New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
Our war is a defensive war, which will achieve its aim when
our enemies have been expelled from our territory and their
ring has been broken. This aim could be best served by
making peace with one or other of our enemies and winning
him over to our cause. This would be of immense advantage to
the future of civilization and ensure us against the horrors
of a prolonged war. A separate peace would be the best
chance for certain Powers to change their international
policy. To my mind the issues of this war will greatly
change the attitude of some hostile States toward us, and
will bring about more intimate relations between them and
ourselves, besides widening the foundations of the alliance
between Hungary and her allies. And this is to be the rock
upon which the European balance of power is to rest in the
future. Our war is not a war of conquest, and the boundary
changes of which some people speak are not the _sine qua
non_ of a good peace. Therefore I do not even wish to speak
about certain territorial alterations, which, nevertheless,
might be necessary.
Regarding the question of England and nationality, Count Andrassy
says:
Victory no doubt affords us the right to demand the
alteration of the map of Europe, yet, this not being our aim
and not to our interest, we can be satisfied with certain
compensations, as no doubt our enemies would not spare us if
they were victorious. Lloyd George said that the States are
to be shaped in the future according to nationalities, which
means that the Monarchy is to be disrupted. An English
scholar not long ago expressed the same view, and, in fact,
in England this idea is being impressed upon the people.
This policy is sounded in a country which dominates so many
millions of alien nationalities. If England speaks in this
way, though she is not in direct conflict with us, what can
we expect from Russia or Italy? Everyone knows that Russia
wants Galicia, the Bukovina, Maramaros; Serbia wants Bosnia,
Herzegovina, Croatia, Slavonia, and the Banat; Italy they
won to their side by promising her our territory;
Transylvania is promised to the one who cares to take it;
henceforth, if we wish to defend it, we shall have to
prepare for a new attack from another quarter. Yet nothing
would be more alien to our thoughts than that if victorious
we should annex foreign territory, for we would have
seriously to consider if such conquest would be to our
advantage or not. The same policy ought to be applied in
Germany. Though her enemies would not spare her either, she
must be cautious not to go too far in her appetites, and
should seek for monetary compensations. Most of all she has
to be careful not to claim territory, which would mean
everlasting unrest and a new irredentism.
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