The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to EuropeVarious
Philosophy
The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915: What Americans Say to Europe
Various
World War, 1914-1918
Immediately on the issuance of the ultimatum the Austrian Foreign
Minister, Count Berchtold, had most inopportunely taken himself to
Ischl, where he remained until after the expiration of the time limit.
Access to him proved difficult, and the Russian Charge at Vienna, having
lodged a pacific protest with the Acting Foreign Minister in order to
take no chances, telegraphed it to Berchtold at Ischl. Nevertheless,
Berchtold's apparently designed absence from the capital was Germany's
excuse for its failure to get the time limit extended.
If Germany made any communication to Austria in the interests of peace
the text has yet to be disclosed to the world. A word from Berlin to
Vienna would have given the additional time which, with sincerely
pacific intentions, might have resulted in the preservation of peace.
Germany, so far as the record discloses, never spoke that word.
Contrast this attitude with that of Russia, whose Foreign Minister on
the morning of July 25 offered
"to stand aside and leave the question in the hands of
England, France, Germany, and Italy."
[English "White Paper," No. 17.]
As Russia was the member of the Triple Entente most interested in the
fate of Servia, what proposal could have been more conciliatory or
magnanimous?
On July 25 Sir Edward Grey proposed that the four powers (including
Germany) should unite
"in asking the Austrian and Russian Governments not to cross
the frontier and to give time for the four powers, acting at
Vienna and St. Petersburg, to try and arrange matters. If
Germany will adopt this view I feel strongly that France and
ourselves should act upon it. Italy would no doubt gladly
co-operate."
[English "White Paper," Nos. 24 and 25.]
To this reasonable request the Imperial German Chancellor replied:
"First and last, we take the ground that this question must be
localized _by the abstention of all the powers from
intervention in it_,"
but added that Germany would, if an Austro-Russian dispute arose,
"co-operate with the other great powers in mediation between
Russia and Austria."
[German "White Paper," Annex 13.]
This distinction is very hard to grasp. It attempts to measure the
difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. Russia's difference with
Austria was over the attempt of the latter to crush Servia. Germany
would not interfere in the latter, but would as an abstract proposition
mediate between Russia and Austria. For all practical purposes the two
things were indistinguishable.
How she "co-operated" we shall presently see.
All that Germany _did_ on July 25, so far as the record discloses, was
to "pass on" England's and Russia's requests for more time, but
subsequent events indicate that it was "passed on" without any
indorsement, for is it credible that Austria would have ignored its
ally's request for more time if it had ever been made?
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account