Omaha daily bee., 1918-09-05

Lichnowsky gives us depends, of course, not
alone on the witness knowledge OF men and
of events, but also on his personal charac-
teristics. 1t would be an exaggeration to
describe the prince as subtle man, or even
as very acute man. He is possessed, how
ever, OF good, sound understanding. His
description of the public men with whom he
came in contact in England shows discern
ment. His analysis of the relations between
society and government in England as Eng
land was before the war; is substantially cor
rect. His truthfulness is apparently beyond
question; he is too much of grand seigneur
to say anything that he does not believe.
His chief foible is that to which the grand
seigneur is most liable, an exaggerated sense
OF his. own importance 1t is because he IS
so self-centered that he inclined to ascribe
to the envy of rivals all opposition to his
policies. This illusion finds an extreme ex-
preston in his belief that one reason, at
least, why the authorities in Berlin clung to
policy that must lead to war was their dis
inclination to give to him and to Grey the
credit Of keeping the peace.
1t is on this weakest point that the Ger
man press, taking its cue, as always, from
the German government, dwells with especial
insstence. Il should be noted, however, that
Lichnowsky's vanity appears to mislead him
only in the explanation OF facts. 1t does not
anywhere appear that it has led him to mis-
state the facts themselves. He is very proud
OF his African and Bagdad treaties, but. his
summary Of their provisions is confirmed by
other testimony. In general, so far as his
assertions can be controlled by other evidence
--and most of them can-that evidence IS
confrmatory.
II we accept the statement which Lich-
nowsky made to the imperial chancellor, in
his letter of March IS, 1918, that he wrote
his memorandum with regard to the future"
and for the sake of noting the details OF my
experiences and impressions before they van
ished from my memory"-that is, that he
wrote for his family archives and for history
the trustworthiness of the document is en-
hanced. There u.s. APPARENTLY, no reason to
doubt the sincerity of this statement. The
prince had. indeed, urgent motives to wish
that the living world, as we'll as the living
historian, should appreciate his diplomatic
activity. Even a more modest and more Ju-
dicious man might we'll have found it unen-
durable to be made, as Lichnowsky was made
from the moment Great Britain entered the
war, the chief scapegoat for the disastrous
results of policy which he had consistently
opposed. Even sdch a man would probably
have defended himself with equal energy and
frankness in private conversation with his
friends. Such man, however, would hardly
have put his defense into writing, much less
have put several typewriter copies into cir
culation, as Lichnowsly did, while the war
was still raging "A less self-centered and
more judicious man would have seen clearly
that document of such interest. thus made
current, could hardly be kept secret; and he
would not have characterized as "unprece-
dented" the breach of confidence through
which it became public. That Lichnowsky
i foresaw such an outcome and was not un-
willing that his defense should be published,
provided this happened without his sanction,
is conceivable indeed, but highly improbable
Such hypothesis Is improbable, not only
because so underhand way of attaining an
object would have been repugnat to man
of his rank and character, but also because
the inconvenience which even an unauthor-
lied publication would draw upon the writer
would have been fully realized.
/ (To Be Continued Tomorrow)