GERMANY'S PROBLEM IN GERMAN EYES

141

But Bismarck had even then, as he was often reproached for having, an obsession in regard to coalitions which menaced the allied Central Powers, and the events of the times that followed have shown that it was not a mere terrifying phantom. The danger of enemy coalitions which threatened the allied Central Powers often made an appearance. By King Edward's isolation policy the dream of coalitions became a reality. The German Empire, progressing and growing in strength, stood in the way of British. imperialism. In French lust of revenge and Russian aspirations of expansion, this British imperialism found only too ready aid. Thus future plans, dangerous for us, were formed.

The geographical situation of Germany in itself had always brought near to us the danger of war on two fronts, and now it became increasingly visible. Between Russia and France an alliance was concluded whose participants were twice as numerous as the population of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary. Republican France lent the Russia of the Czar billions to construct strategical railways in the Kingdom of Poland in order to facilitate an advance against us. The French Republic drew on its last man for three years of service. Thus France, with Russia, built up armaments extending to the limit of the capabilities of both, thereby pursuing aims which our enemies now term imperialistic.

It would have been a neglect of duty had Germany remained a calm spectator of this game and had we not also endeavored to create an armament which would protect us against future enemies. I may perhaps recall that I as a member of the Reichstag very frequently spoke on these matters, and on the occasion of new expenditure on armament, pointed out that the German people, in consenting to these, solely desired to pursue a policy of peace, and that such armaments were only imposed upon us to ward off the danger threatening from a possible enemy. It doesn't appear that any regard was paid to these words abroad.

GERMANY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD ALSACE-LORRAINE

And Alsace-Lorraine, of which Lloyd George speaks again. He speaks of the wrong Germany did in 1871 to France. Alsace-Lorraine-you need not be told, but abroad they appear still to be ignorant of things-AlsaceLorraine comprises, as is known, for the most part purely German regions which by a century-long violence and illegality were severed from the German Empire and, until finally in 1789 the French Revolution swallowed up the last remnant, Alsace and Lorraine then became French provinces.

When in the war of 1870 we demanded back the districts which had been criminally wrested from us, that was not a conquest of foreign territory but

rightly and properly speaking what to-day is called disannexation, and this disannexation was then expressly recognized by the French National Assembly, the constitutional representatives of the French people at that time, March 29, 1871, by a large majority of votes.

And in England too, gentlemen, language quite other than is heard to-day has been heard. I can appeal to a classic witness. It is none other than the famous British historian and author Thomas Carlyle who in a letter to the Times wrote: "No people has had such a bad neighbor as Germany has possessed during the last 400 years in France. Germany would have been mad had she not thought of erecting such a frontier wall between herself and such a neighbor when opportunity offered."

Observe that I have not repeated a very hard expression which Carlyle used about France. I know of no law of nature, no resolution of heavenly parliaments, whereby France alone of all earthly beings was not obliged to restore stolen territories if the owners from whom they had been snatched had an opportunity of reconquering them. And respected English press organs expressed themselves in a like sense. I mention for example the Daily News.

REPLY TO PRESIDENT WILSON

I now come to President Wilson. Here, too, I recognize that the tone appears to have changed. The unanimous rejection of Mr. Wilson's attempt in reply to the Pope's note to sow discord between the German Government and the German people has had its effect.

This unanimous rejection might of itself lead Mr. Wilson on the right path. A beginning to that end has perhaps been made, for now there is at any rate no longer talk about oppression of the German people by an autocratic German Government and the former attacks on the House of Hohenzollern have not been repeated.

I shall not enlarge upon the distorted representation of German policy which is contained in Mr. Wilson's message, but will deal in detail with the points which Mr. Wilson lays down there, not less than fourteen points, in which he formulates his peace program; and I pray your indulgence in dealing with these as briefly as possible.

As clear a series of proofs could be adduced for the French claim. The chancellor refers to these territories having been detached from the German Empire, but the allusion is to the Holy Roman Empire, which was not a lineal predecessor of the present German Empire. The French National Assembly's vote of March 29, 1871, was passed at a time when France was occupied by German troops and the assembly was consequently not a free agent respecting matters stipulated in the preliminary treaty of peace of February 26, 1871, which was made definitive by the treaty of Frankfort of May 10, 1871.

The Carlyle letter was published on November 18, 1870, not in December. The newspaper publishing the letter did not approve it.-Editor's note.

FAVORS FOUR POINTS

143

I.-The first point is the demand that there shall be no more secret international agreements. History shows that it is we above all others who would be able to agree to the publicity of diplomatic documents. I recall that our defensive alliance with Austria-Hungary was known to the whole world from 1888, while the offensive agreement of the enemy States first saw the light of publicity during the war, through the revelations of the secret Russian archives. The negotiations at Brest-Litovsk are being conducted with full publicity. This proves that we are quite ready to accept this proposal and declare publicity of negotiations to be a general political principle. II.-In his second point Mr. Wilson demands freedom of shipping on the seas in war and peace. This also is demanded by Germany as the first and one of the most important requirements for the future. Therefore, there is here no difference of opinion. The limitation introduced by Mr. Wilson at the end which I need not quote textually, is not intelligible, appears superfluous and would therefore best be left out. (The limiting clause reads: "... except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.") It would therefore be highly important for the freedom of shipping in future if strongly fortified naval bases on important international routes, such as England has at Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hongkong, the Falkland Islands and many other places, were removed.

III. We too are in thorough accord with the removal of economic barriers which interfere with trade in a superfluous manner. We too condemn economic war, which would inevitably bear within it causes of future warlike complications.

IV. Limitation of armaments. As already declared by us, the idea of limitation of armaments is entirely discussable. The financial position of all European States after the war might most effectively promote a satisfactory solution.

It is therefore clear that an understanding might be reached without difficulty on the first four points of Mr. Wilson's program.

The German-Austro-Hungarian alliance treaty of October 7, 1879, was secret until published by Prince Bismarck in the Berlin Official Gazette, February 3, 1888, to serve the political purpose of putting "an end to doubts which have been entertained in various quarters of its purely defensive character, and have been turned to account for various ends." That treaty was only one of the series constituting the Triple Alliance, and none of the others has been published with the exception of Arts. I, III, IV and VII of the main treaty of May 22, 1882 (as revised in 1887), which were quoted in the diplomatic exchanges between Austria-Hungary and Italy prior to the latter's declaration of

war.

The effort evidently was made to imply that, while Germany's pre-war alliance was defensive, the opposing one-the Triple Entente-was offensive. The implied antithesis is not true. The Triple Entente was at least as defensive as the Triple Alliance. Moreover, more was known of it than of the Triple Alliance. (See Pierre Albin, La France et l'Allemagne en Europe (1885-1894), Paris, Félix Alcan, 1913.) If the implication stated was not intended, the term "offensive agreements" can only refer to arrangements made during the course of the war. In that case the phrase loses all propriety it otherwise might have.-Editor's note.

V.-I now come to the fifth point, settlement of all colonial claims and disputes. Practical realization of Mr. Wilson's principles in the realm of reality will encounter some difficulties in any case. I believe that for the present it may be left for England, which has the greatest colonial empire, to make what she will of this proposal of her ally. This point of the program also will have to be discussed in due time, on the reconstitution of the world's colonial possessions, which we also demand absolutely.

VI.-Evacuation of Russian territory. Now that the Entente has refused, within the period agreed upon by Russia and the Quadruple Alliance, to join in the negotiations, I must in the name of the latter decline to allow any subsequent interference. We are dealing here with questions which concern only Russia and the four allied powers. I adhere to the hope that, with recognition of self-determination for the peoples on the western frontier of the former Russian empire, good relations will be established, both with these peoples and with the rest of Russia, for whom we wish most earnestly a return of order, peace and conditions guaranteeing the welfare of the country.

VII.-Belgium. My predecessors in office repeatedly declared that at no time did the annexation of Belgium to Germany form a point in the program of German policy. The Belgian question belongs to those questions the details of which are to be settled by negotiation at the peace conference.

So long as our opponents have not unreservedly taken the standpoint that the integrity of the allies' territory can offer the only possible basis of peace discussion, I must adhere to the standpoint hitherto always adopted and refuse the removal in advance of the Belgian affair from the entire discussion.

VIII. The occupied parts of France are a valuable pawn in our hands. Here, too, forcible annexations form no part of the official German policy. The conditions and methods of procedure of the evacuation, which must take account of Germany's vital interests, are to be agreed upon between Germany and France. I can only again accentuate expressly the fact that there can never be a question of dismemberment of Imperial territory. Under no fine phrases of any kind shall we permit the enemy again to take from us territory of the empire which with ever increasing intimacy has linked itself to Germanism, which has in a highly gratifying manner ever and increasingly developed in an economic respect, and of whose people more than 87 per cent speak the German mother tongue.

IX, X, XI.—The questions dealt with by Mr. Wilson under points 9, 10 and I touch both the Italian frontier question and questions of the future

INTERESTS OF GERMANY'S ALLIES

145

development of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and the future of the Balkan States, questions in which for the greater part the interests of our ally, Austria-Hungary, preponderate. Where German interests are concerned, we shall defend them most energetically. But I may leave the answer to Mr. Wilson's proposals on these points in the first place to the Austro-Hungarian foreign minister.

Close contact with the allied dual monarchy forms the kernel of our present policy, and must be the guiding line in the future. Loyal comradeship in arms, which has stood the test so brilliantly in war time, must continue to have its effect in peace. We shall thus, on our part, do everything for the attainment of peace by Austria-Hungary which takes into account her just claims.

XII. The matters touched upon by Mr. Wilson in point 12 concern our loyal, brave ally Turkey. I must in no wise forestall her statesmen in their attitude. The integrity of Turkey and the safeguarding of her capital which is connected closely with the question of the straits, are important and vital interests of the German Empire also. Our ally can always count upon our energetic support in this matter.'

XIII.-Point 13 deals with Poland. It was not the Entente-which had only empty words for Poland and before the war never interceded for Poland with Russia-but the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy who liberated Poland from the Czaristic régime which was crushing her national characteristics. It may thus be left to Germany and Austria-Hungary and Poland to come to an agreement on the future constitution of this country. As the negotiations and communications of the last year prove, we are on the road to the goal.

XIV. The last point, the 14th, deals with a league of nations. Regarding this point, I am sympathetically disposed, as my political activity shows, toward every idea which eliminates for the future a possibility or a

A Constantinople telegram of February 7, 1918, said that Halil Bey, the new Turkish foreign minister, speaking before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber, said: "We adhere to the standpoint that the fate of national groups which were not independent before the war cannot be regulated otherwise than by institutions created in accordance with the constitution of each individual country. The Straits will remain open in future to international traffic as in the past, and on the same conditions."

The Minister eulogized the Turkish constitution, which, he maintained, dealt equally with all, and he resolutely rejected all proposals, from whatever quarter, which would mean any interference in the internal affairs of the country. Halil Bey declared that he was in complete accord with Count Hertling's and Count Czernin's replies to Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson.-(London Times, February 9, 1918, page 5.)

The German chancellor in this paragraph evidently refers only to a portion of the Poland which President Wilson spoke of as due for a historical resurrection. The last partition of Poland, confirmed by the treaty of Vienna of June 9, 1815, was between Prussia, Austria and Russia. Austria in 1848 assimilated to her share the Republic of Cracow established by the treaty of Vienna. It is difficult to say that within the last hundred years the fate of one-third of the former Poland has been more happy than that of another. Germany in the course of the war has, however, set up a Polish kingdom in what was Russian Poland, and it is to this only that the chancellor refers. Neither the German Empire nor Austria-Hungary has "freed" their Polish territories.-Editor's note.