Book: In the World War

C >> Count Ottokar Czernin >> In the World War




There is but one egress from this narrow defile: the absolute
international disarmament of the world. There is no longer any
object in such colossal fleets if the states of the world
guarantee the freedom of the seas, and armies must be reduced to
the lowest limit requisite for the maintenance of order in the
interior. This will only be possible on an international basis;
that is, under international control. Every state will have to
cede some of its independence to ensure a world peace. The present
generation will probably not live to see this great pacifist
movement fully completed. It cannot be carried out rapidly, but I
consider it our duty to put ourselves at the head of the movement
and do all that lies in human power to hasten its achievement. The
conclusion of peace will establish the fundamental principles.

If the first principle be laid down as the compulsory
international arbitration system as well as general disarmament on
land, the second one must be that of the freedom of the high seas
and disarmament at sea. I purposely say the high seas, as I do not
extend the idea to straits or channels, and I readily allow that
special rules and regulations must be laid down for the connecting
sea routes. If these first two factors have been settled and
assured, any reason for territorial adjustments on the plea of
ensuring national safety is done away with, and this forms the
third fundamental principle of the new international basis. This
idea is the gist of the beautiful and sublime Note that His
Holiness the Pope addressed to the whole world. We have not gone
to war to make conquests, and we have no aggressive plans. If the
international disarmament that we so heartily are longing for be
adopted by our present enemies and becomes a fact, then we are in
no need of assurances of territorial safety; in that case, we can
give up the idea of expanding the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy,
provided, of course, that the enemy has entirely evacuated our own
territory.

The fourth principle to enforce in order to ensure a free and
peaceful development of the world after the hard times we have
experienced is the free economic participation by everyone and the
unconditional avoidance of an economic war; a war of that nature
must be excluded from all future contingencies. Before we conclude
peace we must have the positive assurance that our present enemies
have given up that idea.

Those, my honourable friends, are the principles of the new world
organisation as it presents itself to me, and they are all based
on general disarmament. Germany, in her answer to the Papal Note,
has also positively recognised the idea of a general disarmament.
Our present enemies have likewise, partly at any rate, adopted
these principles. I differ from Lloyd George in most points, but
agree thoroughly on one--that there nevermore should be a war of
revenge.

The impression made by my speech on the Entente surpassed the most
pessimistic expectations. In order not to approach too closely the
subject of their own disarmament, my propositions were said to be
hypocritical and a peace trap. This needs no comment.

Had the Entente replied that I must obtain the support of and secure a
guarantee from Germany that she would disarm, it would have been an
opportunity for me, with the help of the nations, to exercise the
greatest possible pressure on Germany's leaders. But the sword was
knocked out of my hand by the Entente themselves, for the retort came
from Berlin: Here is the proof that the Entente rejects our offer of
disarmament as they reject everything coming from us. There is only
one way out of it--a fight to the end and then victory.

Again did the Entente force the peoples of the Central Powers to side
unconditionally with the generals.

Never in the whole term of my office did I receive so many letters as
after my speech--both for and against, with both sides equally
impetuous. "Death sentences" from Germany were showered on me; scorn
and contempt alternated with genuine sympathy and agreement.

In the autumn of 1917 the peace movement diminished visibly. The
U-boat fiasco was very obvious. England saw that she was able to
overcome the danger. The German military leaders still spoke of the
positively expected successes of their submarines, but the tenor of
their predictions became very different. There was no longer any talk
of the downfall of England within a few months. A new winter campaign
was almost a certainty, and yet the Germans insisted that though
mistakes occurred in the term fixed, this was not so respecting the
ultimate effect of the U-boats and that England would collapse. The
U-boat warfare had achieved this amount of success, that the Western
front remained intact, though it would otherwise have fallen.

The military situation underwent a change in the autumn. The end of
the war in the East was within sight, and the possibility of being
able to fling the enormous masses of troops from the East into the
line in the West, and at last break through there, greatly improved
the situation.

It was not on the sea that the U-boat campaign had brought about a
decision, but it enabled a final decision on land to be made; such was
the new military opinion. Paris and Calais could not be taken.

In these different phases of military hopes and expectation we floated
like a boat on a stormy sea. In order to land in the haven of peace,
we needed a military wave to carry us nearer to the land; then only
could we unfurl the sail of understanding that would help us to reach
the saving shores. As long as the enemy persisted only in dealing with
the crushed and depopulated Central Powers all was in vain.

I never believed in the success of the U-boat warfare. I believed in a
break-through on the Western front, and during the winter of 1917-1918
lived in the hope that by such means we might break the obstinate love
of destruction in our enemies.

As long as our adversaries' peace terms remained the same peace was
impossible, as was also the bringing of any outside pressure to bear
on Germany, for it was true that "the German army was fighting more to
support Austria-Hungary than it was for its own existence."

Threatening and breathing disaster, the decisions of the Pact of
London confronted us. They forced us always to take up arms again, and
drove us back into the field.

* * * * *

At the time of writing these lines, in June, 1919, Austria has long
ceased to exist. There is only left now a small, impoverished,
wretched land called German-Austria, a country without army or money;
helpless, starving, and wellnigh in despair. This country has been
told of the peace terms at St. Germain. It has been told it must give
up the Tyrol as to be handed over to Italy. And defenceless and
helpless as it is, it sends up a cry of despair and frantic grief. One
voice only is heard--such peace is impossible!

How could an Austrian Government accept the dictates of London at a
time when our armies stood far advanced in enemy country, unvanquished
and unbroken, when we had for Ally the strongest land Power in the
world, and when the greatest generals of the war so firmly believed in
the break-through and in final victory?

To demand that in 1917 or 1918 I should have accepted peace terms
which in 1919 were rejected by the whole of the German-Austrian people
is sheer madness. But it may be there is method in such madness. The
method of using every means to discredit the "old regime."

* * * * *

In the beginning of August, 1917, an effort was made at a
_rapprochement_ between England and Germany which, unfortunately,
almost immediately broke down.

At the suggestion of England a neutral Power had sounded Germany with
regard to Belgium. Germany replied that she was ready for direct
verbal negotiations with England on the Belgian question. In
transmitting this favourable answer, Germany did not entrust it to the
same neutral Power that had brought the message, but for some unknown
reason confided it to a trusted messenger from another neutral
country. This latter appears to have been guilty of some indiscreet
dealings, and when rumours of the affair reached Paris it caused some
anxiety. It was probably thought there that England was more
interested in the Belgian than in the Alsace-Lorraine question.

The messenger sent from Berlin thought that his task had failed, and
sent word to Berlin that, owing to his errand having been made known,
the opinion among the Entente was that every step taken by Germany was
condemned beforehand to failure.

The Government which had employed the messenger took up the case on
its own initiative, and transmitted the German reply to London. No
answer was ever received from England.

This is the account as given to me _post festum_ by Berlin, and
doubtless reflects Berlin's views. Whether the incident in detail was
exactly as described, or whether many more hitherto unknown events
took place, has not been proved.

During the war all happenings on the other side of the trenches were
looked upon with dim and gloomy eyes as through a veil, and, according
to news received by me later, it was not clear whether England had
sent an answer. Whether it was dispatched and held up on the way, or
what became of it I never knew. It is said never to have reached
Berlin.

A warlike speech by Asquith on September 27 appears to be connected
with this unsuccessful attempt, and served to calm the Allies.

It appears extremely doubtful to me, however, whether this advance
would have led to anything, had the occasion been more favourable. The
previously mentioned letter of the Imperial Chancellor Michaelis dates
from those August days, a letter referring to Belgian projects which
were very far removed from the English ideas on the subject. And even
if it had been possible to settle the Belgian question, there would
have been that of Alsace-Lorraine, which linked France and England
together, and, first and foremost, the question of disarmament. The
chasm that divided the two camps would have grown so wide that no
bridge could possibly have spanned it.

Not until January, 1918, did I learn the English version. According to
that, the Germans are said to have taken the first steps, and the
English were not disinclined to listen, but heard nothing further. It
was stated in _Vorwaerts_ that the suggestion was made at the
instigation of the Cabinet Council, but that subsequently military
influence gained the upper hand. The episode did not tend to improve
the frame of mind of the leading men in England.

In the early summer of 1917 conditions seemed favourable for peace and
the hope of arriving at an understanding, though still far distant,
was not exactly a Utopian dream. How far the hope of splitting our
group and the failure of the U-boat warfare may have contributed to
stiffen the desire for war in the Entente countries cannot definitely
be stated. Both factors had a share in it. Before we came to a
deadlock in the negotiations, the position was such that even in case
of a separate peace we should have been compelled to accept the terms
of the conference of London. Whether the Entente would have abandoned
that basis if we had not veered from the straight course, and by
unofficial cross-purposes become caught in the toils of separatist
desires, but had quickly and consistently carried out our task, is not
proved, and never will be. After the debacle in the winter of 1918-19
it was intimated to me as a fact that when Clemenceau came into power
a peace of understanding with Germany became out of the question. His
standpoint was that Germany must be definitely vanquished and crushed.
Our negotiations, however, had begun under Briand, and Clemenceau only
came into power when the peace negotiations had become entangled and
were beginning to falter.

With regard to Austria-Hungary, both France and England would have
welcomed a separate peace on our part, even during Clemenceau's period
of office; but in that case we should have had to accept the terms of
the London conference.

Such was the peace question then. How it would have developed if no
misleading policy had come into being naturally cannot be stated.

I am not putting forward suppositions but confirming facts. And the
fact remains that the failure of the U-boat campaign on the one hand,
and a policy carried on behind the backs of the responsible men on the
other hand, were the reasons why the favourable moment passed and the
peace efforts were checked. And I herewith repeat that this fact does
not in itself prove that peace negotiations would not also have failed
later if the two reasons mentioned above had not existed.

It became quite clear in the autumn that the war would have to
continue. In my speeches to delegations I endeavoured to leave no
doubt that we were faithful to our Allies. When I said "I see no
difference between Strassburg and Trieste," I said it chiefly for
Sofia and Constantinople, for the overthrow of the Quadruple Alliance
was the greatest danger. I still hoped to be able to prop the
trembling foundations of the Alliance policy, and either to secure a
general peace in the East, where the military opposition was giving
way, or to see it draw nearer through the anticipated German
break-through on the Western front.

Several months after my dismissal in the summer of 1918 I spoke in the
Herrenhaus on foreign policy, and warned everyone present against
trying to undermine the Quadruple Alliance. When I declared that
"honour, duty to the Alliance, and the call for self-preservation
compel us to fight by the side of Germany," I was misunderstood. It
did not seem as though the public realised that the moment the Entente
thought the Quadruple Alliance was about to break up, from that moment
our cause was lost. Had the public no knowledge of the London
agreement? Did they not know that a separate peace would hand us over
totally defenceless to those cruel conditions? Did they not realise
that the German army was the shield that afforded us the last and only
possibility of escaping the fate of being broken up?

My successor steered the same course as I had done, doubtless from the
same reasons of honour and the call for self-preservation. I have no
particulars as to what occurred in the summer of 1918.

Afterwards events followed in rapid succession. First came our
terrible defeat in Italy, then the Entente break-through on the
Western front, and finally the Bulgarian secession, which had
gradually been approaching since the summer of 1917.


3

As is the case in all countries, among the Entente during the war
there were many and varied currents of thought. When Clemenceau came
into office the definite destruction of Germany was the dominant war
aim.

To those who neither see nor hear the secret information which a
Foreign Minister naturally has at his disposal, it may appear as
though the Entente, in the question of crushing Germany's military
strength, had sometimes been ready to make concessions. I think that
this may have been the case in the spring of 1917, but not later, when
any such hope was deceptive. Lansdowne in particular spoke and wrote
in a somewhat friendly tone, but Lloyd George was the determining
influence in England.

When sounding England on different occasions, I endeavoured to
discover by what means the dissolution of the military power in
Germany was to be or could be guaranteed--and I invariably came to an
_impasse_. It was never explained how England intended to carry out
the proposal.

The truth is that there is no way of disarming a strong and determined
people except by defeating them, but such an aim was not to be openly
admitted to us in the preliminary dealings. The delegates could not
suggest any suitable mode of discussion, and no other proposals could
lead to a decision.

Lansdowne, and perhaps Asquith as well, would have been content with a
parliamentary regime which would have deprived the Emperor of power
and given it to the Reichstag. Not so Lloyd George; at least, not
later. The English Prime Minister's well-known speech, "A disarmament
treaty with Germany would be a treaty between a fox and many geese,"
conveyed what he really thought.

After my Budapest speech, which was treated with such scorn and
contempt in the Press and by public opinion on the other side of the
Channel, word was sent to me from an English source that it was said
the "Czernin scheme" might settle the question. But again it was not
Lloyd George who said that.

Owing to the extreme distrust that Clemenceau, the English Prime
Minister, and with them the great majority in France and England, had
of Germany's intentions, no measure could be devised that would have
given London and Paris a sufficient guarantee for a future peaceful
policy. From the summer of 1917, no matter what Germany had proposed,
Lloyd George would always have rejected it as inadequate.

In consequence of this it was quite immaterial later to the course of
the war that Germany not only did nothing whatever to allay English
fears, but, on the contrary, poured oil in the fire and fanned the
flames.

Germany, the leading military Power in the war, never for one moment
thought of agreeing to disarmament under international control. After
my speech in Budapest I was received in Berlin not in an unfriendly
manner, but with a sort of pity, as some poor insane person might be
treated. The subject was avoided as much as possible. Erzberger alone
told me of his complete agreement with me.

Had Germany been victorious her militarism would have increased
enormously. In the summer of 1917 I spoke to several generals of high
standing on the Western front, who unanimously declared that after the
war armaments must be maintained, but on a very much greater scale.
They compared this war with the first Punic War. It would be continued
and its continuation be prepared for; in short, the tactics of
Versailles. The standard of violence must be planted, and would be the
banner of the generals, the Pan-Germans, the Fatherland Party, etc.
etc. They thought as little about a reconciliation of the nations
after the war as did the Supreme Council of Four at Versailles, and
Emperor, Government and Reichstag floundered helplessly in this
torrent of violent purpose.

The military spirit flourished on the Spree as it is doing now on the
Seine and the Thames. Lloyd George and Unter den Linden in Berlin.
The only difference between Foch and Ludendorff is that the one is a
Frenchman and the other a German; as men they are as like as two peas.

The Entente is victorious, and many millions are delighted and declare
that the policy of Might is justified. The future only can show
whether this is not a terrible mistake. The lives of hundreds of
thousands of young, hopeful men who have fallen might have been saved
if in 1917 peace had been made possible for us. The triumph of victory
cannot call them back to life again. It appears to me that the Entente
has conquered too much, too thoroughly. The madness of expiring
militarism, in spite of all its orgies, has perhaps celebrated its
last triumph at Versailles.


Postscript.

Taking it altogether, the real historical truth concerning the peace
movement is that, in general, neither the Entente nor the ruling,
all-powerful military party in Germany wished for a peace of
understanding. They both wished to be victorious and to enforce a
peace of violence on the defeated adversary. The leading men in
Germany--Ludendorff above all--never had a genuine intention of
releasing Belgium in an economic and political sense; neither would
they agree to any sacrifices. They wished to conquer in the East and
the West, and their arbitrary tendencies counteracted the pacifist
leaning of the Entente as soon as there were the slightest indications
of it. On the other hand, the leading men in the Entente--Clemenceau
from the first and Lloyd George later--were firmly resolved to crush
Germany, and therefore profited by the continuous German threats to
suppress all pacifist movements in their own countries, always ready
to prove that a peace of understanding with Berlin would be a "pact
between the fox and the geese."

Thanks to the attitude of the leading Ministers in Germany, the
Entente was fully persuaded that an understanding with Germany was
quite out of the question, and insisted obstinately on peace terms
which could not be accepted by a Germany still unbeaten. This closes
the _circular vitiosus_ which paralysed all negotiating activities.

_We_ were wedged in between these two movements and unable to strike
out for ourselves, because the Entente, bound by their promises to
their Allies, had already disposed of us by the Pact of London and the
undertakings to Roumania and Serbia. We therefore _could_ not exercise
extreme pressure on Germany, as we were unable to effect the annulment
of those treaties.

In the early summer of 1917 the possibility of an understanding
_seemed_ to show itself on the horizon, but it was wrecked by the
previously mentioned events.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Helfferich's _expose_ is reproduced in the Appendix. (See p. 288.)

[9] At this time I did not know that my secret report to the Emperor
was handed over to Herr Erzberger and not kept secret by him. (Later it
was made public through the revelations of Count Wedel.)

[10] The disclosures made by Count Wedel and Helfferich concerning
Erzberger are only a link in the chain.




CHAPTER VII

WILSON


Through the dwindling away of the inclination for peace in the enemy
camp we were faced in the autumn of 1917 by the prospect either of
concluding separate peace and accepting the many complicated
consequences of a war with Germany and the ensuing mutilation of the
Monarchy under the terms of the Pact of London, or else fighting on
and, aided by our Allies, breaking the will for destruction of our
enemies.

If Russia was the one to let loose war, it was Italy who perpetually
stood in the way of a peace of understanding, insisting upon obtaining
under all circumstances the whole of the Austrian territory promised
to her in 1915. The Entente during the war assigned the several parts
to be enacted. France was to shed the most blood; England, besides her
fabulous military action, to finance the war, together with America,
and diplomatic affairs to be in Italy's hands. Far too little is known
as yet, and will only later be public knowledge, as to the extent to
which Italian diplomacy dominated affairs during the war. Our
victories in Italy would only have changed the situation if the
defeats that were suffered had led to an Italian revolution and a
complete overthrow of the regime existing there. In other words, the
Royal Government would not be influenced in its attitude by our
victories. Even had our armies advanced much farther than they did, it
would have held to its standpoint in the expectation that, perhaps not
Italy herself, but her Allies, would secure final victory.

Such was the situation in the autumn of 1917 when Wilson came forward
with his Fourteen Points.

The advantage of the Wilson programme in the eyes of the whole world
was its violent contrast to the terms of the Pact of London. The right
of self-determination for the nations had been utterly ignored in
London by the allotment of German Tyrol to Italy. Wilson forbade this
and declared that nations could not be treated against their will and
moved hither and thither like the pieces in a game of chess. Wilson
said that every solution of a territorial question arising out of this
war must be arrived at in the interests and in favour of the peoples
concerned, and not as a mere balancing or compromise of claims from
rival sources; and further, that all clearly stated national claims
would receive the utmost satisfaction that could be afforded them,
without admitting new factors or the perpetuation of old disputes or
oppositions, which in all probability would soon again disturb the
peace of Europe and the whole world. A general peace, established on
such a basis could be discussed--and more in the same strain.

The publication of this clear and absolutely acceptable programme
seemed from day to day to render possible a peaceful solution of the
world conflict. In the eyes of millions of people this programme
opened up a world of hope. A new star had risen on the other side of
the ocean, and all eyes were turned in that direction. A mighty man
had come forward and with one powerful act had upset the London
resolutions and, in so doing, had reopened the gates for a peace of
understanding.

From the first moment the main question was, so it seemed, what hopes
were there of Wilson's programme being carried out in London, Paris
and, above all, in Rome?

Secret information sent to me from the Entente countries seemed to
suggest that the Fourteen Points were decidedly not drawn up in
agreement with England, France and Italy. On the other hand I was, and
still am, fully persuaded that Wilson had spoken honestly and
sincerely and, as a matter of fact, believed that his programme could
be carried out.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.