Part 22

In vain! I was told that it was against the dignity of Austria and that we did not want to interfere in the Serbian business but left it to our ally. I was told to work for localization of conflict. Of course, it would only have needed a hint from Berlin to make Count Berchtold, Austrian Foreign Minister, satisfy himself with a diplomatic success and put up with the Serbian reply, but this hint was not given.

Germany Forced the War

On the contrary, we pressed for war. What a fine success it would have been! After our refusal Sir Edward asked us to come forward with a proposal of our own. We insisted upon war. I could get no other answer from Berlin than that it was enormous conciliation on the part of Austria to contemplate no annexation of territory.

Thereupon Sir Edward justly pointed out that even without annexations of territory a country can be humiliated and subjected, and that Russia would regard this as a humiliation which she would not stand. The impression became ever stronger that we desired war in all circumstances, otherwise our attitude on the question, which after all did not directly concern us, was unintelligible.

The urgent appeals and definite declarations of Sazonoff [Russian Foreign Minister] later on the positively humble telegrams of the Czar, the repeated proposals of Sir Edward, the warnings of San Giuliano, [Italian Foreign Minister,] my own urgent advice--all were of no use, for Berlin went on insisting that Serbia must be massacred. The more I pressed the less willing they were to alter their course, if only because I was not to have the success of saving peace in company with Sir Edward Grey.

So Grey on July 29 resolved upon his well-known warning. I replied I had always reported that we should have to reckon upon English hostility if it came to war with France. The Minister said to me repeatedly, "If war breaks out it will be the greatest catastrophe the world has ever seen." After that events moved rapidly.

When Count Berchtold, who hitherto had played strong man on instructions from Berlin, at last decided to change his course, we answered Russian mobilization--after Russia had waited and negotiated in vain for a whole week--with our ultimatum and declaration of war.

Up to the last moment I had hoped for a waiting attitude on the part of England. As late as August the King of England replied evasively to the French President, but in a telegram from Berlin, which announced the threatening danger of war, England already was mentioned as an opponent. In Berlin, therefore, one already reckoned upon war with England.

Before my departure Sir Edward Grey received me on Aug. 5 at his house. I went there at his desire. He was deeply moved. He said to me that he would always be ready to mediate, and "We do not want to crush Germany." Unfortunately this confidential conversation was published, and thereby von Bethmann Hollweg destroyed the last possibility of reaching a peace via England.

Questions of Guilt

As it appears from all official publications without the facts being controverted by our own White Book, which, owing to its poverty and gaps, constitutes a grave self-accusation:

1. We encouraged Count Berchtold to attack Serbia, although no German interest was involved and the danger of a world war must have been known to us; whether we knew the text of the ultimatum is a question of complete indifference.

2. In the days between July 23 and 30, 1914, when Sazonoff emphatically declared that Russia could not tolerate an attack on Serbia, we rejected the British proposals of mediation, although Serbia, under Russian and British pressure, had accepted almost the whole ultimatum, and although an agreement about the two points in question could easily have been reached and Berchtold was even ready to satisfy himself with the Serbian reply.

3. On July 30, when Berchtold wanted to give way, we, without Austria having been attacked, replied to Russia's mere mobilization by sending an ultimatum to St. Petersburg, and on July 31 we declared war on the Russians, although the Czar had pledged his word that as long as negotiations continued not a man should march--so that we deliberately destroyed the possibility of a peaceful settlement.

In view of these indisputable facts, it is not surprising that the whole world outside of Germany attributes to us sole guilt for the world war.

THE BAGDAD RAILWAY

Anglo-German negotiations concerning the Berlin-Bagdad Railway and German naval and commercial jealousy of Great Britain are touched upon in further sections of the personal memorandum.

Prince Lichnowsky says that the Bagdad Railway treaty aimed in fact at a division of Asia Minor into spheres of interest, although this expression was carefully avoided in consideration of the rights of the Sultan of Turkey. Sir Edward Grey asserted repeatedly that there was no agreement between England and France aiming at a division of Asia Minor. The greatest concession that Sir Edward made to Prince Lichnowsky personally was for the continuation of the railway line to Basra.

By this treaty the whole of Mesopotamia up to Basra became a German zone of interest by which all British rights and the question of shipping on the Tigris were left untouched. The British economic territories, the Prince adds, included the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Smyrna-Aden Railway, the French territory was Syria, and the Russian Armenia. Had the treaty been concluded and published, he continues, an agreement would have been reached with Great Britain which would have finally ended all doubt of the possibility of Anglo-German co-operation.

GERMANY'S NAVAL THREAT

Referring to the difficult question of German naval activity, Prince Lichnowsky says that the creation of a mighty fleet on the other shore of the North Sea and the simultaneous development of the Continent's most important military power into a most important naval power had at least to be recognized by Great Britain as uncomfortable. To preserve the supremacy of the seas which Great Britain must have in order not to go down, the Prince adds, she had to undertake preparations and expenses which weighed heavily on the taxpayers. Nevertheless, the powers become reconciled to the German fleet in its definite strength. Obviously it was not welcome to Great Britain and, the Prince says, constituted one of the motives, but neither the only nor the most important motive, for England to join hands with Russia and France.

On account of the German fleet alone, Prince Lichnowsky says, Great Britain would have drawn the sword as little as on account of German trade, "which, it is pretended, called forth her jealousy and finally brought about war."

"NAVAL HOLIDAY"

During Prince Lichnowsky's term of office Winston Spencer Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, raised the question of the so-called naval holiday, proposing it for financial reasons as much as on account of the pacifist inclinations of his party. Churchill wanted a pause of one year in building ships. Prince Lichnowsky maintains it would have been difficult to support this plan on account of the workmen employed and the technical personnel. The German naval program was settled, and it would have been difficult to alter it. The Prince asserts that it was possible, in spite of the German fleet and without a naval holiday, to come to an understanding. In that spirit he had carried out his mission and had almost succeeded in realizing his program when the war broke out and destroyed everything.

Discussing the question of trade jealousy, Prince Lichnowsky says it rested on a faulty judgment of circumstances. In British commercial circles, he says, he found the greatest good-will and the desire for further economic interests in common. In order to get in touch with the most important business circles he accepted invitations from the Chambers of Commerce in London, Bradford, Newcastle, and Liverpool, and he had a hearty reception everywhere.

In conclusion Prince Lichnowsky gives his impressions of English society. King George he describes as very amiable and well-meaning, with sound understanding and common sense, and invariably well disposed toward the German Ambassador.

LICHNOWSKY EXPLAINS

The German Vice Chancellor, Friedrich von Payer, announced in the Reichstag late in March that on account of the disclosures Prince Lichnowsky had resigned his rank and expressed regrets. Herr von Payer stated that Prince Lichnowsky himself, on March 15, made a statement to the Imperial Chancellor in which he said:

Your Excellency knows that the purely private notes which I wrote down in the Summer of 1916 found their way into wider circles by an unprecedented breach of confidence. It was mainly a question of subjective considerations about our entire foreign policy since the Berlin Congress. I perceived in the policy hitherto pursued of repelling Russia and in the extension of the policy of alliances to Oriental questions the real roots of the world war. I then submitted our Morocco naval policy to a brief examination. My London mission could at the same time not remain out of consideration, especially as I felt need in regard to the future and with a view to my own justification of noting the details of my experiences and impressions there before they vanished from my memory.

Prince Lichnowsky then described how the memorandum, which he had shown to a few political friends, got into wider circulation owing to an indiscretion, and finally expressed lively regret at such an extremely vexatious incident.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S REPLY

Herr von Payer said that Prince Lichnowsky had meanwhile tendered his resignation of his present rank, which had been accepted, and, as he had doubtless no bad intention, but had simply been guilty of imprudence, no further steps would be taken against him. The Vice Chancellor proceeded:

Some assertions in his document must, however, be contradicted, especially his assertions about political events in the last months preceding the war. Prince Lichnowsky was not of his own knowledge acquainted with these events, but he apparently received from a third and wrongly informed quarter inaccurate information. The key to mistakes and false conclusions may also be the Prince's overestimation of his own services, which are accompanied by hatred against those who do not recognize his achievements as he expected. The entire memorandum is penetrated by a striking veneration for foreign diplomats, especially the British, who are described in a truly affectionate manner, and on the other hand by an equally striking irritation against almost all German statesmen. The result was that the Prince frequently regarded Germany's most zealous enemies as her best friends because they were personally on good terms with him. The fact that, as he admits, he attached at first no great importance to the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne, and was displeased that the situation was judged otherwise in Berlin, makes it plain that the Prince had no clear judgment for the events that followed and their import.

VON PAYER'S DENIALS

The Vice Chancellor then characterized as false all Prince Lichnowsky's assertions about General von Moltke's urging war at the Potsdam Crown Council of July 5, 1914, and the dispatch of the Austrian protocol by "this alleged Crown Council" to Count Mensdorff with the postscript that it would be no great harm even if war with Russia arose out of it.

Herr von Payer also denied the statement that the then Foreign Secretary was in Vienna in 1914, as well as the statement that Count von Pourtalès, the German Ambassador in Petrograd, had reported that Russia would in no circumstances move. The Sukhomlinoff trial had shown how unfounded were Prince Lichnowsky's reproaches against Germany for replying to the Russian mobilization by an ultimatum and a declaration of war. It was also false to assert that the German Government rejected all Great Britain's mediation proposals. Lord Grey's last mediation proposal was very urgently supported in Vienna by Berlin. The aim of the memorandum was obvious. It was to show the reader how much better and more intelligent Prince Lichnowsky's policy was and how he could have assured the peace of the empire if his advice had been followed. The Vice Chancellor added: "The memorandum will cause enough harm among malevolent and superficial people; it has no historical value whatever."

Dr. Payer then discussed the revelations of Dr. Mühlon, at present in Switzerland. Dr. Mühlon, an ex-Director of Krupps, had made a statement according to which he had a conference with two exalted personages in the latter half of July, 1914, from which it appeared that it was not the intention of the German Government to maintain peace. The Vice Chancellor alleged that Dr. Mühlon was suffering from neurasthenia at the time, and that no importance could be attached to his revelations, since the two gentlemen referred to had denied making the statements attributed to them.

VON STUMM'S STATEMENT

Herr von Stumm, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said that while in London the Prince devoted himself zealously to his task. His views had frequently not agreed with those of the German Foreign Office, especially regarding his strong optimism in reference to Anglo-German relations. When his hopes, aiming at an Anglo-German understanding, were destroyed by the war, the Prince returned to Germany "greatly excited," and even then did not restrain his criticism of German policy. His excitement increased owing to attacks against him in the German press. All these circumstances, said von Stumm, must be taken into consideration when gauging the value of the memorandum.

In the subsequent discussion disapproval of Prince Lichnowsky's attitude was expressed, but some speakers urged the need for the reorganization of Germany's diplomatic service.

According to the report of the debate published by the Neues Wiener Journal, Herr von Payer himself acknowledged that prior to the war German diplomacy had made some bad blunders, and that reform was urgently needed. Herr Müller (Progressive) sharply criticised Herr von Flotow, who was German Ambassador in Rome at the beginning of the war, and charged him with having declared to the Marquis di San Giuliano, then Italian Foreign Minister, that there existed for Italy no casus foederis. Prince Bülow also came in for severe criticism.

The Former Foreign Minister's Reply

The former Foreign Minister of Germany, Herr von Jagow, published a reply to Prince Lichnowsky in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, in which he virtually confirmed the Prince's main assertions. He applied such phrases as "an unheard-of assertion," "a mass of inaccuracies and perversions," to Lichnowsky's memorandum, but he did not meet the former Ambassador's charges with any new evidence, merely referring his readers to former publications of the German Government.

Von Jagow's reply bears out the assertion that in 1913 England was prepared to enter into friendly agreements with Germany. She was "ready to meet us." A Bagdad railway agreement was almost completed when Germany drew the sword. Negotiations about the future of the African colonies of Portugal in certain contingencies had been resumed, and the German Foreign Secretary looked forward to further agreements in the Far East and elsewhere.

The former Foreign Minister refuses to adopt the Pan-German view that "England laid all the mines which caused the war." On the contrary, he bears witness with former Ambassador Lichnowsky to Sir Edward Grey's "love of peace and his serious wish to reach an agreement with us." He says that it is true that Sir Edward could have prevented war, but he is careful not to indicate how. Presumably he means he could have done it by following Germany's example and treating England's engagements as "scraps of paper."

He agrees that the war was not popular with the British people, and that Belgium had to serve as a battlecry. Germany, on the other hand, had to maintain her prestige. It had been damaged by her political defeat in Morocco. A fresh diminution of it would have been, he remarks, "intolerable for our position in Europe and in the world."

In one point of fact he corrects Prince Lichnowsky. He denies that he himself visited Vienna at any time between the Spring of 1913 and the outbreak of the war. He confirms, as far as he remembers, all the expressions attributed to him by Lichnowsky.

His only reference to the Potsdam Council of July 5, 1914, (when, it is asserted, the Teuton leaders made the final decision for war,) is not a denial that the meeting took place, but a single sentence: "On July 5 I was absent from Berlin."

In regard to Lichnowsky's main charges, Herr von Jagow talks of "unheard-of" assertions and "inaccuracies and perversions," but he does not bring forward any fresh arguments to meet the charges, and merely refers to the publications of the German Government concerning the conversations which took place in June, 1914, between the Kaiser and Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Herr von Jagow says:

At Konopischt no plan was laid down (festgelegt) for an active policy against Serbia. Archduke Francis Ferdinand was not at all an advocate of a policy leading to war, although he was often reckoned as such. During the London conference he advised moderation and avoidance of war.

Herr van Jagow here avoids the issue raised by Lichnowsky, who did not say that a definite scheme was arranged at Konopischt, but that the indication was, not that Archduke Francis Ferdinand was in favor of war, but that his death was a positive relief to the advocates of war.

In the course of his statement Herr von Jagow, who remained Foreign Secretary until late in 1916, says:

When I was appointed State Secretary in January, 1913, it seemed to me that a German-English rapprochement was desirable, and an understanding upon those points where our interests touched and sometimes even crossed, and this I deemed feasible. At least, it was my intention to work on this.

With regard to the Bagdad question Herr von Jagow says:

If England insisted upon excluding us from Mesopotamia, it appeared to me that a conflict would be avoided with difficulty. We were met in a conciliatory manner by the English Government, and an agreement had almost been reached just previous to the outbreak of the world war.

He meets Lichnowsky's assertion that Germany drove Russia "into the arms of France and England by our Oriental and Balkan policy" with the contention that the Pan-Slavism which governed Russian politics was directly anti-German. Upon the London conference on Algeciras he says:

We no more desired war on Albania's account than did Sir Edward Grey. That is why, in spite of our former experiences at Algeciras, we consented to the conference. The merit of a conciliatory attitude at the conference must not be denied to Sir Edward Grey, but it is going a little too far to say that he in nowise took up his stand on the side of the Entente. He certainly often urged St. Petersburg to give way, and found principles of accord (Einigungs Formeln) suitable to this end. But outwardly he represented the Entente, as he could no more leave his associates in the lurch than could we. Nor did he wish to do so.

On the other hand, the assertion that we adopted without exception the standpoint prescribed for us by Vienna is absolutely untrue. We played, as England did, a conciliatory rôle, and urged moderation upon Vienna far more than Lichnowsky seems to be aware of, or at any rate admits. Vienna thereupon made a variety of the most far-reaching concessions, Dibra and Djakowa.

ENGLAND EXONERATED

Mentioning the Serajevo murders as the climax of the continued Russian provocations against Austria, von Jagow says:

The prestige and existence of the Danube monarchy were at stake. We could not agree to the English proposal concerning a conference of Ministers, as it would doubtless have led to a serious diplomatic defeat for us.

I do not intend to adopt the theory now widespread among us that England was the originator of all the intrigues leading to the war. On the contrary, I believe in Sir Edward Grey's love of peace and his genuine desire to arrive at an understanding with us, but he had allowed himself to become too hopelessly entangled in the network of Franco-Russian policy. He could find no way out, and therefore failed to do that which had been in his power to prevent the world war. War was not popular among the English people, therefore Belgium had to serve as a battle cry.

At the end of his observations von Jagow restates his policy as follows:

I also pursued a policy which aimed at an agreement with England because I was of the opinion that this was the only road by which we could get out of the unfavorable situation into which the unequal distribution of strength and weakness of the Triple Alliance had brought us. Political marriages "until death us do part" are, as Prince Lichnowsky says, impossible in international relations, but in the existing state of affairs in Europe isolations are equally impossible. The history of Europe is composed of coalitions, some of which have led to avoidance of wars and some to violent conflicts. A loosening and final dissolution of old unions, which no longer satisfy all conditions, cannot be recommended until new constellations are within reach. That was the aim of our policy of rapprochement with England. As long as this policy did not provide trustworthy guarantees we could not abandon the old securities and obligations which they involved.

Our Morocco policy led to political defeat. Happily, this had been avoided in the Bosnian crisis and at the London conference. Fresh diminution of our prestige was intolerable for our position in Europe and in the world. Prosperity of States and their political and economic successes depend upon the prestige which they enjoy in the world.

A FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Captain Persius, the military editor of the Berlin Tageblatt, in discussing the revelations of Prince Lichnowsky and the reply of Herr von Jagow in their relation to a possible peace by agreement, used these words:

"An understanding ought to be easier, now that we have heard from two opposing sources, from von Jagow and Lichnowsky, that England was not responsible for the war, as has been believed hitherto in wide circles in Germany."

Decrease of Birth Rate in Hungary

_The following statistics were read by the Karolyist Deputy, Lodovico Hollo, to the Hungarian Chamber of Deputies, at the session of Jan. 16, 1918: _

(1) Births.--Before the war 765,000 children a year were born in Hungary. In the first year of the war, 1914, the number of births was reduced by 18,000; in 1915 only 481,000 children were born--that is, 284,000 less than in time of peace. In 1916 the number of births was 333,000--that is, a reduction of 432,000. In 1917 the births amounted to 328,000--that is, the reduction was 438,000. Therefore our losses (in Hungary alone) behind the front reach the number of 1,172,866 individuals.