File No. 862.00/225
The Minister in the Netherlands ( Garrett) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 1, 3.29 a.m.]
1712. Wolff1 reports Chancellor’s speech before Reichstag of which following is summary:
Count Hertling adverted briefly to his former parliamentary activity and stated that he had followed call of the Emperor from purely patriotic spirit and hoped that he could count on cooperation and confidence of Parliament in same spirit. He then discussed the favorable military situation on all fronts stating that Flanders front [Page 329] was firm as a rock and that English and French attacks had been in vain. The great victory in Italy had made it possible to relieve the western front. The English troops operating in Palestine had some initial successes which however were without influence on general situation. Fleet had given new proof of its efficiency in Baltic operations and successful repulse of English Fleet in German bight. The submarine war was proceeding systematically with its irresistible effects. It was the only successful weapon in economic war forced upon Germany by England for it was delivering a heart blow to the most dangerous enemy. The impressment of neutral tonnage would not help enemy, the submarines could always sink more vessels than could possibly be built. The proof was convincing that submarine war would attain the object set before it.
After words of thanks to the Army and to the people at home the Chancellor said that new credits would be asked which he hoped the Reichstag would vote without delay. He said that the war had awakened a greater interest in the institutions of the state and it had been asked whether they stood test of war or whether they should be replaced with new institutions. In this question it was important to make a proper choice and carry out with a firm hand the policy chosen. It was important not to be misguided by phrases or to lavishly imitate foreign institutions but to do what was responsive to the real needs of German public life as well as to the German spirit and the German nature. No changes could be made in the fundamentals of the Constitution which had grown with the German people but the Government would lend a willing ear to any suggestions for changes within the framework of the Constitution. The social policy in which Germany had taken lead in the world would be continued and extended. A bill for chambers of labor would be introduced and certain restrictions of right of association would be removed. The Prussian reform bills were an instance of broad-minded initiative on the part of the Crown in the greatest of the German states. Regarding censorship Chancellor said that while he approved of freedom of speech as long as this did not conflict with interests of country he thought that censorship in Germany was more liberal than in enemy countries. Abuses [which] had been pointed out would be remedied and any just complaints would be considered and he hoped that in time with good will on both sides conditions could be improved. Chancellor then appealed to parties to bury the hatchet stating that the enemy had placed their hopes in an imminent internal collapse although they knew nothing of Germany’s internal conditions of parliamentary life or the liberty-loving basis of her associations. The enemy had taken isolated events as symptoms of beginning collapse and it was the duty of the [Page 330] parties to destroy this legend by cooperating closely with the Government and showing that only one thought prevails in Germany, the thought of patriotic duty, and only one will pervades the whole people, the will to hold out to the end.
Chancellor then addressed himself to the general political situation adverting first to alliance with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey which had the common object of realization of national ideals, the guaranteeing of territorial possessions and the repulse of enemy attacks. The Chancellor then said that a wireless telegram had been received from Russian Government signed by Trot-ski and Lenin which was addressed to the belligerents proposing the early opening of negotiations for an armistice and general peace.
I do not hesitate (the Chancellor said) to declare that a basis for opening of negotiations can be seen in proposals of Russian Government so far known, and that I am prepared to open negotiations as soon as Russian Government sends duly authorized representative for purpose. I hope and wish that this endeavor will soon take tangible shape and will bring us peace. We follow the further developments of affairs with sorely tried Russian people with sincere concern. May it soon be granted a return to orderly conditions. We desire nothing more than to return to the old neighborly relations especially in the economic field. As regards the countries of Poland, Lithuania and Courland which were formerly under the sovereignty of the Czar, we consider that the people living in those countries have right to determine their own faith. We expect that they will adopt the system of government best suited to their conditions and culture. For the rest, matters are too nebulous. The reports disseminated in the press recently to the effect that a definite agreement had been reached on one point were premature. Our attitude towards Italy, France and England is a different one. Since we took the ground of the Pope’s note of August 1 in our reply to the Pope’s proposal, the foolish talk of the necessity of the destruction of German militarism as the menace of peace of the world was deprived of all foundation. On the contrary, it became evident where the militarism fatal to peace must really be sought. Sonnino expressly rejected the idea of general disarmament in his speech of October 26. His reason for this is significant. It is that standing armies cannot be dispensed with in view of internal dangers. Clemenceau goes so far in his cynicism as to exclude Germany and Austria-Hungary from peaceful society of nations where right is to take the place of might. Lloyd George frankly says that destruction of German trade is object of the war and that the war must be continued until this object is achieved. The publication of secret treaties by the Russian Government shows world clearly where lust of conquest, falsely ascribed to us, is really to be found. From first day of war our aim was defence of the Fatherland, the integrity of its territory, the freedom and independence of its economic life. Thus we were able to greet the Pope’s peace proposal and the spirit in which our reply to the Pope was conceived is still alive to-day but our enemies must realize that that reply does not constitute a license for the criminal prolongation of [Page 331] the war. The enemy alone bear the responsibility for the continuation of the terrible slaughter, the devastation of products of civilization which cannot be replaced and will have to bear the consequences. Sonnino in particular must bear this in mind, and the other Italian leaders also by not accepting the Pope’s hand of peace are to blame for the terrible catastrophe, and the peoples of Italy and France should take this as a warning. For us there is but one watchword, watch and wait, hold out, and endure. We trust in God, we trust in the Army and its leaders, the very mention of whose names provokes storms of enthusiasm, we trust in our heroic fighters, our heroic colonial troops in East Africa; we trust in the moral strength of our people. If the field and the home armies stand together the victory will be ours. I know that you will help to this end and therefore I ask you once more for your confidence.
- Wolff’s Telegraph Bureau.↩