One of the reproaches made to the “old regime” was the assumed preference for aristocrats in diplomacy.  This was quite a mistake.  No preference was shown for the aristocracy, but it lay in the nature of the career that wealth and social polish were assets in the exercise of its duties.  An attache had no salary.  He was, therefore, expected to have a tolerably good income at home in order to be able to live conformably to his rank when abroad.  This system arose out of necessity, and was also due to the unwillingness of the authorities to raise salaries in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.  The consequence was that only sons of wealthy parents could adopt such a career.  I once told some delegates who interviewed me in connection with the subject that a change of the system depended entirely on themselves and their increased munificence.

A certain amount of social polish was just as necessary for diplomats of the old regime as was the requisite allowance for their household and a knowledge of foreign languages.  So long as courts exist in Europe, the court will always be the centre of all social life, and diplomats must have the entree to such circles.  A young man who does not know whether to eat with his fork or his knife would play a sorry part there—­his social training is not an indifferent matter.  Preference is, therefore, not given to the aristocracy, but to young men of wealth familiar with European society etiquette.

That does not mean that a diplomat is to consider it his duty only to show himself at all the parties and fetes given by the upper ten thousand, but it is one of his duties, as at such places he might gain information unobtainable elsewhere.  A diplomat must be in touch with all sources from which he can glean information.

Individual capabilities and zeal will naturally play a great part; but the means that a Government places at the disposition of its foreign missions are also of the highest importance.

There are people in the East—­I do not know whether to say in contradistinction to the West—­who are not immune to the influence of gold.  In Roumania, for instance, Russia, before the war, had completely undermined the whole country and had lavished millions long before the war in the hope of an understanding with that country.  Most of the newspapers were financed by Russians, and numbers of the leading politicians were bound by Russian interests, whereas neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary had made any such preparations.  Thus it happened that, on the outbreak of war, Russia was greatly in advance of the Central Powers, an advance that was all the more difficult to overtake as from the first day of war Russia opened still wider the floodgates of her gold and inundated Roumania with roubles.

If the fact that the scanty preparation for war is a proof of how little the Central Powers reckoned on such a contingency it may on the other hand explain away much apparent inactivity on the part of their representatives.  Karl Fuerstenberg, my predecessor at Bucharest, whose estimate of the situation was a just one, demanded to have more funds at his disposal, which was refused at Vienna on the plea that there was no money.  After the war began the Ministry stinted us no longer, but it was too late then for much to be done.