PART II

THE OLD AND THE NEW DIPLOMACY: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE

DOCUMENT 2.

Report made early in January, 1918, by the
American Inquiry to President Wilson regarding
"War Aims and Peace Terms. It was prepared
by Dr. S. E. Mezes, David Hunter Miller, and
Walter Lippmann. The President used this
report in formulating six of his Fourteen Points.
Stenographic notes which he made on the margin
of this document (see facsimile, Volume I, p. 111)
were translated by him for the author and appear
in this volume in italic type in brackets at the
head of paragraphs that were annotated in the
text. (Typewritten original.)

THE PRESENT SITUATION

THE WAR AIMS AND PEACE TERMS IT SUGGESTS

OUR OBJECTIVES

The allied military situation and Berlin-Bagdad.

The Allies have had various opportunities to destroy Middle Europe by arms, to wit: the Russian invasion of Galicia, the protection of Serbia, the intervention of Rumania, the offensive of Italy, the expedition of Gallipoli, the expedition to Saloniki, the Mesopotamian campaign, and the Palestinian campaign. The use made of these opportunities has produced roughly the following results: The Russian Army has ceased to be an offensive force, and Germany occupies a large part of that territory of the Russian Empire which is inhabited by more or less non-Russian peoples; Rumania is occupied to the mouth of the Danube; Serbia and Montenegro are occupied; the Austrian and German are deep into Italian territory. As the Russian, Rumanian, Serbian, and

Italian armies cannot be expected to resume a dangerous offensive, the invasion of Austria-Hungary has ceased to be a possibility. The Allies hold Saloniki, which they are unable to use as a base for offensive operations. There is a danger that they may be driven from it. If they are able to hold it, and to keep it from Austrian hands, they have made a blind alley of one subordinate part of the Berlin-Bagdad project, which has always included a branch line to Saloniki, and then to the sea. By the capture of Bagdad they cannot only control the rich resources of Mesopotamia, but have made a blind alley of the main Berlin-Bagdad line, so far as that line was aimed to be a line of communication to the Persian Gulf as a threat against India. By the capture of Palestine the British have nullified a subordinate part of the Berlin-Bagdad scheme, that is, the threat to the Suez Canal. By the almost complete separation of Arabia from Turkey, the Turks have not only lost the Holy Cities, but another threat to the Red Sea has been removed. Germany has therefore lost the terminals of her project, and if Saloniki, Jerusalem, Bagdad, and Arabia remain in non-German hands the possibilities of defense against the politicomilitary portions of the Bagdad scheme exist.

The problem of Berlin-Bagdad.

The problem is therefore reduced to this: how effectively is it possible for Germany to organize the territory now under her political and military influence so as to be in a position at a later date to complete the scheme and to use the resources and the man-power of Middle Europe in the interests of her own foreign policy? She faces here four critical political problems: (1) The Poles; (2) the Czechs; (3) the South Slavs; and (4) Bulgaria. The problem may be stated as follows: if these peoples become either the willing accomplices or the helpless servants of Germany and her political purposes, Berlin will have established a power in Central Europe which will be the master of the continent. The interest of the United States in preventing this must be carefully distinguished before our objectives can become clear. It can be no

part of our policy to prevent a free interplay of economic and cultural forces in Central Europe. We should have no interest in thwarting a tendency towards unification. Our interest is in the disestablishment of a system by which adventurous and imperialistic groups in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest could use the resources of this area in the interest of a fiercely selfish foreign policy directed against their neighbours and the rest of the world. In our opposition to Middle Europe, therefore, we should distinguish between the drawing together of an area which has a certain economic unity, and the uses of that unity and the methods by which it is controlled. We are interested primarily in the nature of the control.

The chief binding interests in Middle Europe.

The present control rests upon an alliance of interest between the ruling powers at Vienna, Budapest, Sofia, Constantinople and Berlin. There are certain common interests which bind these ruling groups together. The chief ones are: (1) the common interests of Berlin, Vienna, and Budapest in the subjection of the Poles, the Czechs, and the Croats; (2) from the point of view of Berlin the present arrangement assures a control of the external affairs and of the military and economic resources of Austria-Hungary; (3) from the point of view of Vienna and Budapest it assures the German-Magyar ascendancy; (4) the interest that binds Sofia to the alliance lay chiefly in the ability of Germany to exploit the wrong done Bulgaria in the treaty of Bucharest; (5) the interest of Constantinople is no doubt in part bought, in part coerced, but it is also in a measure due to the fact that in the German alliance alone lies the possibility of even a nominal integrity for the Turkish Empire; (6) at the conclusion of the war, the greatest tie which will bind Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey to Germany will be the debts of these countries to Germany.

The disestablishment of a Prussian Middle Europe.

It follows that the objectives to be aimed at in order to render Middle Europe safe are the following: