COUNT CZERNIN ON SELF-DETERMINATION
obstacle to peace save Alsace-Lorraine.’ It is true that we are in certain respects in a more favourable position than our German ally. We hold practically all our territory: Germany’s colonies are in the enemy’s hands. It goes without saying that Germany will not and cannot make peace until she is certain of getting back her colonies. If now I am reproached in some quarters for my weak policy in Germany’s tow, which forces us to continue the war longer than would otherwise be the case and even to fight for German conquests—then I answer these arguments with a categorical ‘No.’ We are fighting just as much for the defence of Germany as Germany for ours. In this connection I know no territorial frontiers. We are fighting for Alsace-Lorraine just as Germany has fought for Lemberg and Trieste. I know no difference between Strassburg and Trieste. If new constellations should arise, as is not impossible, and if great events should occur on other fronts, then I should eagerly welcome the moment when we, too, should fight jointly with our Allies on other fronts. If, then, there are still people in the Entente who live in the idea that they might succeed in separating us from our ally, then I can only say that they are bad psychologists and childish minds.
“Italian policy since the beginning of the war has been moving down an inclined plane. Before the war Italy could have spoken with us, because we had a lively interest to prevent this superfluous war: and Italy could have reached an arrangement such as she can no longer hope to reach to-day, even in her wildest dreams. . . . At best she can hope for the status quo. . . . I say it quite openly for Rome to hear: if Italy obstinately continues the war, it will come later on to a worse peace. This we owe to our troops and to those at home (unserem Hinterlande).”
Alluding to America’s declaration of war, he made the positive assertion:—
“To the result of the war this will not make the slightest difference. I should, however, like to draw attention to President Wilson’s speech, which is in many respects incomprehensible and obscure, but shows a remarkable progress in its views in one direction. Speaking of our internal situation he says: ‘We must emphasise that we do not wish to injure Austria-Hungary in any way, and that it is not our business to concern ourselves with the affairs of the peoples. We in no way desire to prescribe to them their attitude and indeed wish that they should themselves regulate their affairs, great and small.’[1] If this view is compared with that launched against the Monarchy by the Entente, and designated by the catch-word ‘Self-Determination of Peoples,’ which is to be realised at a peace conference by aid of the Entente, then I find in the President’s views an important progress to which we do justice and which it is our interest to fasten upon.
- ↑ What President Wilson actually said was: “We owe it to ourselves to say that we do not wish in any way to impair or to re-arrange the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is no affair of ours what they do with their own life, either industrially or politically. We do not propose or desire to dictate to them in any way. We only desire to see that their affairs are left in their own hands in all matters, great or small.”—Editor.
377
