763.72119/1271½
Mr. Frank E. Anderson to the Secretary of State
Report of a Visit to Austria and Hungary in December, 191760
The items of information gained from the interviews and observations being the most important part of the report, they will be stated under various heads at the beginning instead of summarized at the end and are as follows:
1st: The feeling of war-weariness is plainly evident and the desire for peace is universal throughout Austria and Hungary, both on the part of the Government, including the Emperor (whom Count Apponyi described as “the greatest pacifist” he knows), and on the part of the people; and the necessity for an early peace on account of present conditions is most pressing.
2nd: Notwithstanding the pressure of necessity and the sacrifices endured by the people, no separate peace with the Entente is considered possible. Suggestions for a separate peace have been made by unreliable demagogues, but the people, though blaming Germany for desiring conquest, annexations, and other obstacles to peace, repudiate the suggestions. Count Apponyi said it would be “infamy more than could be described” for them to make a separate peace, that any amount of suffering will be endured before that could happen. This was confirmed after his conference with the Emperor Carl and Count Czernin. This was supported by Mr. Drucker of the Vienna Bank Verein, speaking for financial and industrial circles, and by the leading social democrat of the Austrian Parliament, Dr. Julius Offner, speaking for the common people.
3rd: That Austria and Hungary will yield to their necessities and consent to any terms, outside of disgrace, to obtain peace. In a conference to which Germany shall be a party, they will oppose the demands of the Pan-Germanists and support the aims of the Entente if in accordance with the “Wilson policy”. (I left Austria before the speech of Lloyd George of January 5th, which moderated his aims in regard to Germany as previously understood; and before that date Count Apponyi said Lloyd George’s policy to continue fighting [Page 74] would mean “only butchery of the fighting forces without victory for either side”.
4th: That 95 per cent, of the people of Austria-Hungary and a very large majority of the German people are antagonistic to the German Junker Party or Pan-Germanists. It was affirmed by several of those I interviewed that out of a total population of 125,000,000 in the Central Powers, more than 100,000,000 are opposed to the military party.
5th: That in Austria a far more correct understanding of the will of the German people exists than that known to the outside world. That the German press is largely owned by the militarists, many papers having been recently purchased by the Krupp funds. What papers are not owned by them are for the most part censored in their interest. The will of the German people is known to Count Czernin, who is in constant communication with Count von Hertling and von Kuehlmann.
6th: It is known in Austria that the majority of the German people favor peace on the basis of no annexations, reduction of armaments, arbitration of disputes, and an established international organization to prevent future wars. The Chancellor, who is now speaking for the people of Germany, has declared himself in perfect sympathy with the announcement of the above aims stated by Count Czernin in Budapest and sanctioned by the Hungarian Parliament. No such definite declaration of German aims has been made public to the world at large before. Von Kuehlmann, now acting in accordance with the will of the German majority in the Reichstag, has recently consistently held to the “no annexations policy” and has stated, according to Count Apponyi, that “There is nothing now in the way of peace except on the part of the Entente nations,” and that “Alsace-Lorraine is the only question that remains to be settled to obtain peace.” As to the authority of the Chancellor to speak for the people of Germany, Count Apponyi says, “No Chancellor can now exist who has not the good will of the Reichstag.” He says this has been proved by the removal of Michaelis and the appointment of von Hertling and is confirmed by information from German sources which I obtained and cabled to you from Holland at the time von Hertling was proposed.
7th: What seems the most important result of all the information is the invitation sent through me to the Entente for a “conversation”, as it was called, in the interests of democratization. Not a peace conference, but a meeting between a few representatives (not more than three or four for the entire Entente and three or four for the Central Powers and their allies). The kind of democratization that will be required and the kind that could be conceded would be discussed and [Page 75] probably an agreement on that important condition to a settlement would be reached. The will of the majority of the people of Germany would become known and the full support of Austria and Hungary would be for fair enfranchisements. Many misunderstandings that exist today, according to Count Apponyi, would be removed. The “conversation” so held would be of an unbinding nature and could do no harm. Democratization could be brought about in friendly conference but not enforced on the point of an enemy’s sword. While all of the belligerents might be entitled to a knowledge of the meeting, it should be kept from the press until actually an accomplished fact. On the first interview, Count Apponyi said that the Central Powers could not again call a conference as they were so repulsed in regard to the call of December 1916, but at the second interview, after his conference with Emperor Carl and Count Czernin and just after Czernin’s conference at the Court of Berlin, the above proposal was made and I agreed to carry it to the President of the United States for him to decide whether it should be submitted to the Governments of the Entente or not. Count Apponyi believes that a greater burden of responsibility rests upon President Wilson than on any one man since the days of Moses and that a greater aggregate of confidence is placed in his wisdom than was ever bestowed on any one man since the beginning of the world. If it should be decided to take any further steps in regard to this meeting, the proposal as far as Austria is concerned is only known to Czernin, Apponyi and the Emperor Carl, and I have means of communicating with them on the subject through their Legations either in Holland or Switzerland.
8th: From observations as to conditions:—The first impression of abnormal conditions is received in traveling after crossing the frontier. In Austria and in Hungary the accommodations are far from adequate for the number of people traveling; fares have been doubled and in some instances trebled, but it does not seem to restrict sufficiently the number of passengers. Every train is crowded and many were compelled to stand in the corridors, beside over-crowding the seats in all the trains that I used. Sleeping cars and dining cars are withdrawn even from long distance trains and for lack of food many station restaurants have been discontinued and others in Austria only serve tea or coffee without a particle of sugar or milk, with not even bread or a biscuit to eat. Passengers on the trains carried a dark-colored bread, from which they cut a chunk with a pocket knife and ate it with apparent satisfaction. Probably the number of travelers seems larger than normal on account of fewer trains, but it is enough to indicate that people have money to spend, which fact is confirmed by the crowded hotels that are charging high prices but are constantly full. At Vienna, I was refused at five hotels that [Page 76] showed me waiting lists and finally got a room reserved for a party that did not arrive at a cost of 34 Kronen per day. At Budapest, after being refused at four hotels, I was taken in by a New Yorker who keeps the Astoria Hotel, after he had refused fifty people that night. It was two hours before he had a closet fixed up where I could spend the night. In Budapest the hotels were very gay; music and dancing go on in most of them during the evening. As in other countries, labor is well employed and well paid in Austria and Hungary. Food seemed scarcer in Austria than in Hungary. I did not see any butter, milk or sugar in Vienna, but had a limited supply in Budapest. One does not see poverty, if any exists. Throngs of people are on the streets and in the shops. The street cars running trailers of three and four are packed so that I did not get further than the platforms on any occasion when I used them. It was the time for Christmas shopping and Christmas trees in abundance were offered on the streets and the usual advertising of gifts displayed. There were lines of people at different places where food is dispensed, but the lines were no longer than I had seen in London. Walking close to these lines, I saw no distress and though it was a very cold day with snow on the ground, the people seemed good-natured and patient. The bread allowance while I was there was 219 grammes per day per person, equal to about six average sized rolls.
9th: Regarding Count Karolyi:—Without disclosing any information as to what I had learned in regard to Count Karolyi having made suggestions to this Government, I tried to learn what I could about him. Count Apponyi volunteered information at the first part of our interview, apparently supposing I had talked with Karolyi, but I had not. He spoke of not agreeing with him, that he had ideas he could not carry out and was chimerical. Apponyi said at times he (Karolyi) had quarrelled with the Ministers of his Government, but thought he would prove himself a patriot in an emergency. . . .
10th: Regarding possibilities of revolution in Austria-Hungary:—It was said in Germany before the late declaration of war by the United States against Austria-Hungary, that people in Germany thought such a declaration might precipitate a revolution in Austria. I talked with the proprietor of the hotel where I was staying at considerable length on this subject. His occupation brought him into contact with men of many different points of view. He said that personally he would be glad to see a revolution, as he thought it would force the issue and he wanted peace at any cost. His profitable business he would willingly see ruined if that would bring peace, but the people of Austria and Hungary he said might strike for wages, or even fight against the profiteers and capitalists, but they would never take arms against their King (Carl is the King of Hungary and [Page 77] Emperor of Austria). The barber who shaved me, an elderly man, has a son who went to Texas and is now in the United States army, and another son fighting in the Austrian army. As one of the people he has the inherited sentiment for his King, something akin to that felt by Americans for their flag. He said there would be no resistance to the Government, but the people would go as far as they could to have peace. He, himself, hated the Germans, who he thought were responsible for this war. This expression of hatred of the German war party seems general. Dr. Julius Offner, whose philanthropy has gained for him the devotion of the common people, does not believe revolution could ever proceed beyond its incipiency in either Austria or Hungary. There is much discontent and a sensational orator might secure a temporary following.
Having stated some of the results of my interviews in Vienna and Budapest, I give below the reasons for going to those places.
In 1915, I was in Berlin for several weeks in connection with obtaining dye stuffs from Germany for interests in the United States and for the Bradford Dyers Association of England. The latter company had been probably the largest purchasers of German dyes in the world and at that time held a Royal License from the Crown in England to trade with the enemy on this particular commodity. In this way I became intimately acquainted with German officials and some of the industrial barons there, so far that I was entertained in their homes; also with connections of theirs in Holland, some of whom were parties to the pro-forma contracts made on the dye stuff business. These channels and the acquaintance I had with Count Apponyi when he was in this country, gave me opportunities for obtaining information of value and I offered my services to the Government. I foretold of the proposal of the Pope before it was made public and knew the source of its inspiration, which has since been confirmed. In Holland, from residence there and from some of my German acquaintances who came there, I learned of, and cabled to this Government advance information regarding plans for constitutional changes in Germany, the proposed appointment of a non-militarist Chancellor, and other matters, some of which have already been accomplished. Through one of my German acquaintances, I was presented to a member of the Austrian Legation at The Hague, who told me of the Emperor Carl’s support of the new Peoples’ Party in Germany and the Emperor’s regret that diplomatic relations had been severed with the United States because misunderstandings had arisen between the two countries. These items I cabled to the Department at the time. At a second meeting with the member of the Austrian Legation, I told him of my desire to meet Count Apponyi unofficially and that I had telegraphed Count Apponyi from [Page 78] The Hague asking if a meeting could be arranged at some neutral point but had received no answer. I told him of my acquaintance with Count Apponyi in America and that I would like to consult with him as to the possibility of establishing his idea of an international parliament subsequent to the war. I had discussed this subject with him when he was in the United States in 1910. I felt sufficiently acquainted with Count Apponyi to send him such a telegram and thought I could not serve my Government better than to obtain an interview with him. This was in October last before any declaration of war against Austria-Hungary. The member of the Legation said he would talk with his chief and consult the Foreign Office and Count Apponyi. I went to London and back before seeing him again, but on my return he told me that Count Apponyi would be glad to meet me if I could go to Switzerland, as it would take more time for him to go to Holland and he could not be absent from his duties for so long. They wanted my reply if I would go to Switzerland and for me to name the day I would meet him there, so that he could arrange in advance for his absence. Berne was the place appointed and Saturday, November 24th, the day. I did not arrive until Sunday, November 25th. On Saturday the 24th, Karolyi arrived at Berne. On the 25th, he asked to have an interview with Mr. Wilson, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of our Legation at Berne. I thought at that time that Apponyi and Karolyi were co-workers, as they had been before. (I found out my mistake afterward.) But due to the coincidence of Karolyi arriving on the day set for meeting Apponyi, I supposed he had come in his stead. I went to the Austrian Legation from my train that Sunday evening to announce my arrival and learned that Karolyi was in town. They had been advised from the Legation at The Hague and by the Foreign Office at Vienna of my coming and the object of my visit. The secretary took me in his own car to the house of the Minister, Baron Mousselin, who thought he should not interfere in any way with Count Karolyi’s intentions, but advised my going to Karolyi’s hotel and advising him of my arrival. I did so, but only saw his secretary, who was very anxious I should see his chief. I waited some time but did not see him at all. He saw Wilson that same Sunday evening and you have the substance of his statements.
Apponyi was repeatedly prevented from coming to Berne. Cabinet matters were at a crisis then. On Tuesday, December 4th, a telegram came stating that Count Apponyi could not come to Berne, that he would send a Mr. De Pukovics to represent him, or, if I could come to Austria to see him, I would receive a safe conduct from the Foreign Office within 48 hours and I could come to Vienna. Knowing that my real object to get information for my Government would be defeated [Page 79] if I did not meet Apponyi himself, I cabled to Washington that I was offered a safe-conduct and would proceed to Vienna unless advised of the Government’s disapproval before leaving. This cable I handed in at the Legation on Tuesday, but learned afterwards it was not sent out until Wednesday morning. My safe-conduct papers were issued on Thursday but I did not start until Friday p. m. Mr. Wilson advised me not to go. The banker who furnished me with Austrian money told me the last Englishman who had gone in had not been heard from since and the least that would happen to me would be to be interned until the end of the war, if not ordered “to be shot before sunrise.” I could not see why my Government could object if I was willing to take the risk and do not yet understand why cables were sent later expressing disapproval. The Austrian Legations and the Vienna Foreign Office knew that I was acting unofficially and the safe conduct was granted to me personally as a friend of Count Apponyi’s desiring to visit him. I arranged on leaving Berne on Friday afternoon that Mr. Wilson could reach me at Zurich if any later message came, and to make sure, I telephoned him to Berne from Zurich late Friday night, but nothing had been received. Saturday I went on and was then beyond recall and proceeded to do what I considered my duty. I was treated with marked courtesy everywhere, but traveling such long distances under present conditions was a severe trial of endurance. I will not fill space with a description of the discomforts.
The balance of this report embodies partly cables sent through the Legation to the Department and particulars of interviews with Count Apponyi from notes made after the interviews and approved when submitted to him. At Budapest and Vienna most important interviews were held. The description of Count Apponyi given me at the Vienna Foreign Office is that he is the wise man of the age, one whose opinions are the outcome of study and sifted evidence, which have for their bases confirmed facts and that he is the broadest visioned aristocrat in the dual empire.
The remarkable accuracy of Count Apponyi’s predictions were commented on by Count Coloredo-Mansfeld, Chief of the Foreign Office, who married Miss Iselin of New York, and by Count Ambrozy, who was for nine years in the Austrian Embassy at Washington.
In 1910, when Count Apponyi was in the United States, he said: “The next outbreak would set the world on fire and even the United States might be drawn into the vortex by the complications which would arise.” This appears in Apponyi’s pamphlet published in 1911, in our Congressional Library as pamphlet “JX 1963 A7 Apponyi”, which contains other counsel of value and interest today. Apponyi is constantly consulted by Count Czernin, who is his intimate [Page 80] friend, as well as by the leaders of the new party in Germany, whose strength and intentions are known to him. His universal knowledge and experience exceptionally qualify him for his position in the Cabinet as Minister of Education. My former reports to you from German sources of the change in constitution and the plans for reforms are stated by him to be in existence but these reforms he says must be established by voluntary action on the part of the people. At Budapest our first interview extended over two hours, after which Count Apponyi concluded that we two should go to Vienna the next day and there he would consult with Count Czernin, who had just returned from a trip to Berlin and I would be presented by him to Count Czernin. This I felt constrained to decline with regret, stating to Count Apponyi that my Government had given consent to my meeting him unofficially but that until I had the further approval of my Government, I should do nothing further than what it already had knowledge of. Apponyi then stated that he would have something further to say to me after seeing Count Czernin. The notes made on our first interview and confirmed by Count Apponyi, follow: Without any allusion to this subject by me, Count Apponyi was most emphatic in stating that Austria-Hungary would never make any separate peace that did not include Germany. “It was not to be thought of.” He mentioned Galicia, Transylvania and Italy and that the Germans had saved them at those three points. It would be “infamy worse than could be described” for them to separate from Germany. He believes a peace that would be acceptable to the Entente can be had now. Victory for the Entente is possible on the terms of the “Wilson policy”. He referred to recent speeches by Count Czernin and by von Kuehlmann, which he considers of great importance and significance. He said Kuehlmann’s speech implied concessions in regard to Belgium and other items of disagreement between the belligerents. He said guarantees would be given and required by both sides. The people of the Central Powers desire peace and have declared that they are in favor of a reduction of armament and arbitration of disputes.
He thinks it a great mistake that the proposal for a conference made in December 1916 was not acted upon then. No one was committed or bound to any conditions but much would have been gained. If the contending parties could meet together, there might be obstacles to agreement at first, but in one or two days or in one or two weeks they might one by one disappear.
He says there is much misunderstanding in regard to existing conditions in Germany in respect to democratization. The election to the Reichstag “rests upon the broadest franchise that exists throughout [Page 81] the world and is absolutely without corruption.” Election expenses as understood in England and America are scarcely known in Germany. Every male of the population has his vote for his representative in the Reichstag. Reforms are proposed and being considered in regard to the Prussian body, but the Reichstag is the voice of the people. “No Chancellor can now exist who has not the good will of the Reichstag.” He said the Reichstag is for peace and not for war. Whether the reforms proposed for enfranchisements in the Landtag are accomplished or not (and they will be), that body can not affect the vote of the Reichstag any more than a vote of the New York Legislature can affect the vote of the National Congress.
He was greatly disappointed when the United States went into the war with Germany and many of his countrymen do not feel convinced that the real aim of the United States is to change the constitutional government of Germany. One reason why they do not believe that to be the aim is because the leading statesmen of the United States must know that change of government can only be brought about from the inside and not from without. “Democracy must come as a friend.” The hostile action at this time is disturbing and not helping Democracy. He also regrets that the United States went into the war, because he hoped that they would have remained impartial and in a position to act as a fair judge in the final settlement. He says the war party in Germany is in the minority and the peace party has a very large majority. The quotations from, extremists that have been circulated so widely in England and the United States (from writings by Nietzsche, Treitschke, Bernhardi and others), purporting to represent the views of the German people and their worship of the war god are what might be collected from the extreme eccentric writers of any country and be equally misleading.
He thinks militarism is not now confined to any country and the adjective should be changed from German militarism to international militarism. It is prevailing in all countries now. France has had for many years the burden of a military establishment too great for her population. With a smaller population than Germany, she has tried to maintain as large an army. He said France’s army has done well and German experts commend several of their achievements, but Germany had undoubtedly made the best use of her military organization.
In Vienna the morning after returning from Budapest, I received a telephone call from Count Apponyi to the effect that he would see me at 4 p. m., as he had been commanded to be in attendance at the Royal Closet that day. It was reported in the papers by the Havas [Page 82] Agency that Emperor Charles received on Friday Count Czernin and that Count Apponyi was present.
The second interview with Apponyi took place after he had been in consultation with Emperor Charles and Count Czernin and was much longer than the first. Beside the statements made by Count Apponyi at this time, he gave me a written statement over his own autograph, which will be appended later. He said the declaration of war by the United States has had a depressing effect upon the people. Apponyi himself can not understand the action of the United States in declaring war on Austria-Hungary, as nothing has occurred to warrant it since the time of our declaration of war against Germany. He said the unfounded optimism of Lloyd George (which has been somewhat curbed since then) is due either to a desire to mislead his own people or to blind ignorance of existing conditions. Victory for the Allies can now be secured on what might be termed the “Wilson policy”. Only butchery of the fighting forces can be the result of Lloyd George’s present policy. This referred to his policy as declared before January 5th. Apponyi says that if peace is made with Russia it will result in the release to Germany of 2,000,000 fighting men who are trained to their duties. He took his pencil and figured that before America could put that number in the field, at least 1½ years would expire. If such a number were now ready, it would mean the transportation each month of 110,000 men and supplies for them. He thinks it is the belief of Lloyd George that the war will be won by excess in numbers, but if so, the Central Powers will have the advantage. He does not think that this war will be ended by battles but by agreement and any advantage in fighting lies in superior efficiency. A victory for the Allies according to the Wilson policy can now be secured and the war stopped if the following can be arranged:
A conference, consisting of one representative each of France, England, United States, Austria-Hungary and Germany (and Italy if insisted upon) should be held either openly or secretly. No change is to occur pending the deliberations of this conference. No cessation of hostilities. No one is to be committed beforehand to acceptance of any terms. It would be what might be termed a meeting of the respective counsel of litigants without prejudice. The conference may disband and no harm is done, if it is their conviction that no agreement can be reached. He says the Kaiser will not resist the Reichstag, which is the voice of the people, and the Reichstag is for peace.
Concerning the supply of food, he said I could see that there was not plenty but that a supply sufficient to last will be conserved by limitation of consumption. He says the largest winter seed sowing [Page 83] that has ever been known has been made and is now being protected and fertilized by the early and very deep snows that now cover Austria-Hungary.
He said that obedience to any ruling international organization could be made compulsory. If the present world-wide economic distress could be concentrated against one offending power by international cooperation, it would compel obedience. Apponyi has long advocated international concerted action, but says that is a subject to be considered in the future. The autographed statement he gave me is as follows:
“I insist on the two facts below:
First: As stated by the Foreign Secretary Czernin in his speech lately delivered at Budapest, international arbitration, reduction of armaments and, in a general way, the setting up of an international machinery to prevent war is the official program of Austria-Hungary: it has been sanctioned by the Hungarian Parliament and accepted by Germany when the Chancellor (or the Foreign Secretary) declared himself in perfect sympathy with Czernin’s statement.
Second: Simply to try how difficulties could be set aside in a spirit of mutual good will, without any previous acceptance of certain conditions of peace, the Central Powers are always ready to accept a peace conference of representatives of the belligerents. It is France and England that decline even conversation of this unbinding nature. Pacifists are denounced as enemies of their country and even prosecuted legally in England and in France.
Democratic reforms, or reforms of any kind, if they are brought to us on the point of an enemy’s sword will always be rejected with scorn, even by the most advanced parties in our countries. The natural evolution towards democracy in these countries is greatly discouraged by their being made part of the war program of our enemies.
Signed: Albert Apponyi”
While I was at the Vienna Bank Verein, Count Anton Apponyi, nephew of Albert, entered as a customer of the bank and Mr. Drucker of the bank, who is a friend and great admirer of Mr. Penfield, introduced me to him. My interviews with Albert Apponyi were known to Anton, who spoke of them before Mr. Drucker and the latter became very much interested. He said that through Austro-Hungarian connections he was in touch with a number of important interests and while Count Apponyi’s statements were to be relied upon as exactly true, he thought I ought to get the views of men of other parties. I told him that I was not there as a representative of my Government or in any official capacity. He said, notwithstanding, he wished to talk with me unofficially and expressed a desire that some of the misunderstandings which he was of the opinion had been wilfully spread abroad should be cleared up. [Page 84] According to him, 99 per cent, of the people of Austria-Hungary are antagonistic to the Junker Party of Germany and their only adherents in the dual empire are men who because of their capital have been allowed to come in on financial deals and make profits possible on account of the war.
It was Mr. Drucker’s desire that I should meet one man, Dr. Julius Offner, one of the leading lawyers in Vienna, an authority on political economy and he said he was world-renowned as a publicist and a great philanthropist, beloved by the poor. I thought that his information pertaining to the position of the masses would be valuable in view of his being in touch with the common people. I met him with Mr. Drucker. He said 95 per cent, of the Austro-Hungarian people were opposed to the Junker or Pan-German Party of Germany. He was as emphatic as all others that there was no possibility of permanent revolution, disintegration or separation from Germany. He stated that the Junker Party, long in the minority, were dwindling and losing the influence of those in authority in Germany. What Count Apponyi had stated about election to the Reichstag was confirmed by him and he said the power of the Bundesrat to dissolve the Reichstag had never been exercised, that without the cooperation of two other Kingdoms, members of the German Empire, the Kaiser did not control the Bundesrat. He said that the Landtag at present was unfairly enfranchised but would be reformed by the Bill which has already been drawn. According to him, the Kaiser is a changed man. He said a tendency to make a powerful commercial man the Prime Minister is in evidence. He has a thorough knowledge of the German Government and German politics and said if I would submit a list of questions pertaining to the German political bodies through any of the Austro-Hungarian Legations, they would be answered by him through the same medium.
Upon my return from Vienna to Bern I learned of the Government’s cables of disapproval, of the instructions for me to inform the Austrian Legation that I went to Austria without the consent and against the wishes of the American authorities, and for me to proceed to London and await further instructions. Later in London I received instructions to return to America and report to the State Department, in accordance with which I am here at the present time.
I regret exceedingly having acted contrary to the wishes of my Government and certainly would have obeyed instructions if they had been received before I left. The Austrian authorities distinctly understood that I acted on my own initiative. On my final statement to [Page 85] them in accordance with your instructions as above, the secretary of their Legation at Berne told me that if desired they would give me in writing the statement: that from the first I had told them I was acting unofficially and not as a representative of the United States Government.
However, I cannot but feel that it is fortunate I did not receive the instructions as my information is quite positive that no separate peace will be made with the Entente, but that the German Peace Party is in a strong majority and have agreed with Count Czernin as to terms they will consent to, which terms are not now vague as claimed by Lloyd George in his speech of January 5th. Further than this, if the Entente will consent to the unbinding conference suggested, encouragement will be given to the democratic movement in Germany and Austria and Hungary will become the Allies of President Wilson in support of his policy as now declared.
Count Czernin has been consistent from the start and today confirms what he stated March 30th 1917, (a few days before we declared war against Germany) in the following words:
“As soon as our enemies abandon their unreasonable ideas of smashing us up; as soon as they are ready to negotiate for a peace honorable to them and to us, nothing stands in the way of negotiation.”
In regard to my sources of information in Holland, I would say that two of my German acquaintances are in the Kriegsministerium and naturally belong to the military party. The senior of the two has a son-in-law in Holland who has talked with me rather freely, but firmly believes that though battles may be lost and won Germany will never suffer military defeat. Two others are commercial men with large connections who look on conditions from the economic standpoint. They feel that the commercial defeat is of greater consequence to the Nation and are strong advocates for peace with no annexations and have fullest communication with the Peace Party in Germany. The Hollanders I know are some of them pro-German but for peace. Since Lloyd George’s withdrawal from his knockout “blow” attitude and the assurance now given that it is proposed that Germany shall have equal economic advantages with other nations, it would be valuable to obtain the present views through these sources, and I would like to return soon to Holland for that purpose.
The above report made at your request is respectfully submitted.
Yours faithfully,