As we should not have been able to prevent Germany from beginning the U-boat warfare, the only alternative for us was to use all means in our power to maintain our relations with America, and thus enable us later to play the part of mediator, although this could only be for that period during which America, having broken off relations, had not yet declared war.  My answer of March 5, 1917, to America’s request for an explanation of our standpoint was sent with the object of preventing America from breaking off relations with us, and also to keep from the public the knowledge of our divergence from Germany.  This will be found noted in the appendix.[6] It met with success so far that America continued diplomatic relations with us until April 9, 1917.

[Illustration:  COUNT TISZA. Photo:  Stanley’s Press Agency.]

I had a very lively correspondence with Stephen Tisza in consequence of my answer.  I received the following letter on March 3: 

DEAR FRIEND,—­In the interests of the cause I can only greatly regret that I had no opportunity of appreciating the definite sense of our aide-memoire before it was dispatched.  Apart from other less important matters, I cannot conceal my painful surprise that we repeatedly and expressly admit having given a promise in our Ancona Note.  I am afraid that we have placed ourselves in a very awkward position with Wilson, which so easily could have been avoided, as it was not in accordance with my views that we had given a promise.

An expression of opinion is not a promise.  Without wishing to detract from its moral value, it has nevertheless a different legal character, and from the point of view of a third person has no legal authority in favour of that person as a promise.

By unnecessarily having admitted that we gave the Americans a promise we admit the existence of obligations on our side to them.  In spite of the fine and clever argument in our Note, it will be easy for the Americans to prove that our present procedure cannot be reconciled with the previous statement; if the statement was a promise, then the American Government has the right to look for the fulfilment of it, and we will then be in an awkward predicament.  I remarked in my notification that I would prefer to omit the admission that we had made any promise; there would have been the possibility of recurring to it.  By placing this weapon in their hands we have exposed ourselves to the danger of a checkmate, and I very much fear that we shall greatly regret it.

Naturally this remains between us.  But I was constrained to pour out my heart to you and justify my request that the text of all such important State documents which involve such far-reaching consequences may be sent to me in time for me to study and comment on them.  Believe me, it is really in the interest of the cause and in every respect can only be for the best.  In sincere friendship, your devoted

  TISZA.