Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2Various
History
Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2
Various
World War, 1914-1918
Sir Edward Grey still looked for new ways of escape. In the morning of
Aug. 1, Sir W. Tyrrell came to me to say that his chief still hoped to
find a way out. Should we remain neutral if France did the same? I
understood him to mean that we should then be ready to spare France, but
his meaning was that we should remain absolutely neutral--neutral
therefore even toward Russia. That was the well-known misunderstanding.
Sir Edward had given me an appointment for the afternoon, but as he was
then at a meeting of the Cabinet, he called me up on the telephone,
after Sir W. Tyrrell had hurried straight to him. But in the afternoon
he spoke no longer of anything but Belgian neutrality, and of the
possibility that we and France should face one another armed, without
attacking one another.
Thus there was no proposal whatever, but a question without any
obligation, because our conversation, as I have already explained, was
to take place soon afterward. In Berlin, however--without waiting for
the conversation--this news was used as the foundation for a
far-reaching act. Then came Poincaré's letter, Bonar Law's letter, and
the telegram from the King of the Belgians. The hesitating members of
the Cabinet were converted, with the exception of three members, who
resigned.
PEACE HOPES DESTROYED
Up to the last moment I had hoped for a waiting attitude on the part of
England. My French colleague also felt himself by no means secure, as I
learned from a private source. As late as Aug. 1 the King replied
evasively to the French President. But in the telegram from Berlin,
which announced the threatening danger of war, England was already
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 had gone there at his desire. He was deeply moved. He said to me that
he would always be ready to mediate, and, "We don't want to crush
Germany." Unfortunately, this confidential conversation was published.
Thereby Herr von Bethmann Hollweg destroyed the last possibility of
reaching peace via England.
Our departure was thoroughly dignified and calm. Before we left, the
King had sent his equerry, Sir E. Ponsonby, to me, to express his regret
at my departure and that he could not see me personally. Princess Louise
wrote to me that the whole family lamented our going. Mrs. Asquith and
other friends came to the embassy to say good-bye.
A special train took us to Harwich, where a guard of honor was drawn up
for me. I was treated like a departing sovereign. Thus ended my London
mission. It was wrecked, not by the perfidy of the British, but by the
perfidy of our policy.
At the railway station in London Count Mensdorff [Austrian Ambassador]
appeared with his staff. He was cheerful, and gave me to understand that
perhaps he would remain in London. But to the English he said that it
was not Austria, but we, who had wanted the war.
A BITTER RETROSPECT
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account