the best policy. Just as a financier who does not fulfil his pledges generally suffers most in the long run, because he loses the confidence of his fellows, so does a statesman prove himself to be short-sighted who regards deceit and deception as the main means of his policy. To desert an ally in order to secure certain advantages without any necessity for so doing, is a disgrace and generally a disadvantage. England pursued such a policy in the Spanish War of Succession, and Prussia did the same in the Austrian War of Succession, and a similar procedure was adopted in the war against the French Revolution. The employment of such means is short-sighted because it decreases the nation's ability to form other alliances. A Minister, who, during this terrible war, is in full possession of the facts and has access lo reliable data, in view of ​which he recognizes that a catastrophe is inevitable, and who knows, moreover, that a peace can be concluded honourably and that his own interests may at the same time be preserved, who nevertheless sacrifices his nation upon the altar of the mistakes of his allies, cannot be judged by ordinary standards. In such circumstances a breach with the ally is not only a right but it is a duty to mankind and to his own country. Czernin failed to take such a step because he was afraid that the Germans would turn against him and that civil war would result in Austria. In his opinion, a breach with Germany would not have led to peace, but at best to a new war.
I must, however, regard this attitude as most surprising. In his report which has been published he explains that the forces of Germany were well-nigh exhausted, and that German statesmen in responsible positions had admitted this to him. How could he believe, in such circumstances, that Germany would be ready to decide to attack us, and thereby isolate herself completely and place herself in an entirely untenable position? How could he believe that the German people would sanction such a decision of the military command if it became known publicly that it was possible to conclude an honourable peace and that we severed ourselves from Germany only because the German Government would not accept the conditions?
Public opinion and the Majority Party in Germany, which had already raised its voice in favour of the well-known peace resolution, would have brought about the ​fall of any Government which had dared to enter upon a new and hopeless combat. Moreover, LudendorfT wrote: "Nobody ever thought of exercising military pressure upon Austria-Hungary." Czernin would have rendered a great service to Germany and the whole of humanity if he had persisted in carrying out the policy which his insight suggested to him.
Erzberger spoke of a second possibility of peace when he mentioned the peace mission of the Pope, but I do not consider this mission important. It was rather a proof of the Pope's anxiety and readiness for peace than any evidence of an inclination to make peace on the part of the Entente. England gave an evasive reply to the Pope's peace mission by saying that the negotiations could not be considered seriously because it was unknown what intentions Germany cherished concerning Belgium. In view of this declaration, it was by no means clear that England was determined to conclude a peace even if Germany had given a satisfactory answer with regard to Belgium. By giving an evasive answer to the suggestions emanating from Rome, Germany made a mistake, but she did not refuse any peace proposals that came from the Entente. If Germany had utilized this opportunity and given a satisfactory reply with regard to Belgium, the peace parties of the Entente would have gained courage and tho Pope might have found an opportunity to continue the beneficial effect of his work successfully. Nevertheless, we are not in a position to speak of a peace proposal of the Entente which has been rejected.