That appears to me to be briefly an objective history of the beginning of the war.  Faults, errors and omissions from the most varied sources may occur in it, but can neither alter nor affect the real nature of the case.

The victorious Entente gives a different interpretation of it.  They maintain that Germany let loose the war, and the terrible peace of Versailles is the product of that conception, for it serves as punishment.

A neutral court of justice, as proposed by Germany, was refused.  Their own witnesses and their own judges suffice for them.  They are judge and prosecutor in one.  In Dr. Bauer, the German-Austrian Secretary of State, they have certainly secured an important witness for their view of the case.  In the winter of 1918 the latter openly declared that “three Austro-Hungarian counts and one general had started the war."[1]

Were that true, then Germany would also have to bear a vast amount of blame.  For the four “guilty ones” could not have incited to war without being sure of having Germany at their back, and were it true, there could only have been a question of some plot laid by the Austro-Hungarian and the German Governments, in which case Germany, being the vastly superior military element, would undoubtedly have assumed the role of leader.

Bauer’s statement shows that they who inflicted the punitive peace were right.

6

While the war was going on, a separate peace on our side that would have delivered up Germany would have been treachery.  But had attempts at peace failed owing to the claims put forward by Germany, we should have been morally justified in breaking away from them, as we were united together in a war of defence and not in a war of conquest.  Although the German military party both dreamed and talked incessantly of conquest, which doubtless gave rise to a misunderstanding of the situation, that was by no means the exclusive reason why peace could not be attained.  It simply was because on no consideration could the Entente be induced to pardon Germany.  I have already mentioned this in my speech of December 11, 1918,[2] in which I discoursed on politics in the world war:  “Ludendorff is exactly like the statesmen of France and England.  None of them wishes to compromise, they only look for victory:  in that respect there is no difference between them.”  As long as I was in office the Entente would never come to an agreement with Germany inter pares, thereby directly forcing us to assume the part of a war of defence.  Had we succeeded in what we so often attempted to do, namely to make the Entente pronounce the saving word; and had we ever been able to make the Entente state that they were ready to conclude a status quo peace with Germany, we would have been relieved of our moral obligations.  Against this may be quoted:  “Salus rei publicas supreme lex”—­in order to save the Monarchy Germany would have to be given up, and therefore the other question must be