New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 4, July, 1915: April-September, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 4, July, 1915: April-September, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
We see now on the basis of documents how our allies aided us in the
Lybian undertaking. The operations brilliantly begun by the Duke of
the Abruzzi against the Turkish torpedo boats encountered at Preveza
were stopped by Austria in a sudden and absolute manner. Count
Aehrenthal on Oct. 1 informed our Ambassador at Vienna that our
operations had made a painful impression upon him and that he could
not allow them to be continued. It was urgently necessary, he said, to
put an end to them and to give orders to prevent them from being
renewed, either in Adriatic or in Ionian waters. The following day the
German Ambassador at Vienna, in a still more threatening manner,
confidentially informed our Ambassador that Count Aehrenthal had
requested him to telegraph to his Government to give the Italian
Government to understand that if it continued its naval operations in
the Adriatic and in the Ionian Seas it would have to deal directly
with Austria-Hungary. [Murmurs.]
And it was not only in the Adriatic and in the Ionian Seas that Austria
paralyzed our actions. On Nov. 5 Count Aehrenthal informed the Duke of
Avarna that he had learned that Italian warships had been reported off
Saloniki, where they had used electric searchlights--[laughter]--and
declared that our action on the Ottoman coasts of European Turkey, as
well as on the Aegean Islands, could not have been allowed either by
Austria-Hungary or by Germany, because it was contrary to the Triple
Alliance Treaty.
In March, 1912, Count Berchtold, who had in the meantime succeeded
Count Aehrenthal, declared to the German Ambassador in Vienna that, in
regard to our operations against the coasts of European Turkey and the
Aegean Islands, he adhered to the point of view of Count Aehrenthal,
according to which these operations were considered by the
Austro-Hungarian Government contrary to the engagement entered into by
us by Article VII. of the Triple Alliance Treaty. As for our
operations against the Dardanelles, he considered it opposed, first,
to the promise made by us not to proceed to any act which might
endanger the status quo in the Balkans, and, secondly, to the spirit
of the same treaty, which was based on the maintenance of the status
quo.
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