So much for the establishment of the facts. For the rest, it need only be remarked that Count Czernin for his part would see no reason to deny it if, in this or any similar case, he had taken the initiative, because, in contrast to M. Clemenceau, he believes that it cannot be a matter for reproach for a Government to make attempts to bring about an honorable peace, which would liberate all peoples from the terrors of the present war. The dispute raised by M. Clemenceau has, moreover, diverted attention from the real kernel of Count Czernin's statement. The essence of this statement was not so much who suggested the discussions undertaken before the beginning of the western offensive, but who caused their collapse. And M. Clemenceau up to the present has not denied that he refused to enter upon negotiations on the basis of the renunciation of the reacquisition of Alsace-Lorraine. RETORT BY CLEMENCEAU Premier Clemenceau replied to this Vienna statement on the same day by issuing the following: A diluted lie is still a lie. Count Czernin told a lie when he said that some time before the German offensive began Premier Clemenceau caused him to be asked "if he was ready to open negotiations and upon what basis." As to the passage in the manuscript note of Count Revertata, where he says he acted for Austria to obtain peace proposals from France, the solicitant's text is authentic, and Count Czernin has not dared to dispute it. To hide his confusion he tries to maintain that the conversation was resumed at the request of M. Clemenceau. Unfortunately for him, there is a fact which reduces his allegation to nothing, namely, that Clemenceau was apprised of the matter on Nov. 18, 1917, (that is to say, the day after he took over the Ministry of War,) by communication from the intermediary dated Nov. 10, and intended for his predecessors. For Count Czernin's contention to be true, M. Clemenceau would have had to take the initiative in question before he was Premier. Thus Count Czernin is categorically contradicted by facts. He is reduced to maintaining that Major Armand was M. Clemenceau's confidential man. Well, until this incident M. Clemenceau had seen this officer of the Intelligence Department only once, for five minutes at a riding school fifteen or twenty years ago. Finally, Count Czernin, as a last resource, says that what he attributes to M. Clemenceau is unimportant. "What is really important," he affirms, "is not to know who took the initiative for the conversations before the offensive, but who caused them to fail." Then why all this fuss? To demonstrate that every French Government, like France itself, is immovable on the question of Alsace-Lorraine?