behind these insults is the desire for our destruction. As long as this desire for our destruction exists we must endure together with our faithful nation. I am also convinced, I know it, that in the widest circles of our nation the same serious feeling exists everywhere. As long as the desire for our destruction exists we must hold out, and we will hold out, with confidence in our troops, in our army administration and in our magnificent nation which bears so wonderfully these difficult times, with their great privations and continuous sacrifices.

In the direction of our policy nothing will be changed. If, in spite of these hostile statements by these statesmen, any serious efforts for a paving of the way to peace were to show themselves anywhere, then, quite certainly, we would not adopt a negative atti tude from the very beginning, but we would examine these seriously meant, I say expressly seriously meant-efforts immediately, with scrupulous care.

This was not only his position but emphatically that of the Chief of the Army Administration, who does not conduct war for the sake of war, but has said to me that as soon as a serious desire for peace manifests itself on the other side we must follow it up.

Some remarks of the Chancellor which related to Belgium were not given to the press; but, on the following day, an official statement was issued at Berlin:

With regard to the statements made to-day (July 12) by the Imperial Chancellor in the Main Committee of the Reichstag, regarding Belgium, a view has spread among the public which may give rise to misunderstandings. We are therefore giving in full that part of the Chancellor's speech. Count Hertling said:

"With reference to the future of Belgium, as I already said yesterday, the occupation and present possession of Belgium only means that we have a pawn for future negotiations. By the term 'pawn' is meant that one does not intend to keep what one has in one's hand as a pawn if negotiations should bring a favorable result. We have no intention of keeping Belgium in any form whatever. What we precisely want, as already expressed by me on February 24, is, that after the war restored Belgium shall, as a self-dependent State, not be subject to anybody as a vassal and shall live with us in good and friendly relations. I have held this point of view from the beginning with regard to the Belgian question, and still hold it to-day.

"Gentlemen, this side of my policy is fully in conformity with the

general lines of direction which I yesterday clearly laid before you. We are waging war as a war of defense, as we have done from the very beginning, and every Imperialistic tendency, every tendency to world domination, has been remote from our minds. Therefore our peace aims will agree with what we want. That is, inviolability of our territory; open air for the expansion of our people, especially in the economic domain; and naturally, also, the necessary security in regard to future difficult conditions. This is completely in conformity with my point of view in regard to Belgium, but how this point of view can be established in detail depends on future negotiations and on this point I am unable to give binding declarations."

But this was not all he said concerning Belgium, and a few days later, on demand of members of the Reichstag, the conclusion of his remarks was made public:

With regard to the West, the Belgian question is still in the foreground. From the beginning of the war there was no intention of retaining Belgium for ever. As far as we are concerned, the war, as I said on November 29 last, was from the beginning a defensive war and not a war of conquest. That we marched into Belgium was a necesssity forced upon us. The occupation of Belgium was also a necessity forced on us by the war. It fully corresponds to The Hague regulation regarding warfare on land that we established a civil administration in Belgium. Similarly we introduced a German administration there, in all domains, and I believe this was not to the disadvantage of the Belgian population. Belgium, in our hands, is a pledge for future negotiations. This pledge in our hands means a pledge against certain dangers which are warded off by the retention in our hands of this security. This pledge is, therefore, only surrendered when these dangers are removed. Belgium, as a pledge, means therefore for us that we must secure ourselves by the peace conditions, as I have already said, against Belgium's ever becoming a jumping-off ground for our enemies, and not only in a military but also in an economic sense. We must protect ourselves against being strangled economically after the war. Owing to its conditions, its position, and its development, Belgium is completely dependent on Germany. If we enter into close relations with Belgium in the economic domain it will be also entirely to the interest of Belgium. If we succeed in getting into close relations with Belgium, and if we succeed in coming to an understanding with Belgium also with regard to political questions which touch Germany's vital interests,

then we have a definite prospect that therewith we shall have the best security against future dangers which might menace us from Belgium, and through Belgium from England and France. also tallies with Herr von Kühlmann's view.

The Berlin Tageblatt condemned the speech, saying:

This

The Chancellor is silent about war aims. If Count von Hertling considers Belgium is part of the peace question he must remember that for nobody outside of Germany is Belgium even a question for argument. At the beginning of the war Germany entered into very definite obligations regarding Belgium, and even if these obligations did not exist the Belgian question for most people in the world is merely a plain question of right. The Chancellor's remarks about Russia smell of powder. After reading von Hertling's whole speech. the uncomfortable impression is left that in view of the entire situation a policy of waiting is deemed advisable. The Chancellor pursues no policy of large principles, but is merely an adroit opportunist. He considers it sufficient if he again bridles the Reichstag majority. He will then return to main headquarters and say with a smile: "You see how easy it is!"

The Frankfurter Zeitung said:

Chancellor von Hertling's declaration regarding Belgium is a great step in advance. Enemy statesmen cannot interpret it, as the British Foreign Secretary Balfour did the Chancellor's February speech, by indicating that Germany intends to make Belgium subservient to herself by means of commercial, territorial, and military conditions. There is now no obstacle on Germany's side to the ending of the war.

The Vossische Zeitung believed:

Chancellor von Hertling's statement on Belgium was made with a definiteness which always hitherto has been lacking. The Chancellor's thorough exposition of his conception of the Belgian problem will silence chatter about German statesmen being intentionally silent on this subject or expressing themselves with studied obscurity.

Germania held that:

Belgium is the most important question raised by the war, and with the Chancellor's clear statement regarding it the internal political situation can now be considered as no longer strained.

The foreign press was still commenting on von Hertling's speech when, July 16, Baron Burian, the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, in an address to the Austrian and Hungarian Premiers on the eve of the meeting of the Reichsrat, replied to President Wilson's speech on the Fourth of July.

It is not easy to draw a picture of the present world situation in view of the swiftly moving nature of events. Everything is in full swing and a repetition of what has so often been said regarding the causes and responsibilities for the past can no longer influence our judgment because, on that subject, everybody already has formed his own view. The consequences of the war already have grown infinitely and have gone far beyond the original causes of the war. The present phase of events and developments, too, throw a glaring light on the conflicting interests of the different belligerent groups which clashed at the beginning of this murderous struggle, but they, perhaps, are not without slight signs of an internal change taking place in the relations of the groups.

In the midst of the terrible struggle, and in every phase of this war of successful defense, the Central Powers have had no other aim in view but to secure the enemy's will to peace. If we sum up all that has been said on the enemy's side in regard to their war aims we recognize three groups of aspirations which are being set forth to justify the continuation of bloodshed so that the ideals of mankind may be realized:

The freedom of all nations, which are to form a league of nations and which in future shall settle their differences by arbitration and not by arms, is to reign.

The domination of one nation by another nation is to be excluded. Various territorial changes are to be carried out at the expense of the Central Powers.

These annexationist aims, though variously shaped, are generally known. The intention, however, also exists, especially in regard to Austria-Hungary, to carry out her internal disintegration for the purpose of the formation of new States. Finally, our opponents demand our atonement because we dared to defend ourselves, and successfully, against their attacks. Our ability to defend ourselves is termed militarism and must, therefore, be destroyed. Territorial aims are, in fact, the only things now separating the different belligerent groups. For the great interests of humanity and for the justice, freedom, honor, and peace of the world, as set forth in the laws of modern political conception, regarding which we need not accept

any advice, we also are ready to fight. There is hardly any difference between the general principles enunciated by the statesmen of both belligerents. President Wilson's four new points of July 4 shall not, apart from certain exaggerations, arouse our opposition. On the contrary, we are able to approve them heartily to a great. extent.

Nobody would refuse homage to this genius and nobody would refuse his coöperation. This, however, is not the main point, but it is what can also be understood in the interests of mankind. Both groups should certainly honestly attempt to clear this up and settle it by mutual agreement, but not in the same manner as, for instance, our peace treaties in the East were judged.

The fact is that all our opponents were invited to join in those peace negotiations and they could have contributed their share in bringing them to a different issue. But now, when it is too late, their criticism stands on weak grounds, for there is no legal right which would have entitled them to condemn the peace conditions which were acceptable to the contracting parties or which could not be avoided.

From the confident utterances of our opponents it appears they have no fear of being defeated. If they, nevertheless, represent the peace treaties as a warning of our treatment of a defeated enemy we do not consider the reproach justified. None of the belligerent States need ever come into the position of Russia and Rumania as we are ever ready to enter into peace negotiations with all our opponents. If our enemies continually demand atonement for wrong done and restitution, then this is a claim which we could urge with more justification against them because we have been attacked, and the wrong done to us must be redressed.

The enemy's obstinacy regarding his territorial demands concerning Alsace-Lorraine, Trieste, the Trentino, and the German colonies appears to be insurmountable. There lies the limit of our readiness for peace. We are prepared to discuss everything except our own territory. The enemy not only wants to cut from Austria-Hungary what he would like for himself, but the inner structure, that of the monarchy itself, too, is to be attacked and the monarchy dissolved, if possible, into component parts. Now that it is recognized that ordinary war methods have not sufficed to defeat us, interest in our internal affairs suddenly has become supreme. The Entente, however, discovered its sympathy with our internal affairs so late that many an enemy statesman who now prates about the monarchy's national questions as a war aim had probably no idea of their ex